I think the idea of inerrancy stems from a misunderstanding and may even lead to worship of Bible instead of God, which is wrong. Yet, it may be useful in certain contexts and therefore there is tolerance towards it. The protestant ‘sola scriptura’ principle assumes that Bible includes a sufficient and trustworthy basis in matters of faith. As this principle claims that no other source is more reliable and trustworthy, we should fully trust the teaching in the Bible, the concept of inerrancy fits well to the ‘sola scriptura’ background.
Bible includes much that is even according to the scriptures not the word of God (for example, reports of what people have said) and I have not met any Christian who would deny that. This means that some part of the text is considered reliable or even coming from God, not everything.
There is also the matter of interpretation, so even if the original text (we do not have it, only copies) would be fully reliable word of God, the various interpretations are not. Inerrancy is therefore always a relative statement, not meaning that everything in our translation is straight from God.
The simplified interpretation of the concept can be found from two sources. First is believers who want to stress the importance of biblical scriptures and use the word ‘inerrancy’ to tell that it is fully reliable. Less educated persons may catch this in a very literal meaning and believe that everything in the library called ‘bible’ comes straight from Heaven. The second source is anti-protestant apologetics. I have seen a book that attacks strongly against the most strict version of inerrancy and by showing it is wrong, conclude that the principle ‘sola scriptura’ has been shown wrong. This kind of apologetics is attacking a strawman.
Sola scriptura (if my memory is correct) was supposed to mean “The Bible is the only ultimate authority for theology, above (not equal to) church councils and the Pope.” It seems to have been used by some as “The Bible is my only authority for truth.” which can’t work in most situations for reasons that are abundantly obvious to anyone who doesn’t hold the view.
Sometimes you just have to scratch your head and wonder what in the world are people thinking:
“The Inspired KJV Group” – This faction believes that the KJV itself was divinely inspired. They view the translation to be an English preservation of the very words of God and that they are as accurate as the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts found in its underlying texts. Often this group excludes other English versions based on the same manuscripts, claiming that the KJV is the only English Bible sanctioned by God and should never be changed. White believes most KJV-Onlyists would belong to this group.
Yep, that’s pretty much it. For those who are interested, here’s a blast from the past (my first post on the forum) where I gave a quick summary of the relevant Creeds and Confessions:
Something I wrote on the subject. Quoting the pertinent bits:
The next book I stole from my dad set the tone for my teens and twenties. The Late, Great Planet Earth was published in 1970 and went on to become “the No. 1 non-fiction bestseller of the decade,” according to TheNew York Times . I found it in ’74 or so and was immediately “caught up” (forgive the pun) in its vision of rapture, tribulation, Armageddon, and Christ’s return to a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. It took years for me to outgrow this warped take on the “end times,” but one principle from the book stuck with me: Interpret literally unless you’re forced to interpret symbolically.
Soon, another book cemented that same thought in the evangelical consciousness. In 1976 the editor of Christianity Today, Harold Lindsell, authored his infamous Battle for the Bible. Lindsell claimed liberal theology was undermining the Scripture and would destroy the church. While inerrancy had previously been a matter of opinion rather than a doctrine, even among evangelicals, Lindsell argued that the Bible “does not contain error of any kind,” even (or especially!) in its references to history, cosmology, and science. Furthermore, any Christian who didn’t agree with this fundamentalist definition of inerrancy was not a “true Christian.”
Lindsell named names and took no prisoners in his crusade to expose “liberal theology” in evangelical seminaries and denominations. The next year, the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy was formed, and in 1978 it brought together 200 evangelical scholars, theologians, and pastors to draft the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Armed with that litmus test, the now-disgraced duo of Paige Patterson and Judge Paul Pressler launched their conservative takeover of Southern Baptist seminaries. That same year, Francis Schaeffer and popular Surgeon General C. Everett Koop debuted their anti-abortion documentary, Whatever Happened to the Human Race? The Culture War was on. I turned 18, cast my first vote for Ronald Reagan, and wholeheartedly enlisted in the army of Christ…
Did I let go of the faith when I let go of a perfect Bible? Absolutely not! What I discovered about inerrancy is what Luther and Calvin discovered. When I found mistakes of detail or irreconcilable differences in chronology, my ultimate response was – “Who cares?” Nothing I found cast Jesus or his teaching into doubt. Where did that leave me on inerrancy? I came to conclude that Scripture is “perfect with respect to its purpose,” which is an old formula that Christians of every stripe can agree upon – from Catholic Vatican II to Reformed John Piper to Arminian Roger Olson. All of them agree the primary purpose of Scripture is salvific, or saving. In plain language, the Bible’s purpose is not to teach history or geology or biology. The purpose of God’s revelation is to show his prodigal sons and daughters their way home. In that regard, I‘ve found it more than perfect.
Thanks for sharing. I remember reading The Late Great Planet Earth my freshman or sophomore year in college, and thinking it was interesting but pretty thin on a lot of points. That was during the Jesus Movement around that time, so had a lot going on, even at the state school I attended. Another book I read about that time was B. F. Skinner’s Beyond Freedom and Dignity which actually had a more lasting effect on both me and society.
The meme is accusing Bible believers of circular reasoning. If it was a single volume written by a single writer that would be a valid point, but since it is a compendium/collection there is no circular reasoning because just a couple of writers are making the assertion that “the scriptures” are true and are referring not to themselves but to the rest of the collection.
I recognized this problem years ago when I stopped in mid-song – Jesus loves me, this I now, for the Bible tells me so.
And asked myself, “And what tells me that the Bible is correct?” So I changed it and have sung it this way every since- Jesus loves me, this I know, for the Gospel tells me so.
(Of course there’s the issue that the Bible tells me a lot of other things besides “Jesus loves me”.)
Goalposts that can be moved wherever you want them to. We can just call errors in the text “ancient literary conventions” and then claim they are not errors anymore. Or just call something x and say the Bible assumed it but did not intend to teach it. I am not an inerrancy advocate. I would prefer to say the Bible serves the purpose for which God intends it to and it is normative for Christian faith. Hermeneutics is a big and messy topic in today’s world.
The church didn’t canonize hypothetical autographs that may or may not have existed. It canonized the extant versions of the documents widely available in their specific form at the time. There were many alterations before the manuscript record took hold. The Church, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, canonized them all.
Canonization exposes sola scripture as baseless and irrational.
I was 12 and lacked critical thinking skills. haha. As far as lasting effects on society, Hal Lindsey may have done more long-term damage to society than folks realize. From the OU professor who coined the term Christian Nationalism:
In my view and experience (and I feel very strongly about this), there is no quicker way to drive people away from Christianity than to tell them they have to take the entire Bible at face-value (I.e. the kind of modern, scientific reading) as true to be a Christian/follower of Jesus. I believe the people driving people away from Christianity the most aren’t secularists, atheists, etc but Christians who gatekeep “true” Christianity behind the stringent ideas of biblical inerrancy which most Christians throughout history have not held.
This is the kind of thing that causes people to “deconstruct” their faith. If their entire faith is built on the Bible being completely inerrant (in scientific matters based on a surface-level reading), there’s a good chance their faith will come crashing down if they ask even the smallest question. These questions will start tearing a bigger and bigger “hole” in their belief system. Perhaps this is why some do not want others asking questions (and are surprised when their kids leave Christianity when they go to college and are fairly asked to question their assumptions about it). I do not mean to straw man this position, because I have heard inerrantists have more nuanced views about things. But I’ve also seen the latter in action and how it drives people away because it can artificially make people “choose” between being a follower of Jesus and being a follower of truth.
Once again, this is not meant to be an attack on inerrantists at all, but rather a criticism of the way some inerrantists (hopefully only a few) stake their entire Christianity on inerrancy and claim those who do not are somehow “not real Christians.” One can even argu such a position idolizes the Bible, replacing God and Jesus as the object of worship. Sadly, this seems to be the way many skeptics I see online view Christianity.
According to some systematic theologians it is. I made a thread about this a while back.
I do think there is a valid point in there somewhere. God is the highest authority, We cannot appeal to some other authority to prove this as that would invalidate God as our highest authority. But at the same time, isn’t Grudem using reason when he says the Bible is self attesting and argues thusly? Are we not all slaves to reason by default? I’m not philosophically knowledgeable to get out of this pickle but it raises some interesting issues.
He would be shocked, probably not from doubting his authority from God, but since he expected the end of the world a lot sooner. God did something radical at that time through Jesus but Paul had no idea his situational letters would become scripture.
Scripture to most of the New Testament was a bunch of the OT (that canon was not fully set at the time yet). Even early Christians after the NT mostly thought of the OT as scripture. 2 Peter mentions Paul’s letter as scripture (I think that is the earliest reference) but that is most likely penned in his name ca. 125. Metzger in Canonization went through some early Christian attitudes towards scripture. There was scripture and then the “memoirs of the apostles.” The problem in antiquity is that people were skeptical of something new. If it hadn’t been around for a while then it was easy to dismiss. You don’t really just write scripture. Your writing has to disseminate and increase in popularity–it has to become scripture.
This is an important part from Grudem, which I’m not sure if you entirely skipped:
It is one thing to affirm that the Bible claims to be the words of God. It is another thing to be convinced that those claims are true. Our ultimate conviction that the words of the Bible are God’s words comes only when the Holy Spirit speaks in and through the words of the Bible to our hearts and gives us an inner assurance that these are the words of our Creator speaking to us. Just after Paul has explained that his apostolic speech consists of words taught by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:13), he says, “The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14)
So does the Holy Spirit tell us the Bible is God’s verbal, plenary words, dictated inerrantly from heaven? Or does the Holy Spirit seem to tell different Christians different things? I don’t disagree fundamentally with him here. faith first, doctrine second based on my experience. But it does raise questions.
How is an appeal to the Holy Spirit not using reason? Any explanation of anything seems to assume it in my book. The bigger question is also what to do with other holy books and religions that also claim to be self-attesting? or Christians with very diverse views of the Bible justifying them with the same Holy Spirit?
Good point. I believe that people who are looking for logical reasoning would agree with you here. However, frequently we look for certainty. Roger Scruton observed that one function of faith is to provide certainty in the midst of fear–if that’s the reason we go to faith, then fundamentalism becomes attractive.
Thanks.
I banned the KJV when I was doing bible studies for university students on the grounds that the language is so different than what we actually speak and read today that it falls under Paul’s injunction against a language people don’t understand.
Oh, I could probably introduce you to a few, or who feel the KJV was an improvement over the originals.
I like your quote of yourself.
But the first part is a gross generalization that in no way describes most of the people I’ve spent my life with in church. Right or wrong, inerrancy and infallibility in relation to Scripture are views held by some of the most Christ-loving and following people I know.
It’s easy to allow ourselves to accept popular protrayals of evangelicalism as the complete picture. I’ve spent my life in it. It is not all corrupt beyond recognition. The stereotypes are not the whole story.
The sola scriptura principle as held by the Wittenburg Reformers can be found in the church Fathers, who called scripture things such as “the referee” and “the measure”.
Yet the view the early church called inerrancy wasn’t about there being no errors in the text, it was about the message striking where God “aimed” it. They were much less concerned about scripture being “reliable” than they were about it being effective.
