On to my relatively minor critiques…
Firstly, although I respect that Dr. Bird acknowledged and referenced some relevant quotes from Augustine, I don’t think he recognized or acknowledged the import of them.
For instance, he said he took significant issue with this statement from the CSBI…
Article XIV: We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved undermine the truth claims of the Bible.
But I fail to see how the sentiment is in any way significantly different then the sentiment expressed by Augustine, which he himself quoted…
“I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it.”
He uses this quote to confirm that Augustine was willing to credit apparent errors to copyist translation errors, but he seems to miss the import of the final claim, that if scripture seems to be in error, and it is not due to translation or copying error, then it must be that we have misunderstood it. A sentiment nearly identical to that expressed in the CSBI.
Augustine’s sentiment is exactly that of myself. And, I think, the framers of the CSBI, especially as they described their position in article 14. So I fail to see how Dr. Bird can object to the CSBI position as some modern, American invention when it is near identical to that expressed by Augustine.
Moreover, Dr. Bird engages in some (likely unwitting) equivocation in his otherwise very clear argumentation…
Article XVI of the CSBI is as followes…
We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church’s Faith throughout its history, from the Apostles and Church Fathers through the Reformers to the present day.
We deny that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by Scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism.
I personally notice that this is a (relatively) humble claim, they are not saying that their particular, exact formulation of inerrancy, as outlined in their 19 affirmations and denials, has been integral to the church throughout its history, but simply that the doctrine of inerrancy itself has been integral. And this I think a fair claim.
But Dr. Bird, in refuting this, resorts to a bit of equivocation or straw-man argumentation… he says…
However, to insist that the CSBI understanding of inerrancy is and always has been normative in church history is a bit of a stretch.
I think it is fair to say that not many, if any, of the framers of the CSBI would dare to claim that their particular understanding of inerrancy was and always has been normative in church history. To suggest that they would so claim is, ahem, “a bit of a stretch.”
Next, he says…
the CSBI denies that there were any contingent circumstances that shaped the development of the American inerrancy tradition in the modern period.
This is a bit more of a stretch. The framers of the CSBI make no such claim, so far as I can tell. They merely claimed that inerrancy itself (not their own specific, particular formulation of it) was not something that was invented in the 19th century. This I would absolutely affirm, as mentioned earlier, given my previous study of Luther, Calvin, Augustine, etc.
Using a bit of equivocation or linguistic slight-of-hand (again I presume quite unwittingly), he takes their claim that “the doctrine of inerrancy” has long been a doctrine of the early church, and refutes instead the idea that “the specific 20th century formulation of the doctrine of inerrancy” has long been a doctrine of the early church. But I fear he has only succeeded in refuting an idea that none of the framers of the CSBI would ever have defended.
And, in what I can only describe as a bit of reverse equivocation, Dr. Bird praises the breadth and inclusiveness of the Lausanne covenant because it does not include the words “inerrant” or “inerrancy,” although it requires affirmation in words practically identical to the CSBI that “scripture is without error in all that it affirms.” That is the very definition of inerrancy, is it not??
It almost starts to look like Dr. Bird wants to affirm inerrancy, just not use the word. Perhaps it is because he wants to reject the many things that get connected with the word by simplistic and unsophisticated people, and if so, he certainly has my sympathy! But the things he claims to reject about the CSBI seem to be things he affirms elsewhere. It is rather odd.
In answer to his question…
what does it say about a God who inspires the original text and yet allows the subsequent history of the church to struggle with a corrupted version of his inscripturated revelation?
I would simply say it says that God utilizes the natural laws that he himself established for this universe. To borrow from my hero C. S. Lewis…
Miraculous wine will intoxicate, miraculous conception will lead to pregnancy, inspired books will suffer all the ordinary processes of textual corruption, miraculous bread will be digested. The divine art of miracle is not an art of suspending the pattern to which events conform but of feeding new events into that pattern.
Though I imagine God, in his providence, could ensure that whatever natural textual corruptions occur, it would not so impugn the message so as to make his essential communication invalid.
To summarize, I mentioned earlier that I had run into this kind of thinking before, in my undergrad days, that the doctrine of inerrancy was an invention of the 19th century fundamentalists. When I was first exposed to that idea, I went to my campus library, did some searching, and found a quote by Luther where he himself quoted from Augustine, that earlier quote about finding the scripture alone to be without error. As such, I am unsympathetic to the idea that the doctrine of inerrancy is a specifically American, 19th to 20th century invention. I will of course grant that our current formulation of it, with all the specific details as laid out by the CSBI, may well be influenced by that time, But that is different than suggesting that the doctorine as a whole arose de novo during that period.
Edit…it is a bit like saying the doctrines of the five points of Calvinism only originated in 1611… that particular formation of the doctrines was formulated in 1611, as a response to a recent challenge to the ideas. But the doctorines and ideas themselves far preceded The formulation in 1611 commonly known as the five points of Calvinism. They go back at least to the time of… Calvin!
I think that is the same error that Dr. Bird is essentially falling into. Because there was such a criticism of the ideas of inerrancy in the 19th century, especially in America, that is when particular formulations of the doctrine were carefully established and argued. But that is a far cry from suggesting that the ideas only begin to exist at that time.
But in general, I didn’t take categorical exception to his ideas.
Now, on to chapter 4…