The Idea of Inerrancy

[ScottL]

[Note: this first statement was added later because of a comment. So I just wanted to clarify.] -- I must admit I do have an agenda in this discussion thread. That agenda is to think through some things aloud with you, my esteemed theological friends of Theologica. And I am thinking through the challenges of the widely held conservative, evangelical view in regards to the doctrine of inerrancy. [End of added comment.]

Some of you might have glanced at my friend, Aaron's, blog article about inerrancy posted a couple of days ago on Theologica.

I had read this article on his own blog last week and was intrigued to think through some questions.

Is the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture something communicated in the Scripture and God desires us to hold to, or is it a teaching theologians created in a post-Enlightenment, modern, scientific era where verified, provable evidence is of the highest value?

Now, before anyone comes hard at me, let me say that I affirm that the Scripture is God's complete redemptive communication to mankind being fully and finally summed up in the Living Logos Himself, Jesus Christ. I also believe that 2 Timothy 3:16-17 testifies to both the Old and New Testament being breathed out by the Spirit of God (thought the NT was not yet complete when Paul penned these words).

But, I am wondering people's thoughts on whether or not a very strict doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture that says every word, every jot and every tittle is completely inerrant is what God intended by designating the Scripture as God-breathed, or if this is a forced doctrine upon the Scripture in response to the Enlightenment and modern era.

[John J Travers III]

If God wrote the scriptures or inspired the scriptures is there any one out there that is going to say that God inspired something that had error? Especially when it is said that it is good for training, correction, rebuke and instruction?

I would also use Psalm 119 to point out that the scriptures are not just a collection of writings and it clearly points out who's word it is.

[Jason]

Scott,
Good questions.
Let me ask a couple questions.
1. Peter stated that the OT was given by the Spirit directing the prophets.
2. Jesus stated that the Spirit would guide us into all truth.
Would it not be reasonable to believe that the truths given to us in the Scriptures are the product of God's guiding men and giving them the words to write?
If that is so, is it not reasonable to believe that those words given to us by inspiration would be without error?
Did not the Psalmist state under inspiration that God's Words are pure words? Ps 12.6
If we grant these things, can we not then dispense with any particular motive that led to the doctrine of inerrancy and simply embrace it as Biblical?
Just feeling my way through this with you, though this obviously represents some of what I believe about the issue.
Looking forward to reading what others have to say.
JLS

[ScottL]

John -

Can we actually say, 'God wrote the Scriptures'? I think we can recognise they are God-breathed, but did He literally write them. (I know that Ex 31:18 says that the Ten Words/Commandments were 'written with the finger of God', but some might claim this means that God's mark was on it, it had its origin in God, but not literally written by God, as in Ex 8:19).

It's not that God inspires error. It's that the authors were not scientists, were not first and foremost historians, were not mathematicians, etc. They were first and foremost gifted people that God moved to communicate His heart to His people and the nations. Thus, not being mathematicians, historians, scientists, etc, did they actually sit down thinking that I have to get every jot and tittle correct?

Also, in regards to you thought on Psalm 119, I did not say the Bible is 'just a collection of writings'. There is providential, God-purpose in the putting together of Scripture, no doubt.

But inerrancy, as a probable product of the Enlightenment, is that what Paul meant by God-breathed?

John J Travers III said:

If God wrote the scriptures or inspired the scriptures is there any one out there that is going to say that God inspired something that had error? Especially when it is said that it is good for training, correction, rebuke and instruction?

I would also use Psalm 119 to point out that the scriptures are not just a collection of writings and it clearly points out who's word it is.

[ScottL]

Ser -

Isn't it interesting that you hold to a statement that says the original manuscripts are inerrant, but then you state, 'When you study the accuracy required for the scribers of the Jewish Tanak, you see whole scrolls being destroyed for a single error.'

The reason the Chicago statement states the original manuscripts are inerrant is because there is recognition that a couple of handful of copy errors are in our Hebrew and Greek manuscripts today. Thus, it was the originals that were inerrant. But, yet, you point to the copyists being so meticulous, but it is these of the Chicago statement that recognise they probably made a few copying errors.

Seraphim Walters said:

I pretty much hold to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
your comment here:

I am wondering people's thoughts on whether or not a very strict doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture that says every word, every jot and every tittle is completely inerrant is what God intended by designating the Scripture as God-breathed, or if this is a forced doctrine upon the Scripture in response to the Enlightenment and modern era.

I disagree with. I do not believe it is a forced doctrine. When you study the accuracy required for the scribers of the Jewish Tanak, you see whole scrolls being destroyed for a single error...

[Jason]

Scott,
The issue of what was observed by folks in the world was that which I figured would arise.
The question I ask is this: do we not speak of the sun rising and setting? Do we not use phenomenological language today and consider it to be a correct manner of speaking?
Is this truly relevant to inerrancy, then?
What are the reasons for opposing inerrancy? Could they not be addressed and answered by inerrantists?
Just thinking aloud? I don't have all the answers :-)

ScottL said:

John -

Can we actually say, 'God wrote the Scriptures'? I think we can recognise they are God-breathed, but did He literally write them. (I know that Ex 31:18 says that the Ten Words/Commandments were 'written with the finger of God', but some might claim this means that God's mark was on it, it had its origin in God, but not literally written by God, as in Ex 8:19).

It's not that God inspires error. It's that the authors were not scientists, were not first and foremost historians, were not mathematicians, etc. They were first and foremost gifted people that God moved to communicate His heart to His people and the nations. Thus, not being mathematicians, historians, scientists, etc, did they actually sit down thinking that I have to get every jot and tittle correct?

Also, in regards to you thought on Psalm 119, I did not say the Bible is 'just a collection of writings'. There is providential, God-purpose in the putting together of Scripture, no doubt.

But inerrancy, as a probable product of the Enlightenment, is that what Paul meant by God-breathed?

John J Travers III said:

If God wrote the scriptures or inspired the scriptures is there any one out there that is going to say that God inspired something that had error? Especially when it is said that it is good for training, correction, rebuke and instruction?

I would also use Psalm 119 to point out that the scriptures are not just a collection of writings and it clearly points out who's word it is.

[ScottL]

Jason -

Good questions:

1. Peter stated that the OT was given by the Spirit directing the prophets.

2 Pet 1:20-21 says - knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

This does not mention the OT as a whole, but Peter speaks of prophecy. I do not negate that Scripture has a prophetic flavour, but not all of it is specifically prophecy. Being 'carried along by the Spirit' does not call for a wood-hard inerrant view, does it?

2. Jesus stated that the Spirit would guide us into all truth.

Being guided into all truth still does not make us have to believe in a strict understanding of the doctrine of inerrancy. The Scripture is true in its purpose and intent of testifying to God and the summing up of His redemptive plan in Christ.

Your final question - Did not the Psalmist state under inspiration that God's Words are pure words? Ps 12.6

Does God's words being pure point to a strict inerrant understanding of the Scripture?

[ScottL]

Jason, I believe the Scripture uses (and we use) phenomenological language. That still doesn't give room for a strict inerrancy understanding of Scripture, does it?

Thanks for thinking through these things with me.

JasonS. said:

Scott,
The issue of what was observed by folks in the world was that which I figured would arise.
The question I ask is this: do we not speak of the sun rising and setting? Do we not use phenomenological language today and consider it to be a correct manner of speaking?
Is this truly relevant to inerrancy, then?
What are the reasons for opposing inerrancy? Could they not be addressed and answered by inerrantists?
Just thinking aloud? I don't have all the answers :-)

ScottL said:

John -

Can we actually say, 'God wrote the Scriptures'? I think we can recognise they are God-breathed, but did He literally write them. (I know that Ex 31:18 says that the Ten Words/Commandments were 'written with the finger of God', but some might claim this means that God's mark was on it, it had its origin in God, but not literally written by God, as in Ex 8:19).

It's not that God inspires error. It's that the authors were not scientists, were not first and foremost historians, were not mathematicians, etc. They were first and foremost gifted people that God moved to communicate His heart to His people and the nations. Thus, not being mathematicians, historians, scientists, etc, did they actually sit down thinking that I have to get every jot and tittle correct?

Also, in regards to you thought on Psalm 119, I did not say the Bible is 'just a collection of writings'. There is providential, God-purpose in the putting together of Scripture, no doubt.

But inerrancy, as a probable product of the Enlightenment, is that what Paul meant by God-breathed?

John J Travers III said:

If God wrote the scriptures or inspired the scriptures is there any one out there that is going to say that God inspired something that had error? Especially when it is said that it is good for training, correction, rebuke and instruction?

I would also use Psalm 119 to point out that the scriptures are not just a collection of writings and it clearly points out who's word it is.

[John J Travers III]

Paul would never entertain the idea that there was anything less than inerrancy in the scriptures.

It doesn't matter whether it is God witting it Himself (first tablet of the ten commandments & when he wrote on the wall in Daniel) or He uses a human author. It is God's word and he writes it. To say that he has no control or limited control over what is written is simply not right.

Here is an example of the danger of trusting or building a foundation on words that contain error, Israel!!!!!!

Sent into captivity, 10 tribes taken into captivity and have not been restored (as of today's date), Mock and beat and crucify the Messiah.

Again look at Psalm 119 tell me who's word it is and then honestly tell me he didn't write it or that it contains error in anyway.

And if it contains error show us where specifically.
ScottL said:

John -
Can we actually say, 'God wrote the Scriptures'? I think we can recognise they are God-breathed, but did He literally write them. (I know that Ex 31:18 says that the Ten Words/Commandments were 'written with the finger of God', but some might claim this means that God's mark was on it, it had its origin in God, but not literally written by God, as in Ex 8:19).
It's not that God inspires error. It's that the authors were not scientists, were not first and foremost historians, were not mathematicians, etc. They were first and foremost gifted people that God moved to communicate His heart to His people and the nations. Thus, not being mathematicians, historians, scientists, etc, did they actually sit down thinking that I have to get every jot and tittle correct?

Also, in regards to you thought on Psalm 119, I did not say the Bible is 'just a collection of writings'. There is providential, God-purpose in the putting together of Scripture, no doubt.

But inerrancy, as a probable product of the Enlightenment, is that what Paul meant by God-breathed?

John J Travers III said:

If God wrote the scriptures or inspired the scriptures is there any one out there that is going to say that God inspired something that had error? Especially when it is said that it is good for training, correction, rebuke and instruction?

I would also use Psalm 119 to point out that the scriptures are not just a collection of writings and it clearly points out who's word it is.

[ScottL]

Here are some other thoughts to throw into the mix:

If God so meant and desired us to hold to a strict inerrancy view of Scripture, seeing every word, jot and tittle as inerrant, then here is my question: Wouldn't it make sense that the NT authors would have done much better to quote from the Hebrew OT (the 'original') rather than the Greek Septuagint? Here we find these authors recording God-breathed material in regards to the testimony to God's redemptive plan in Christ, with some good specifics about this great plan. So, if they held to some teaching about the inerrancy of every word in Scripture as most evangelicals do today, then I think they did a great disservice to themselves and us by not quoting from the original Hebrew, since it is that original Hebrew that was the God-breathed, inspired version down to every word, jot and tittle. Or did this idea of inerrancy get transferred to the Septuagint?

[ScottL]

John -

Paul would never entertain the idea that there was anything less than inerrancy in the scriptures. - Is that what 2 Tim 3:16-17 means?

I did not say or imply this - To say that he has no control or limited control over what is written is simply not right.

God has complete control. But was He so worried that every jot and tittle is 'inerrant'?

I can read Psalm 119, but I promise you it never teaches inerrancy. It teaches that His word helps guard against sin, His commandments are true, His precepts are worth meditating on. But this nowhere commands for strict inerrancy. As I mentioned in my comment above, what do you do with the NT writers who quoted from the Greek version of the Psalms? They weren't quoting from those original words. Yet, God's truth and word was still being communicated, and it was still worth considering and meditating on and hiding in our hearts, though it was not the literal original words penned by those OT authors.

[Marv]

Scott,
I don't quite understand what you mean here:

Jason, I believe the Scripture uses (and we use) phenomenological language. That still doesn't give room for a strict inerrancy understanding of Scripture, does it?

Specifically the "doesn't give room" expression. I do take it that the theopneustos concept makes the written Scriptures the very words of God, and I think this necessarily implies inerrancy. It is written in human language though and follows the rules by which languages communicate. Idioms like the sun rising clearly fall within the normal rules of expressing and interpreting meaning. It doesn't become a mathematical formulation by being pronounced inerrant.

[Jason]

Scott,
I think these things are at least a portion of an argument that could be made for inerrancy.
It seems to be a low view of God that would posit that He would inspire something that is correct in the spiritual issues it addresses, but not in the scientific and historical issues.
Not only that, but you have the slippery slope of determining what is errant and what isn't. Who is the authority in that? Who determines? What if one determines that there was an error concerning the resurrection of Jesus? Who would have the authority to negate that statement? What if someone said that Paul never existed and that it is an error to say that he did? We would need an inerrant authority still. Otherwise we could not address those issues with certainty, could we?
I cannot but wonder if the blog post actually puts inerrantists on the defensive while errancy is actually the new kid on the block. What did the ECF say about the Scriptures?
Whew! A biggie, isn't it?