Supporting inerrancy of Scripture without appealing to tradition

[Daniel]

On another topic, relying on church tradition morphed into how one (namely me) defends the inerrancy of Scripture.  It's a good topic.  Thought I'd start a new one on it.  Expect my thoughts tomorrow, but y'all feel free to jump in early if you want. 

Daniel

[Scott]

Well, there was always this discussion thread that I started last year on the topic of inerrancy which gave some lovely discussion on the topic garnering 515 comments.

[Lisa Robinson]

'Not happening', says the conservative evangelical protestant of the theological heritage that denies tradition. Tradition is part of the package that lent to the authenticity of the apostolic witness so that the canon could be recognized.

[Rey Reynoso]

When a person that never lies tells you "I'm telling the truth" you believe him not because others say he always tells the truth. Others might also say he's a liar. You believe him because he always tells the truth. That's circular, surely, but such is the case when you get to ultimates. You support the inerrancy of Scripture because Scripture says so. Scripture says so because God said so in Scripture.

[Jason]

What he said...............whatever that was :-)

Rey Reynoso said:

When a person that never lies tells you "I'm telling the truth" you believe him not because others say he always tells the truth. Others might also say he's a liar. You believe him because he always tells the truth. That's circular, surely, but such is the case when you get to ultimates. You support the inerrancy of Scripture because Scripture says so. Scripture says so because God said so in Scripture.

[Lisa Robinson]

Actually, I going to revise my first comment. Inerrancy is tied to inspiration and either we believe that scripture is God's breathed out word or we don't. Tradition is critical in supporting trustworthiness of God's infallibility to produce a reliable product, but not necessary if believe that God cannot lie.

So, what Rey said...

Rey Reynoso said:

When a person that never lies tells you "I'm telling the truth" you believe him not because others say he always tells the truth. Others might also say he's a liar. You believe him because he always tells the truth. That's circular, surely, but such is the case when you get to ultimates. You support the inerrancy of Scripture because Scripture says so. Scripture says so because God said so in Scripture.

[MarcoPolo]

Jesus and the Apostles quoted from the Septuagint as well.

Gary Robert Simmons said:

Christianity relied heavily on the Septuagint for the OT in the early days, even though the Septuagint is a less-than-perfect translation.

[Scott]

This is one of the major questions I always think through when I ponder this issue: Does Scripture actually teach inerrancy? I know we say it teaches this. But when I read statements on inerrancy, I feel myself saying, 'I never remember Scripture teaching that.'

Scripture says Scripture is God-breathed. Scripture says the words of the Lord are pure. Scripture teaches that God cannot lie. But I still wonder if Scripture teaches the full doctrine of inerrancy that we, as evangelicals, can espouse. Because, connected to this inerrancy teaching is that of verbal plenary, which holds that every single word is the exact single word that God has chosen for the text. But I wonder if that is fully sustainable from Scripture itself. I know it sounds very good. But I struggle grounding this more stringent teaching in Scripture itself.

Even when xulon make these 3 statements:

"The Scriptures cannot be broken said Jesus" - We recognise that certain Scriptures have been broken. There is a mighty good explanation when such is done, i.e., moving out of the old covenant to the new covenant. Moving out of a particular societal framework to a framework that is accessible to all peoples. Moving out of a theocratic nation to a people of God across all nations. Laying aside food laws, laying aside Sabbath laws, laying aside circumcision laws. Again, there are very good explanations for such. But, in a sense, we are laying aside ('breaking') what was spoken as 'the word of God' in days of old.

"All Scripture is God breathed" - Again, does this equal the doctrine of inerrancy and verbal plenary as usually espoused?

"Do not add to the words" says John (and Proverbs) - This was also similarly stated in Deuteronomy. But are such statements talking about Scripture as a whole? I lean towards a no. John's words probably connect to the specifics of the Revelation. Proverbs statement in 30:6 sounds more like adding to a specific prophetic (God-directed) utterance, not a collection of the 66 books bound together in the canon.

In the end, the doctrine of inerrancy is always tied to the original manuscripts. But we don't have them. Most Christians never had them. And we never will have them. Also, as has been stated, many of the apostles quoted from a 'less than inerrant' Greek OT. By our own standard of inerrancy, the apostles didn't live up to being faithful to that doctrine.

I really am not trying to stir (and enough people are rolling their eyes at my comments because they have heard them before). I truly believe Scripture is God-breathed and that it is faithful to the reason it was recorded, given and passed down to us. It is profitable for teaching, correcting, rebuking, training. It is the starting point for our faith, our theology, and our practise of the faith. But I still sense that the defined doctrines of inerrancy and verbal plenary are making things too stringent, taking things past what even Scripture states.

[Rey Reynoso]

Scott, when I read the things (bolded below) that you suggest about inerrancy, it makes me wonder if I should start an Innerancy Is thread because these sort of comments suggest a fundamental misunderstanding of inerrancy...

ScottL said:

This is one of the major questions I always think through when I ponder this issue: Does Scripture actually teach inerrancy? I know we say it teaches this. But when I read statements on inerrancy, I feel myself saying, 'I never remember Scripture teaching that.'

Scripture says Scripture is God-breathed. Scripture says the words of the Lord are pure. Scripture teaches that God cannot lie. But I still wonder if Scripture teaches the full doctrine of inerrancy that we, as evangelicals, can espouse. Because, connected to this inerrancy teaching is that of verbal plenary, which holds that every single word is the exact single word that God has chosen for the text. But I wonder if that is fully sustainable from Scripture itself. I know it sounds very good. But I struggle grounding this more stringent teaching in Scripture itself.

Even when xulon make these 3 statements:

"The Scriptures cannot be broken said Jesus" - We recognise that certain Scriptures have been broken. There is a mighty good explanation when such is done, i.e., moving out of the old covenant to the new covenant. Moving out of a particular societal framework to a framework that is accessible to all peoples. Moving out of a theocratic nation to a people of God across all nations. Laying aside food laws, laying aside Sabbath laws, laying aside circumcision laws. Again, there are very good explanations for such. But, in a sense, we are laying aside ('breaking') what was spoken as 'the word of God' in days of old.

"All Scripture is God breathed" - Again, does this equal the doctrine of inerrancy and verbal plenary as usually espoused?

"Do not add to the words" says John (and Proverbs) - This was also similarly stated in Deuteronomy. But are such statements talking about Scripture as a whole? I lean towards a no. John's words probably connect to the specifics of the Revelation. Proverbs statement in 30:6 sounds more like adding to a specific prophetic (God-directed) utterance, not a collection of the 66 books bound together in the canon.

In the end, the doctrine of inerrancy is always tied to the original manuscripts. But we don't have them. Most Christians never had them. And we never will have them. Also, as has been stated, many of the apostles quoted from a 'less than inerrant' Greek OT. By our own standard of inerrancy, the apostles didn't live up to being faithful to that doctrine.

I really am not trying to stir (and enough people are rolling their eyes at my comments because they have heard them before). I truly believe Scripture is God-breathed and that it is faithful to the reason it was recorded, given and passed down to us. It is profitable for teaching, correcting, rebuking, training. It is the starting point for our faith, our theology, and our practise of the faith. But I still sense that the defined doctrines of inerrancy and verbal plenary are making things too stringent, taking things past what even Scripture states.

[Scott]

Rey -

Thanks. I knew you would shake your head and roll your eyes at me. ;)

I really am not pinning down any fundamentalist here, am I?

When you read about the doctrine of inerrancy, do you not always find verbal plenary inspiration also being discussed, which focuses of every single word being chosen by God?

When you read about the doctrine of inerrancy, do you not always find this statement: 'in the original manuscripts'?

These are not fundamentalists. This is usually part and parcel with your solid, evangelical theologian. These are things put forth in the Chicago Statement. And goodness me, you starting a thread on what inerrancy actually is. You had better sit down with the Chicago group if you might contradict. ;)

[Steven Venable]

My only defense of the scriptures lies in the belief that a sovereign God would by His own power maintain scripture for our edification in what ever form was needed. I am not a student of the original languages so I can not comment on the validity of different manuscripts. I have not studied in seminary or in college being led by learned men in the "deeper" meaning of certain scripture passages. It is only through prayer and asking the Author to lead me as he promised he would that I can hope to understand the bible. The bible is my greatest source of comfort because it is through the bible that God reveals his Love for me. To question the truth of the bible to me is tantamount to questioning the providence of God.

[Rey Reynoso]

When you read about the doctrine of inerrancy, do you not always find verbal plenary inspiration also being discussed, which focuses of every single word being chosen by God?
Yeah, but I agree with verbal plenary inspiration as well as confluent inspiration because the Bible teaches it without stating those words. I don't have a problem with the term because God makes a point of repeatedly emphasizing the importance of the words he desires spoken. It is for man to plan his own way; it is for God to direct his path.

When you read about the doctrine of inerrancy, do you not always find this statement: 'in the original manuscripts'?
Yes and I had problems with it since we didn't have the original documents. It didn't sit well with me thinking that the Bible in my hand might be errant. But then I stopped and thought "wait, the Bible in my hand is neither Greek, nor Hebrew, nor Aramaic, nor Chaldee--it's in Spanish or English!" and that shut that point up. That's right, my translation might be wrong but the original manuscripts are exactly what God wanted. That's why we can have textual criticism to get to what those documents said. That doesn't mean we don't know what those documents said, it just means we work harder getting there. So it's not that the message is inerrant--the message is infallible--the words are inerrant.

[Daniel]

Sorry I'm late to the party. When I created the stub for this topic last night, I had no idea that there would be so much activity on it before I could get back to it (between having connectivity issues to Ning and last minute re-scheduling of our closing on our house, I haven't had a chance to get to it until now). So if I repeat something here that someone else has said and I haven't read, I apologize. I'm writing it out in Notepad and will just paste it in when Ning gets fixed.

There is a common defense of the authority of the church and of church tradition by using the Bible. To the Catholic or Orthodox, the church came first and decided the cannon of the NT, so everyone appeals to the church and tradition whether they realize it or not. I don't see that as the case though, but the differences need to be explained. Bear with me as my rambling explanation might be lengthy.

I can recognize the history of the church in forming our cannon and appreciate it. But I don't see our cannon to be official just because some church authority says so. I can teach that the world is round. But it isn't round because I said so. The fact that there is a consensus among scientists on the matter is an indication that it is true, but doesn't make it true. So a protestant can recognize history in the church as an indication of being on the right track with their theology and still use the Bible and Holy Spirit as their guide instead of "that's what my church said".

But this topic isn't about how we got our cannon, but how we know we can trust what the Bible says. It would be an easy thing to say "because X said so and X is right". Nor do we want to start out with the argument that the Bible is true because it says so. Neither of these arguments are not going to be effective from an apologetics standpoint. Both arguments can be used, but must be done so in the right context.

If I were going to start from scratch to defend tfhe inerrency of Bible to an unbeliever, it would probably start out with evidences for God, evidences for Christ, and prophetic evidences in the Bible as validated in history. Once the validity of God and Christ were established, and the fact that God is Truth, I'd start where I would with a believer.

A recent post here (don't remember where) mentioned the verse that talks about the Scriptures being inspired and what they are profitable for. But I don't equate what they are profitable for to the first part of the verse. If God is Truth, what comes from Him is Truth. It would be without error. That is not to say that a particular translation or edition is perfect, but His original recorded Word is/was. This is not just supported by the words of Christ, but also the teaching of the Apostles recorded in the Epistles. But there is more.

The church has held to the inerrancy of Scripture for ages. It has become tradition that they have done so. But just because something has been believed for a long time or has been repeated a certain number of times does not mean that it is true. We have to go back to why it became a tradition. The doctrines of the Christian faith don't lie on the foundation of the church and it's history. The history lies on the foundation of the Bible - the Word of God - and the Holy Spirit. In other words, the protestant can look at the history of how the Holy Spirit has led the Body of Christ since its inception as evidence based on the Holy Spirit, not what folks think.

I'm a bit brain-dead already, so I'm probably not making the discinction as clear as I would like. So maybe an example would help. Since our kids were young, my wife has made a special "cake" for dinner that evening. It is basically meatloaf made in cake pans and "iced" with stiff mashed potatoes. This past year, my daughter demanded that she continue doing so "because it was tradition". Doesn't matter that both kids are teens now, she loves traditions. And I admit that traditions are important. It is a shared activity that binds us. But to do it because we always have is different from doing it because it is something we can share together. Ultimately though, there is substance to the history and tradition. It tastes good. There is nutrition to it. I can appreciate the tradition. I can appreciate the history. I can appreciate the nutrition. I can even examine the components in the dish and enjoy the cooking process. But doing it because we've done it that way ever since we can remember is not what I would appeal to. There are stronger reasons to eat on April Fools Day.
Daniel