BioLogos and Inerrancy?

I was actually looking forward to someone proposing a different set of basket names…

I’m not sure where I came up with “Symbolic” vs. “Figurative”… I wonder if I was just going along with someone approach another poster was using. I don’t see much of a difference between Symbolic and Figurative.

So, let me encourage anyone to suggest different baskets…

As to the value of having basket names… @Christy I think it is obvious. If I hadn’t done that, I never would have realized that there is a sizable portion of members here who can’t bring themselves to say it is

erroneous to think the first woman was created from a rib …

or that it is erroneous to think that there was ever a Firmament in the sky, keeping a heavenly ocean from crashing down on the whole planet.

When I used strong words to describe BioLogos as a “Big Tent” movement - - I really had no idea how big that tent had to be!

It may be erroneous to think those things, but the $10,000 question is “Is that what the Bible actually affirms in what it teaches in those passages?” And we can come up with a nice interpretation that the passage is actually teaching something else, so it never really affirms that the sky is solid, it just accommodates that assumption in order to teach something else. See how this game is played?

4 Likes

So what ever baskets you choose, labelling any as “errant”, “fallible” or “unuseful” (or any synonyms thereof) will create a great deal of problems for most conservative readers. We believe that all Scripture is inerrant, infallible, and useful. Frankly, I’m not sure what purpose categorizing verses into bins does. It seems to reductive. I prefer focusing on the narrative of scripture.

1 Like

Boy, don’t you just love to pick and choose which parts of the Bible are wrong and right… :stuck_out_tongue:

Upon what basis do you say that Genesis 2:2 and 1:6 are errant? On the basis of science? Okay, then science is your authority, not Scripture. Appealing to an authority lower than the Scriptures themselves to prove or disprove them means placing that authority above the Scriptures and moving the Bible down a notch. You cannot appeal to a lower authority to disprove a higher authority. Then again, science is your higher authority, and Scripture the lower authority. My friend, it ought not be so.

Science is not θεόπνευστος (theopneustos, “God-breathed”) as the Scriptures are (see 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 1:16-21). Science and scientists are prone to error. God, however, is not. To say that the Scriptures, as God’s inspired revelation to mankind, are in error, is to say that God has erred, and if that is the case, God is no longer God. “Every word of God proves true,” says Agur, the son of Jakeh (Proverbs 30:5-6). Scripture is God speaking, as Jesus claimed (see Matthew 24:31, “Have you not read what was spoken to you by God, saying, [Old Testament quote]?”).

These are the claims of the Bible (and Jesus) about the Bible itself. Reject them if you must, but don’t think that you represent biblical Christianity by doing so.

Adam was having a vision. God put him in a deep sleep and showed him a dream, graphically demonstrating the ontological value of Eve. So powerful was it that Adam broke forth into poetry when he saw his wife for the first time. See John Walton, The Lost World of Adam and Eve.

Accommodation - an idea that stretches back all the way to Augustine, at the very least. God takes human ideas and concepts and uses them to explain divine truth.

In neither instance is the Bible “in error.” Only if one holds to the most rigid of literalistic hermeneutics can one find these texts to be in error.

Blessings,
Jay

1 Like

@Swamidass, I think BioLogos affirming the Lausanne Covenant or Chicago Statement would be a mistake.

It would be politically pleasing to the a good chunk of the evangelical world, which is very valuable, but it would also serve to make this place just another one where people such as myself, who cannot in good conscience affirm inerrancy, don’t quite fit. Not that making people fit is the primary objective. I would be a little disappointed if the take-no-prisoners rigidity of inerrancy made it into the Biologos statement of faith. I don’t see why we would go so far as to admit concepts such as accommodation, cultural context, etc., but yet draw this arbitrary (in my own mind and judgement) line at any of that also including factual error. I guess I just do not see the wisdom of “inerrancy” in the larger sense, so that aversion carries here also.

From my personal perspective, I would be bummed to see this place also camp on the inerrancy hill.

1 Like

I think you are saying this: a) God cannot err, b) Scripture is inspired by God, thus c) Scripture cannot err. If that is not fair, please correct me. I think this has a major weakness, in that the assumption that something that is inspired by God cannot err is just that…a huge assumption. Why could God not inspire and do his work through written works that also contained inaccuracies? Does he not work through imperfect things all the time, and even “inspire” them? (I am not saying he necessarily inspires them to the same degree, just saying that inspiration does not necessarily equal perfection of the object that was inspired. Or at least, you don’t get that conclusion for free.)

I think you are referring to Matthew 22:31-32. I don’t think your implication is fair. You left out the context. Jesus is not just quoting a random Old Testament verse and saying “God said”, he is repeating an actual quote attributed to God in the Old Testament. An actual “God said”.
Matthew 22:

But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’b ? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.

Exodus 3:

“Do not come any closer,” God said. “Take off your sandals, for the place where you are standing is holy ground.” Then he said, “I am the God of your father,a the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.” At this, Moses hid his face, because he was afraid to look at God.

You seemed to imply that the words of the author of Exodus in general were being attributed to God, when in actuality the words in question are themselves found in a quote from God. Hence Jesus saying, because, well, God said it: “God said”…

What, specifically, do you object to in the statement:

We affirm the divine inspiration, truthfulness and authority of both Old and New Testament Scriptures in their entirety as the only written word of God, without error in all that it affirms, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice.

Is just the use of the word “inerrant” that offends you?

Josh,

Scripture is not just merely “inspired”; it is breathed out by God (θεόπνευστος), meaning that the whole of it comes directly from God’s mouth. This same idea is picked up by Peter in his second letter, when he states, “No prophecy was ever created by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” This essentially states that what Scripture says, God says. Therefore, for God to say something patently false is an impossibility, due to his perfection. You are right to say that God often works through imperfect processes (evolution being one example that might be advanced, or the preservation of the New Testament manuscripts through copyists who sometimes made mistakes), but I don’t think that that necessarily implies any error on the part of Scripture.

Yes, sorry, I guess I wasn’t paying attention when I had my Bible open right in front of me… :stuck_out_tongue:

I think you’ve missed the point, somewhat. Listen to the language: “have you not read what was spoken to you by God.” That’s an odd combination; normally, one might say, “have you not read what was written to you,” or “have you not heard what was spoken to you.” Instead, Jesus says that what God spoke to Moses from the burning bush is what is being said to the Sadducees; have you not read what God said to you. Of course, in the Exodus passage, God didn’t say what he said to the Sadducees; he said what he said to Moses. But nevertheless, Jesus said that God spoke those words to them.

Ergo, the Scriptures are God speaking to us. Not just where he has literally spoken, as through the burning bush, but also through all of the inspired writings because their ultimate origin is in him (because they are God-breathed).

I would also like to hear your thoughts on the paragraph I wrote, about ultimate authorities. If the Bible is errant because of some criterion outside of it (and therefore lesser than it), then the Bible is not the highest authority, the authority that proved the Bible errant is the highest authority.

Blessings,
Jay

Just as God inspires and guides His servants to provide truthful teaching and admonish the Church to good works and faith, so it is that the Holy Spirit guides and enlightens our understanding, so that we may understand God’s Word, and in this way live a life of Faith, as much as we are able, and according to God’s grace.

We err when we try to reduce the Bible to ways to write and speak - we should also be aware that the Bible is uncompromising in showing us our many errors and weaknesses/faults.

It is the height of folly to ascribe error to God in any way.

1 Like

Most significantly the “without error” part, I think. At least for the purposes of this discussion. It’s not that I have a laundry list of passages that I know contain errors (although I think that some errors are probable), it’s more that I think there is inadequate basis to claim errors are impossible or not present. I don’t think there is sufficient reason to believe this. Most of the time it seems to boil down to “God cannot lie”, and I am just completely unable to see the equivalence between Scripture containing errors and God lying. So it’s less a case against inerrancy; more just an absence of support for it. From my perspective the affirmation of inerrancy seems arbitrary in general, but at least would be arbitrary on my part if I affirmed it.

There are are perhaps other parts of the statement that are interesting side note discussions, such as “in their entirety the only written word of God”. For example, there are different perspectives on what we’d do if we found another of Paul’s letters, or even one referred to (but not included) in the Scriptures themselves. I know I’m hyperanalyzing the statement perhaps. I just think these compartments are too neat and overly assertive. But the “without error” part will suit for this discussion I think.

Agreed, it doesn’t imply any error in Scripture, but it indicates that not everything that God “inspires” results in the perfection of that thing.

Regarding “God-breathed”, even if we grant you the point that this implies what you say it implies, 1) it is circular and 2) what about the parts of the Bible written after this statement? (Not fully up on my timelines, but weren’t the Gospels written later? Which verse do we use for the inerrancy of the later parts of the Bible?). This is kind of a sidetrack on my part, and I am not implying unreliability of the Gospels or any other book, but I think there are problems with using this verse to claim inerrancy.

Jay, I think I see your point here. It’s about the audience, the to you, implying that the statement was from God and directed to people weight beyond the original hearer. I do not think the “to you” can lead us to your conclusion, but I think I see what you mean.

OK sure. My initial thought here is that the Bible is not the highest authority, God is. Truth is. God is known through the Scriptures and his world. Both are sources of truth, neither is a “higher authority” than the other. One may be of significantly more value than the other in learning about God, and especially about Jesus Christ. Truth, regardless of its source, is the highest authority. If it were found that there were an error in the Scriptures–for example, if it were found that the author of Genesis truly believed the world was created in seven days and that he intended to affirm this to his audience–then he would be trumped by God’s truth as revealed by science. And it wouldn’t be a huge deal. Genesis is not about science.

If incontrovertible scientific evidence arose that the resurrection did not happen, then I think we would also have to abandon it. Incontrovertible being evidence as strong as the evidence for evolution or the evidence for gravity. It is my belief, and yours–it is the core of our faith–that this will not happen.

Perhaps these hypotheticals are distracting. I am just saying that science, by way of example, is a 100% legitimate vehicle for arriving at truth. I am not saying it gives us 100% certainty, or that our conclusions are perfect truth. Our conclusions are not infallible, but then none of our conclusions about anything are infallible. Sometimes a truth can be known, inasmuch as anything can be known, via science. And if we are going to say that truth X is known, nothing trumps the truth.

One last note, I am not at all saying that science disproves inerrancy. This last blurb is in response to your comments about highest authority. Truth is highest, and there is more than one mechanism of discovering truth (complicated by the fact that our discovery process is not perfect). And whenever there is or would be a conflict between our conclusion from mechanism A and our conclusion from mechanism B, there must be a reckoning. And the reckoning is not automatic.

Just a few words of caution. Your logic here is a slippery slope that has caused many to lose faith. An error in Scripture = an error by God = logical impossibility, since God cannot err. Many have been taught this, and when they run into people like George (sorry to use you as an example, my friend), the results are sometimes not pretty. In fact, apologists for Islam turn this argument around to try to prove that the Bible is not the word of God. To avoid this problem, scholars have issued many qualifiers on exactly what does or does not constitute an “error in Scripture,” but these are so convoluted and finely worded that they are of no use to the average Christian, and often are a source of confusion more than clarity.

I would offer up this whole line of reasoning as an example of what Wittgenstein meant when he said, “A picture held us captive. And we could not get outside it, for it lay in our language and language seemed to repeat it to us inexorably.” The logic of the metaphor seems impeccable to us, so we hold onto it, even though theologians have so watered down the category of “error” that it has become virtually meaningless. We need a new picture, a new metaphor.

Part of the problem stems from having a poor model of inspiration. If a person believes that the Holy Spirit “dictated” the exact words of Scripture to the authors, then he/she has a hard time explaining even minor problems, such as Peter’s poor Greek. What, then, does it mean to be God-breathed?

4 Likes

But the statement is entirely consistent with your point of view, right? It says: “…without error in all that it affirms

Why isn’t the limiting clause enough for you?

Hi Joshua,

From my perspective terms such as inerrancy are used as tribal boundary markers. I resist using the term to satisfy conservatives. When used by theologians the words themselves seem to die the “death of a thousand qualifications.”

Finally, to provide several examples I would be be disingenuous to use a phrase such as “without error in all it affirms” as someone who is open to viewing Job, Jonah, Gen 1-3 as non-historical (and I could cite other examples) when dealing with someone who uses “without error in all it affirms” in a far more literalistic way than I would.

Larry Schmidt

2 Likes

You are using a very loose definition of “inspired.” Only the Scriptures are θεόπνευστος; if we could quit using “inspired” and use the actual biblical terminology that more fully explains what “inspired” means, that would be great.

When it comes to claims of ultimate authorities, yes, it becomes circular. The Bible is my highest authority (because God has given it his authority, and because I only know of God and his plan and his will because of what I read in the Scriptures), so therefore I can go to no other authority than it (and, consequently, God) to prove its inspiration and authority.

The atheist’s highest authority (to use another example) is often science or logic. When asked to prove science or logic, the atheist can do no other than use science to prove science, or logic to prove logic. There is a transcendental circularity at play that is unavoidable.

Inerrancy, to me, is not some shibboleth, as some would claim. It has never been. It’s always been a doctrine that I’ve taken seriously and have seen deduced from the pages of Scripture itself.

Not only the “to you,” but Jesus’ word choice. When we read Exodus 3, it is as though God was speaking those very words to us. “Have you not read what was spoken to you.”

The Bible is only the highest authority because God has not chosen to speak in the same fashion anywhere else. The natural world is not θεόπνευστος, try as you might to claim that it is. Romans 1 indicates that all the natural world can do is give men knowledge that God does exist and that they are without excuse for suppressing the knowledge of him. It cannot be compared with the Scriptures, “which are able to make you wise unto Salvation” (2 Timothy 3:15). The Bible is distinct, and unique, and different.

Not true. All truth is God’s truth, yes, but science is inductive by nature, and even secular folks have realized the problems with inductive reasoning. Scripture, on the other hand, is deductive and objective. It is more sure than science. Science, while it can be used to prompt us to reexamine our interpretation of certain texts, can never be used to prove error in the Bible. Sorry.

1 Like

Show me where I said God dictated the Bible to those who wrote it down. I merely repeated what Peter himself claimed, that “men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” How does that work? Beats me. But this makes Scripture 100% divine (and therefore without error) and 100% human (because of its authorship, stylistic differences, vocabulary, genres, etc.). Peter Enns’ analogy at this point is perfectly appropriate; the Bible is an incarnational book. The only problem with his viewpoint is that he left off the “yet without sin.” Just as Jesus was 100% God and 100% man, and yet without sin, so too the Bible is a product of men and God, yet without error.

1 Like

@Swamidass

I think the great bulk of the Christian masses have no objection with the idea that the Bible contains some errors.

Just ask a neighbor if he or she thinks the Bible’s toleration of slavery is reasonable and accurate?

It may well be true that insisting on inerrancy may be as big a barrier to the Casual Christian’s acceptance of BioLogos as insisting on evolution is a barrier to YEC’s.

But I suppose it is more important to win over the YECs than to worry about the casual Christians.

Perhaps BioLogos needs to spell out this inerrancy stuff… it might make a difference…

Sorry, I was not clear. I was speaking in general about “a person,” not necessarily you, having a poor model of inspiration. No need to get your hackles up. I’m merely pointing out difficulties and asking questions. I don’t reject inerrancy, as I just affirmed Lausanne above. I do, however, question whether the category is even necessary.

Yes, the Scripture doesn’t give us a definitive model of exactly how it worked. The “dictation” model is clearly not a good analogy. I have seen some speculations that are interesting, though. For example, God created Paul’s personality and intelligence in the womb, and then God guided and directed Paul’s education and experience (including his experiences of the risen Christ and the indwelling Spirit) to produce a man who would write exactly what God wanted him to write. This is a much more “hands-off” model of producing God-breathed Scripture. Is it true? I don’t know. But it is an interesting thought.

Perhaps Enns left off “without sin” for a reason. I haven’t read it. Does he specifically address inerrancy?

I think it is somewhat arbitrary and ill-supported to say that the Bible is without error in all that it affirms. For example, I think it is possible that the author of Genesis is affirming that the earth was created in seven literal days, or that the firmament is literally as he describes. Or it is possible that Luke made some error in detail in reference to Quirinius being governor. These are just examples, not of errors, but of possible errors that we don’t need to arbitrarily (in my mind) declare impossible. But it’s not really about any specific example. There are perhaps reasonable workarounds to these two particular examples, but not necessary workarounds. Whether or not there are explanations is I think irrelevant. How do we know there aren’t errors in detail here or there, in the same spirit as the above examples, that we don’t even know about? Cultural considerations of sequence aside, how do we know there is not simply a direct explicit reference to an incorrect sequence (A happened before B), due to a memory quirk? Or that A was said to say something when they were talking in a group, when it was actually B? I don’t want to sidetrack with those specific examples, because no particular example is necessary. It seems we are determining by fiat that this is not so. I just don’t see how drawing the line here is anything other than arbitrary. To me it seems not only unsupported but also wholly unnecessary.

1 Like