Please Help Me With My Homework

[E. A. Johnston]

Of particular interest to me is the trend of exegetes to claim orthodoxy while denying it in principle and practice. Here is the link to which I refer: What We believe and Teach

The page has a rather detailed introduction surveying historically-held church doctrines. It follows this with their particular Statement of Faith. It "includes ten central affirmations" they hold essential. My interest is #3: the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures; 

The site also delineates the differences between Fuller's stand and that of neo-orthodoxy and liberalism. Of special interest is this quote:

We stand in full fellowship with the apostles, the reformers, and the evangelical missioners of the centuries. None of us denies the infallibility of the Bible

Yet the belief of the apostles was that of absolute inerrancy-not one that capitulates to this "inerrancy" doctrine. (See The Language of "Inerrancy" and its Dangers). From my perspective, this seems insidious and actually more dangerous than a liberal, or antisupernaturalist who comes right out and identifies himself or herself as such. 

I hope to hear from both sides of this debate. Because of work and school, I may not interact very much, but I do hope to find thoughtful comments, useful links, and your insights. 

Thank you!

[Jason]

Let's throw something else in the mix.

What is the difference between infallibility and inerrancy?

Though stated to be synonymous, infallibility is actually the stronger of the two. Inerrant simply means to be without error, while infallible means to be incapable of error.

Interesting.

[Jason]

I think Fuller's stance is to try to stay in tune with conservative Christian doctrine and those who uphold it. At their hands, though, Scripture's infallibility seems to die by the proverbial thousand qualifications.

Didn't Lindsell's "Battle For The Bible" actually have its origins as a response to Fuller's drift away from inerrancy?

[Scott]

I'd find it hard that many evangelicals would have a problem with Fuller's statement. In my brief scan of their thoughts, I think they do well to share where they see the word being correctly utilised and where it is being incorrectly utilised.

The problem is that we have to stop seeing everything as leading down the slippery slope. It's not worth arguing because there are plenty who argue what Fuller has, but don't walk down the line of denying the God-breathed, authoritative nature of Scripture, the incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ, the triune nature of our God, the fallenness of humanity, etc. And might argue for inerrancy within a specific framework not "alien to the minds of the Bible writers and their own use of the Scriptures" (as Fuller stated).

This statement - Yet the belief of the apostles was that of absolute inerrancy - has presuppositions. I would argue that we, as evangelicals, typically argue for inerrancy with the "original autographs". But the apostles were not working with original autographs - since they were centuries removed from the "originals" and were also working from a translation, the Greek. Yet, they could faithfully and without any hesitation state it was God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, etc.

We have to be careful from working harder than the first apostles or God himself when formulating a doctrine of Scripture. The apostles, nor God, seemed to bothered by the fact that they were not framing their theological statements based upon an "original autograph". Of course, I think an "original autograph" also comes from a mindset as if there was one particular document-scroll that contained those inerrant original words. But, as far as I can tell, the Hebrew Scriptures came to us over a long time period as it was shaped and put together by the scribal community. So an Exodus or the Psalms or Proverbs wasn't just plopped down right on a particular piece of papyri scroll. It came together over quite some time.

In all, I am thankful 2 Tim 3:16 does not say - All original autographs are God-breathed and useful for...

I think Fuller's statements seem pretty wholesome and wanting to stay faithful to the Scripture that God has given us.

[Jason]

I don't think so, but I only skimmed through it.

It's on the link EAL put in the OP.

Seraphim said:

Doesn't Fuller say the Bible contains the Word of God rather than is the Word of God?

Jason said:

I think Fuller's stance is to try to stay in tune with conservative Christian doctrine and those who uphold it. At their hands, though, Scripture's infallibility seems to die by the proverbial thousand qualifications.

Didn't Lindsell's "Battle For The Bible" actually have its origins as a response to Fuller's drift away from inerrancy?

[Scott]

I didn't see that stated. But I did see this:

In our attempt to discover what the Bible says about itself we have clearly distinguished our position from non-evangelical approaches. When we affirm, for instance, that "Scripture is an essential part and trustworthy record of this divine self-disclosure," we separate ourselves from the typical view of neo-orthodoxy that sees Scripture not as a revelation but as a witness to the revelation that took place when God encountered his people in the course of history.

Seraphim said:

Doesn't Fuller say the Bible contains the Word of God rather than is the Word of God?

Jason said:

I think Fuller's stance is to try to stay in tune with conservative Christian doctrine and those who uphold it. At their hands, though, Scripture's infallibility seems to die by the proverbial thousand qualifications.

Didn't Lindsell's "Battle For The Bible" actually have its origins as a response to Fuller's drift away from inerrancy?

[E. A. Johnston]

I am not sure, jason. I am at work, and I cannot check my resources right now. But I do think you are right.

Jason said:

Didn't Lindsell's "Battle For The Bible" actually have its origins as a response to Fuller's drift away from inerrancy?

[Marv]

You guys keep saying this, that "infallibility" is the stronger term, but permit me to disagree. You may think that the way it ought to be used or the way you yourself use it (Humpty?) that it is stronger than "inerrancy," but in fact there is a strong history of its use as "inerrancy-light." This was the prevailing use I recall hearing twenty (thirty?) years ago. I seem to recall Fuller in particular was reputed to be squishy in this regard.

 

Here's how it works: "infallible" is taken to mean does not fail to achieve its purpose, that being to make us wise unto salvation. In this view, incidentals, such as mundane information about who, what and where and such in the various stories don't really play a role here and are subject to including information that is not exactly factual. In other words an error of fact does not prevent the Scripture from effectively makine you wise unto salvation.

 

Frankly, I don't think the apostles would have much patience with this kind of chicanery in regard to how the Scriptures are true. I'd guess the apostles didn't make use of a word exactly equivalent to "inerrant." (Except "true" of course.) But the whole point of the word inerrant is to distinguish a view that would seem to be that of the apostles, in regard to the way that Scripture is true, from later variations or, may I say, departures from the simplicity of their trust in the Word of God.

Jason said:

Let's throw something else in the mix.

What is the difference between infallibility and inerrancy?

Though stated to be synonymous, infallibility is actually the stronger of the two. Inerrant simply means to be without error, while infallible means to be incapable of error.

Interesting.

[Jason]

I dunno for sure.

Sorry.

Seraphim said:

Sorry Jason, I wasn't clear, I didn't mean in the clip/post but in general Fuller doesn't affirm the bible from cover to cover is God's Word (still asking, what I heard)..

Jason said:

I don't think so, but I only skimmed through it.

It's on the link EAL put in the OP.

[E. A. Johnston]

I am on break again, and only have a minute. Regarding this quote:

Darrell Pursiful, a Baptist and professor at Mercer University, in an article, Why I am Not an Inerrantist—Even Though I Am (or Vice Versa), provides a good summary of the issues surrounding Biblical inerrancy, including its historical context,

• “If we really believe in the authority of Scripture, that’s the way we’ll handle it. If we really believe in the authority of Scripture, that’s how others will know it—not by our words but by our lives.
• And that is how the Bible becomes free to do what God intended: to take up residence in our hearts and transform us into the image of God’s Son.
• When that happens, we’ll quit standing on the word of God and place ourselves underneath its authority where we belong.”

I will not say that Brother Pursiful is in any way insincere, but this seems to set up both a straw man and false dichotomy. Why pit the belief in inerrancy against living like you do? Why make it seem that those who guard the doctrine do not live according to it?

[E. A. Johnston]

Thanks for the resources, Colby. I appreciate your time.

Colby Chase said:

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI), published in 1978, states in part: “We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.” 

 

However, some Christian theologians that take the Bible seriously downplay the importance of claiming that the Bible is “inerrant.”  Do their arguments make sense?

 

1)  Darrell Pursiful, a Baptist and professor at Mercer University, in an article, Why I am Not an Inerrantist—Even Though I Am (or Vice Versa), provides a good summary of the issues surrounding Biblical inerrancy, including its historical context,

• “If we really believe in the authority of Scripture, that’s the way we’ll handle it. If we really believe in the authority of Scripture, that’s how others will know it—not by our words but by our lives.
• And that is how the Bible becomes free to do what God intended: to take up residence in our hearts and transform us into the image of God’s Son.
• When that happens, we’ll quit standing on the word of God and place ourselves underneath its authority where we belong.”

 

2)  Roger E. Olson, a Professor of Theology at Baylor University and self-described postconservative Evangelical Arminian, writes this in Why Inerrancy Doesn’t Matter:

• “First, a strong affirmation. As evangelicals, we postconservatives DO believe the Bible is our (and should be every Christian’s) norming norm for life and belief. Tradition is our normed norm–a secondary guide or compass that is not infallible. Scripture, we all agree, is infallible in all that it teaches regarding God and salvation.
• Second, however, for most of us the word “inerrancy” has become too problematic uncritically to embrace and use. To the untrained and untutored ear “inerrant” always and necessarily implies absolute flawless perfection even with regard to numbers and chronologies and quotations from sources, etc. But even the strictest scholarly adherents of inerrancy kill that definition with the death of a thousand qualifications.
• So how would I describe my own and many inerrantists’ view of Scripture’s accuracy? I think “infallible” does a better job than “inerrant” so long as I can explain what it means. “Infallible,” to me, means the Bible never fails in its main purpose…
• I think it is time we evangelicals matured enough to get over obsession with a word [inerrancy] and care more about our common belief in the Bible’s authority in all matters pertaining to faith and practice.”

 

3)  In Simply Christian, N.T. Wright (Anglican theologian, New Testament scholar, and prolific writer) dismisses the importance of inerrancy.

• “Though I am not unhappy with that people are trying to affirm when they use words like ‘infallible’ (the idea that the Bible won't deceive us) and "inerrant" (the stronger idea, that the Bible can't get things wrong), I normally resist using those words myself. Ironically, in my experience, debates about words like these have often led people away from the Bible itself into all kinds of theories which do no justice to scripture as a whole...
• Instead, the insistence on an "infallible" or "inerrant" Bible has been seen as the bastion of orthodoxy against Roman Catholicism on the one hand and liberal modernism on the other. Unfortunately, the assumptions of both those worlds have conditioned the debate. It is no accident that this Protestant insistence on biblical infallibility arose at the same time that Rome was insisting on papal infallibility, or that the rationalism of the Enlightenment infected even those who were battling against it.” (p. 183)

4)  Guest essays from the blog of the Biologos Foundation:

• The Truthfulness of Scripture: Inerrancy, Part 1
• The Truthfulness of Scripture: Inerrancy, Part 2

• What Inerrancy Isn't: CSBI Article XII.
• Is the Bible Historically and Scientifically Infallible and Inerran....
• How Much of the Bible is Actually Inspired? CSBI Article VI

[Marv]

To say that "inerrancy" is "relatively modern development" is perhaps true in that theological definition of that kind only became necessary at a certain point in history. Earlier, to say it was "true" sufficed. Do you see NT texts that refer to OT texts, saying, well, we know that never actually happened, but the spiritual truth is valid? Do we see ancient writers treating the Scriptures as errant or fallable? If we do, I am unaware of it. The ancient teaching of the church has been the complete truthfulness of the Scriptures. Apart from a heretic here or there we don't find people telling us we need to take historical claims of the Bible with a grain of salt. To say that the position that by necessity has to be defined as inerrant is not the ancient and orthodox position is simply ludicrous.

 

I'm not sure how much is missing from the elipses of these quotes, but it is telling that Borg seems to conflate "Biblical inerrancy" with "insist on a literal interpretation." These are not the same thing, as he ought to know.

 

It is important also not to confuse the fact that many ancient writers used allegorical exegesis with the idea that they denied the literal reference of Bible passages. They promoted the one without denying the other. They held the highest use of Scripture was in truths derived from its allegorical use, and that the literal, historical reference was of a lower order, but it would not have occurred to them to suggest that for that reason the historical reference contained errors of fact. If you see them doing this, I don't know where.

[Jason]

Colby,

You're busy today, aren't you?

The idea that the Scripture can be infallible,yet not inerrant is fallacious.

To be infallible means to be incapable of error. To turn around and say that which is incapable of error is errant is to face both ways.

Sigh...these guys...