"...Then we can't trust anything it says." "Every word is true, or its all garbage." I cannot tell you the number of times I have heard that statement made about the Bible.
In many faith communities this doctrine, commonly called inerrancy, is elevated to the status of essential. For instance, in order to graduate from seminary, I had to affirm 7 core doctrines. The list included essential matters like the Trinity, the divinity and humanity of Christ, the virgin birth, the death and resurrection of Christ, the return of Christ, and salvation by grace through faith alone. You know what else, was on the list? The inerrancy of scripture.
Should inerrancy be on such a list? Is it possible that Bible contains a historical or facutal error, but that the triune God did indeed send his son in the person of Jesus Christ to live, die, and be raised for human sin?
I believe in inerrancy. I believe the Bible is indeed true in all that it affirms or denies. However, I contend that inerrancy has no business being on a list of absolutely essential Christian doctrine. Many God-loving Christians throughout the ages of the church have held both a fervent faith in Jesus Christ, and the conviction that the Bible contains certain errors.
I believe that elevating inerrancy to the level of essential doctrine has a high price. For those who believe in inerrancy, it has the effect of creating an uneasy insecurity about 'alleged contradictions.' Consequently, some are prone to fanciful and asinine harmonizations and explanations that do more harm than good. For those who see errors in the Bible, elevating inerrancy causes them to abandon Christ wholesale. They have been taught that if there is an error, then none of it can be trusted. So then, when someone tells them that Mark was wrong about David eating the bread during the reign of Abiathar the high priest, then all of the sudden, the Lord is no longer the creator, and Christ was not raised from the dead, and the church is really a scheme for political and social power.
What do you think? Should inerrancy be on the list of essential doctrine? Why or Why not?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I guess I would say that by contemporary standards the Bible is not inerrant because of much more rigorous expectations now compared to the original situation (most notably our culture's inability to percieve hyperbole, synechdoche, metonymy, and other figures of speech when it isn't feeling particularly inclined to do so). Perhaps a good way of looking at it is whether the Bible is functionally true considering such issues as form, genre, figures of speech, etc. I asssert it is true in as much as it assumes it itself to be true. I don't know what to do with Abiathar and a few of the other problems but I believe in expectation they can be resolved.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the question of essentials goes, I would say for me to cooperate with someone in Christian ministry it is essential that one hold at least a functionally true POV. To enter the kindgom? probably not provided one still relates to God as the Bible prescribes.
Bern,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your thoughts!
My definition of inerrancy, as I hold it, is that the Bible is true in all that it affirms or denies. What it affirms or denies, however, is entirely a question of form, genre, etc... I think these thing are essential to a tenable inerrancy.
Having said that, many define inerrancy in accordance with the Chicago Statement, which I would not affirm. I hope that is not what they meant at Dallas. If so...woops :)
On the one hand I'd say I should go back and read it to get better understand what they include, but I seem to remember hating the experience of reading it the first time... doh!
ReplyDeleteI think that there is a matter of literary style (hebrew/aramaic, NIV, KJ, NJV, greek, etc.) that could have different wording, punctuation, and so forth. But we really need to think about inerrancy before we chuck it. If we base our ministry and livlihood on ministry; and our job is to encourage folks to line up with scriptural principles, then if the Bible is not inerrant, then we get in the quandry of separating church & state, evolution, Jesus didn't mean that about forgiveness, homosexuality, and other sinful behaviors become justifiable, and on and on. People cease to take the Bible literal (like Genesis)and then I can say whatever works for you is fine for you to beleive. Christianity becomes like every other man's religion. It seems that Jesus beleives in errancy. Jesus said in Matthew 5:17-19 "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." Now did he really say that? Eric K.
ReplyDelete2 Timothy 3:15-17
P.S. Ryan, you started this thread with the seven core doctrines. Where do we get the doctrines from? Doctrine is based upon scripture. How can we affirm doctrine if we deny the source and authority of the doctrine? Is man's opinion as high or does it conatin as much authority as God's word? What keeps us from sin (Psalm 119:11)? This is a good topic. Eric K.
ReplyDeleteEric,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your thoughts!
Do you see a difference between saying something is not a core essential doctrine of Christianity, and chucking it? I hold many doctrines quite dearly that I would readily say are non-essential. I think when we talk about the essentials we mean those things that if someone denies them we would say "then stop calling yourself Christian." My point here is that while inerrancy may be true (and I think it is) it is not one of those matters.
Now, there also a clear difference between inerrancy and the authority of scripture for Christian faith and practice. Many hold what is called infallibility (the doctrine the scriptures will not mislead us in matter of faith or practice, even if they contain factual or historical errors) without holding inerrancy. This is actually a much more common position in the history of the church.
Is it God or man that decided something is essential or non-essential? How does plenary inspiration play into this discussion? I would say that biblical inerrancy only applies to the original autographs but i trust the translation i have today and the authority it has in my life today. If our view puts us the reader as the judge and authority then we are treading on shaky stinky ground to say the least. I think it would be good Ryan if you listed what is essential.
ReplyDeleteA dear brother in the faith who I will meet for the first time in heaven A.W. Tozer said in his sermon which I truly enjoyed last night that an itch has become an allergy but they all scratch the same. We understand the itch more today but it still scratches the same. Who is the authority God or man? I trust God and have faith in His word, in times were I think there is an error in His word I am ok to leave it alone until or if its truth is revealed to me.
Here are what I believe to be the core of Church life these are my essentials authority of Scripture, the Virgin Birth, the deity of Jesus the Christ, the substitutionary atonement, and the bodily resurrection and return of the Lord Jesus Christ
Miles,
ReplyDeleteGood thoughts about who determines what is essential. In the end, God certainly determines what is essential. But I have to trust the work of the Spirit in the church to help me to know what those things are. So while, no we do not determine what is essential, we also do have some part to play as the church.
As to my list of essentials, i would say those things listed in the Nicene Creed and Definition of Chalcedon, plus the Trinity, the authority of scripture, and salvation by grace through faith alone.
On your essentials, putting substitutionary atonement on that list puts a large number of groups who have been considered Christian outside of the faith. I wonder why you see it as essential as opposed to the recapitulation, a governmental view, or a ransom view.