Inerrancy: Practical and Pastoral Concerns

[Jason]

 

Inerrancy: Why Is It Important?

Why is it important that we affirm and embrace the doctrine of the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture? This is a very important issue to me as a pastor. It is greatly relevant to my ministry and the people for whom I am responsible.

The first thing that we need to recognize is the relevance of the truthfulness of Scripture to the truthfulness of God. If Scripture is God's Word, and we have seen that is what Scripture claims to be, either God has spoken truly or He has not spoken truly. Is God true? Does God speak the truth without error? If God speaks the truth, then we can have confidence that Scripture is true and without error. If not, how great are the implications for God's people! To have a God who does not speak the truth, or is unable to communicate truth without error is certainly a diminishing of the person of God.

When we consider the fact that Scripture presents itself to us as sufficient for the growth of God's people, we understand that God's people need to read and understand the Scriptures. If, as some claim, Scripture presents us truth about God but not about other things such as history, we are left with a book that is somewhat confusing. Scriptures does not give us redemptive truth apart from a historical setting. Scripture was given in real life settings to real people. When God gave us Scripture, He spoke through men who were men of their times. They spoke about God as He interacted with them in their lives. They did not speak of God abstractly, as many theologians speak of Him. They spoke of God as acting in history and doing things that science often says cannot be done. If there are historical and scientific errors in the Scriptures, we must somehow find a way to sift through the error and get to the truth. That would be most discouraging to many people who have no training in history and science. It would create an intellectual priesthood of academics who would be necessary to explain the Scriptures to the common man. That was not, and is not, God's intent for Scripture. God intends for the Scriptures to be understood by His people. God spoke through common men in a specific time to common men in all times in language that common men can understand. Though the understanding of the common man (And I should also say that of the academics.) is not full, it is sufficient for the purpose of God in Scripture to be fulfilled. God's people will be transformed as they read, understand, and trust Him as He is revealed in Scripture. Only as we understand Scripture to be true and without error will we arrive at this conclusion.

Once we begin to assert that Scripture errs, we will also come to the point to assert that Jesus erred. There is an indissoluble connection between Christ and the Scriptures. Once admit error into Scripture, Jesus will be admitted as erring. Again, the implications are great. Though we admit the full humanity of Christ, we also embrace His Divinity. Jesus Christ is as truly God as He is human. God does not lie, does not err, and speaks truly in all things. What kind of Savior do we preach to the people? Because truth is more than an issue of correct facts, but is a moral issue as well, we must understand that the admission of error into Scripture will also admit the possibility that they are morally wrong. If we do that, we must also admit that Jesus may very well have been (or at the present, be) morally wrong. That may be very well for those who have so deeply compromised with a secular worldview, but for those of us whose presupposition is that of the truthfulness of Scripture, it will never work. Neither will we embrace a Savior who cannot save, because He is in the same predicament as we are. We embrace the truthfulness of Scripture and the perfection of Jesus our Savior, and we reject anything that compromises these things and diminishes the glory of Christ.

Because faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God (Romans 10:17;2Timothy 3:14-15), we understand that we are to believe the Scriptures. An errant Bible is an untrustworthy Bible. An errant Scripture means that we have an untrustworthy God. An errant Bible means that we have a Christ who is not trustworthy. God is either not true, or unable to speak truth to us in a perfect manner. That means that we cannot trust God's words and, logically, cannot trust Him. That means that we cannot trust Jesus to speak the complete truth without error and, logically, cannot trust Him. Though we trust men who often fail to speak the complete truth, God has told us that He does not err and does not lie. If we admit error into the Scriptures, we also admit that God errs and does not always speak truthfully. Truthfulness being a moral quality, we find that our ability to trust God, and God as revealed in His incarnate Son, is greatly diminished.

We must also consider the fact that Scripture is given to us for our holiness. We are sanctified by the work of the Word of God (Ephesians 5:25-28;2Timothy 3:16-17). I am not alone in being a pastor who ministers to sinful people on a regular basis. I am also a person who struggles with sin, because I am no different from any other person. What we need is something to change us. God's Word promises to be used of God to be the instrument that changes us. If I am unsure of the truthfulness of God's Word, I will not be very trusting of God's Word and will not submit myself to the sanctifying power of God's Word as I should. My people and I need a full faith in the Word of God so that our lives will be changed by God. We struggle with sinful habits, sinful thoughts, addictions, immorality, and ungodliness. We need to be able to trust God's Word and His power to use the Scriptures to sanctify us.

Scripture is given to us for a very practical purpose. Scripture is given to us to lead us to salvation through faith in Jesus Christ and to guide us as we are being transformed into holy people who are pleasing to God. As a pastor, I have great faith that God will use His Word to accomplish His purposes. The reason that I have this faith is that I have faith in God's trustworthy character, and I have faith in God's speaking truthfully to us in His Word. As I stand in the pulpit, minister in homes, or wherever I may be, I am convinced that God's Word is without error and will always direct us correctly. Though we may fail in our interpretations at times, God never fails to tell us exactly what we need in His Word. I am confident that the way of salvation is truthfully presented to us in Scripture. I am confident that the way of holiness is inerrantly presented to us in God's Word. I am thankful that God's Word can be trusted as the truth so that we can have confidence in God and His power to save and sanctify.

[Phil James]

Jason, not trying to be a smart ass, but if its the case that all of this evil will befall us, if we don't have an exhaustively inerrant bible, then how is it that we get along just fine without one; or maybe you can point me to it.

[Jason]

PhitBodPJ,

Without trying, you did a pretty good job. :-)

Of course, I did not say that any evils would befall us. I spoke of possibilities, and I spoke of how people could come to some logical conclusions about the nature of God if error is admitted into the Scriptures.

The Bibles that we have, so long as they conform to the original texts (Note that I did not say manuscripts.), suit us well enough. In fact, we know from those involved in the work of textual criticism that we are assured of possessing the original text in such a way as to not compromise any essential doctrine.

My KJV (Or my ESV, etc) may not be inerrant in and of itself. That is not the point at all. There are two points:

1. That God gave us a truthful text.

2. That God has allowed that text to be preserved.

Will the KJV, ESV, or HCSB differ one from the other? Yes. If they are faithful to the texts, however, they will all present us essentially the same doctrines. They will teach us the truth. Ultimately, I can refer to various versions to understand what is being taught. With just a little help a person who doesn't even know Greek or Hebrew can read and understand a number of things about variant readings and apparent discrepancies.

Furthermore, the majority of issues that people bring up as discrepancies have been addressed by scholars. There's no good reason to believe that the rest cannot be dealt with in the future. Even then, those discrepancies do not mislead us concerning the truth.

In the end, God cares that we view the originals as inerrant. He also calls for us to trust His Word today, because it is true. Variant readings aren't necessarily erroneous, either; though that's an issue for people such as Marv who know more about that than I. The idea that we don't have an inerrant Bible today is a smokescreen, because they are inerrant so far as they faithfully translate the autographical text.

[Phil James]

So it doesn't matter much in a practical way, Our errant texts suite us well enough.

[Phil James]

:-)

[joanne guarnieri]

Oh Phil!  The text doesn't err, but we do.  So we muddle along with the mistakes we make, and do the best we can to be faithful to the original rendering of the words, as given to the original author.  If we quibble over this word, or that phrase, or an implication or shading or whatever, let it be because we are still having some trouble translating it well, or grasping what the original words say.

 

Let it not be because the original words are mistaken.

 

If the Bible is mistaken about some things, then that's a problem.  Why wouldn't it be?  If you know I get facts mixed up from time to time, you are always going to wonder whether what I am currently telling you is completely accurate. 

[Jason]

Joanne,

You get it, I see. People have erred, but the text does not.

I can also have confidence that my Bible accurately represents the original texts, so I can have confidence that it is true and will not lead me wrongly.

[Phil James]

You say I don't get it. That's obviously the case. I think you've said that every Bible that we actually have- because of people- is not exhaustively inerrant, but it inerrant enough, because the disputed parts don't really have a bearing on any central doctrine that God wished to communicate to us. We can be sure that God would preserve the important stuff from man's fumblings.

but.... that sounds identical to the position of errantists I've read. It seems to me that practically, pastorally it is entirely inconsequential.

[Jason]

Actually, PhitBodPJ, I think you do miss my point.

We may not have a perfect representation of the original text, but we have a reliable representation of the original text. Nowhere does it mislead us or teach us anything that is not true. Thus it is inerrant. Nothing in it directs us into error, and our Bibles can be said to be correct in all that they affirm.

God did not promise perfect translations, but we have translations that are inerrant so long as the faithfully represent the original text. God spoke truly, and we have confidence that we have that truth.

The issue is not simply an issue of translations, though. The issue of inerrancy goes further back. You see, the argument moves around. Some say that we don't have an inerrant Bible now. I say that is not quite so. Others say that the Bible wasn't inerrant when it was given, but men wrote and spoke in error. My argument is that God spoke truly through men and that truth has been preserved for us today, and we have that inerrant truth in our translations when they faithfully represent the original texts. We have confidence in the texts that we have and in our translations. We have the truth without error. Errors of translation or transmission have not caused us to be led astray from the truth. Scripture is still true in all that it affirms.

[Scott]

Jason -

 

I agree that the manuscripts, copies and translations we have today are quite reliable in giving us the God-breathed and authoritative text of Scripture. But here are some questions that always come to me:

 

1) What happens when Paul states in 2 Tim 3:16 that, "All Scripture is God-breathed...," and when he is doing so, he is thinking of the Hebrew and/or Greek copies they had then? It does not say, "All original autographs of Scripture are God-breathed...."

 

2) What happens when the first apostles and other NT writers were quoting from a non-original and a translation of the non-originals at that? For most, if not all, inerrantists say it is the originals that are inerrant. But the NT writers didn't have a problem quoting from the non-originals, teaching from the non-originals, and identifying the non-originals as God-breathed. Why are we wanting to make a doctrine out of something that not even the first apostles were emphasising as they taught and read and preached from Scripture?

 

3) If the originals are THE most important thing in understanding God's revelation in Scripture, why didn't God feel the same way about them as we do? Why did he not preserve them to help us back up our own doctrine of inerrancy?

[Phil James]

Jason, is it the case that Christ told his followers that believers would pick up serpents and not be harmed?