Why Biblical Inerrancy?

Let me know if you ever encounter such a creature! Meanwhile, what to do about our pandemic of people who, even in their old age, have been unable to grow into more mature faith … a faith that didn’t stop with Romans 1, but was able to recognize where Paul was going with that as they keep reading into Romans 2. Indeed, a faith that can take in all the rest of Romans, including Romans 14, and re-order the world according to that newer, higher simplicity - at one level it’s a new set of even clearer blacks and whites, but its clarity comes out of recognizing a creation of an astonishingly magnificent variety of color.

For the simplicity on this side of complexity, I wouldn’t give you a fig. But for the simplicity on the other side of complexity, for that I would give you anything I have.

― Oliver Wendell Holmes

I was thinking this fits the postmodern view

Good example! But I can’t tell if you are saying a mature or immature faith sees the world through Romans.

The Holmes quote is intriguing. I would like to look into it further.

I’m appropriating the Holmes quote as my own commentary on black and white thinkers who’ve never addressed any complexity, but always just denied it. And it seems to allow for a return to a “higher kind” of simple thinking after one has adequately faced and allowed for all the complexity of real life.

1 Like

Ok… but I’m more interested in whether you are saying a mature or immature faith sees the world through Romans. I’ve read your comment several times, and grammatically it seems to go both ways.

Oh yeah - thanks. I forgot to finish that reply. (Got excited composing a quick commentary on Romans - now posted over in the ‘Pithy’ thread. - do you think Calvin would be proud?)

I think a mature faith has taken in all of Romans. Whereas the immature tend to get excited just at the end of chapter 1, before realizing that they’ve been totally set up by Paul. They took the bait, and right at the beginning of chapter two is where Paul sprung the trap.

2 Likes

That’s great! I hoped that was your meaning as the sarcasm was almost unbearable if what you wrote was describing an immature faith.

I have certainly not understood Romans as well as I could, and I came across an interpretation not too long ago that was intriguing in how it looked at Romans 1 as part of a commentary on Israel in the wilderness, or something like that. My memory is fuzzy on what exactly the interpretation was, but it was something like I hadn’t seen before. And it seemed plausible, plus the anonymous person that said it I’d give some measure of credibility.

Romans 1 feels like it has a literary element to it, because I think people can sincerely not know God at some point in their life. A plain reading of the passage doesn’t sit so well with me, as people do get on a pedestal and say that anyone who claims to not know God is a liar. On the day of judgement, it will at least be evident who knew what and when. Including the hypocrisy in the heart of many preachers.

I have been away for a few days, found a lot of the preceding discussion very interesting. This has led me to a feeling that many of the arguments between Christians are about the wrong things, about things that are not essential for salvation.

Checking out Romans 14, specifically, strongly suggests that there are things that appear to us to be black or white (eat, or don’t eat certain things) that Paul says only matter in the way that the things are interpreted, and then instructs us to be aware of the effect our actions will have on others. That is just so different from insisting on a particular interpretation of any particular passage, and attempting to tell others that they are wrong, and heading straight to hell if they don’t change their interpretation and agree with mine.
I believe the real point underlying a lot of the discussion of the past few days is that we really should not argue about which side of an issue that does not matter relative to salvation is “absolutely true.” As a specific example, consider the issue of how should the bible be interpreted. I am certain that there is no particular one way of interpreting scripture that is required for salvation, and any other method of interpretation is wrong.
On this particular point, and bringing the discussion back from purly religious into the context of the relationship between religion and science (including mathematics), I would note that the total factual description of God is indeed large enough (Infinite in the sense of being unlimited) that two different partial descriptions as understood by two different humans, even though apparently contradictory, can both be essentially true. (Any finite human understanding of God is mathematically indistinguishable from 0% of the total description of God. Not that what I know is unimportant; what I know is essential for supporting my relationship with God. Just that God doesn’t relate to me the same way He relates to any other human.)
Since this is true, it is incumbent upon me, if I believe I am stronger in the faith because “what I believe is true,” to take into account what effect my words and actions will have on another Christian, weaker in the faith, who believes something different. I need to be careful that I am helping others improve their relationships with God, not hindering them.
And I must acknowledge that Jesus will judge each according to his or her own heart, not according to what I believe. In this regard I am reminded of what Jesus said about His “Last Judgement” in Matthew, where He didn’t send people to Hell because they didn’t believe a particular interpretation of scripture, and didn’t invite people into heaven because they believed in the bible.
And if I feel that I am weaker in faith, then I should try to grow.
Thanks to all of you who are contributing to our deeper understanding of how much God loves us all!

3 Likes

Hmmm…

Obviously God relates to people on an individual level, but to some he shows mercy and to others he shows judgement.

I think often to someone I met years ago who said he used to be a Christian, but he was then into new age mysticism. The scary part for me was thinking that God had given him over to such a fearful judgement in that his thinking was actually manifesting the coincidences he found in the world.

That was my understanding even as a young believer to what God is providentially capable of. The first Bible study group I was invited to and joined used Henry Blackaby’s Experiencing God :wink:

I hope you understand that it is up to God to determine to whom he shows mercy, and to whom he shows judgement. There are many places where we are told that we will be surprised at how God judges, that God judges differently from how we would guess he will.
I am quite sure that many, if not all, of the statements in scripture that point to God judging wickedness are intended as a warning to us believers, not as an authorization for us to pronounce God’s judgement on anyone else.

Given the church’s outstanding record of religious injustice, I can sympathize with the perceived violence felt with the slightest judgement of truth and error in religion.

1 Like

Are these relevant?:

Woe to those who call evil good
    and good evil,
who put darkness for light
    and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
    and sweet for bitter.
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes
    and clever in their own sight.

Isaiah 5:20-21

and

For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions.

2 Timothy 4:3

I noted that the trust in Biblical inerrancy was more dominating than I realized during the first centuries after Jesus. In that sense, the belief in biblical inerrancy has long and honorable roots.

Below is a citation of J. N. D. Kelly, book ‘Early Christian doctrines. 5 ed. pp. 61-62’ The citation is long but speaks for itself:

It goes without saying that the fathers envisaged the whole of the Bible inspired. It was not a collection of disparate segments, some of divine origin and others of merely human fabrication. Irenaeus, for example, is not surprised at its frequent obscurity, ’seeing it is spiritual in its entirety’; while Gregory of Nyssa understands St. Paul to imply that everything contained in Scripture is the deliverance of the Holy Spirit. Even Theodore of Mopsuestia, who distinguished between the special inspiration of the prophets and the inferior grace of ’prudence’ granted to Solomon, was not really an exception, for he was satisfied that all the authors of both Testaments wrote under the influence of one and the same Spirit. Origen, indeed, and Grecory of Nazianzus after him, thought they could perceive the activity of the divine wisdom in the most trifling verbal minutiae, even in the solecisms, of the sacred books. This attitude was fairly widespread, and although some of the fathers elaborated it more than others, their general view was that Scripture was not only exempt of error but contained nothing that was superfluous. ’There is not one jot or tittle’, declared Origen, ’written in the Bible which does not accomplish its special work for those capable of using it.’ In similar vein Jerome stated that ’in the divine Scriptures every word, syllable, accent and point is packed with meaning’: those who slighted the commonplace contents of Philemon were simply failing, through ignorance, to appreciate the power and wisdom they concealed. According to Chrysostom, even the chronological figures and the catalogues of names included in Scripture have their profound value; and he devoted two homilies to the salutations in Romans 16 in the hope of convincing his auditors that treasures of wisdom lie hid in every word spoken by the Spirit.

1 Like

I am not sure the early Fathers had the same idea of inerrancy as modern Christians. When you are reading allegory into every portion of Scripture it is the allegorical meaning that is considered inerrant not the literal text. Which your quote seems to suggest.

3 Likes

As far as I understand, the degree of allegorical interpretation varied between the fathers. For most, the interpretation was not allegorical, it was typological (source: Early Christian doctrines). Those from the Alexandrian school had a tendency towards allegorical interpretation, the Antiochene had a passion for literalism. Some fathers from Antiochene were quite critical against allegorical interpretations.

Whatever the style of the person was, interpretation is always needed. If somebody believes that scriptures are inerrant, that is only half of the interpretation. What the inerrant passages tell is the other half of the interpretation.

In those early centuries, do we know what they considered The Bible? Did they consider Paul’s writing or the gospels to be on the same level as the Torah? Your comments as to interpretation and message conveyed to the reader are on point and important. The word of God is not written on paper, but rather in our hearts.

4 Likes

Early writings give a picture of what the attitudes towards the scriptures (old and the forming new testament) were. I am not an expert but it seems that the gospels and a collection of letters became normative texts during the first half of the second century, some texts perhaps at the end of the first century. The set of widely recognized NT scriptures was smaller at the beginning but grew during the second century to almost what we have now. From the second century onwards, the fathers cited NT scriptures in the same way as the OT scriptures, so it seems that the widely recognized NT scriptures were as normative as the OT scriptures. The Bible of church fathers included both the OT and scriptures of the NT; the NT included basically apostolic writings (written by an apostle or having the authority of an apostle behind it).

There were minor differences between areas etc. but what I wrote above draws the general picture.

1 Like

I agree with the pattern you describe–it that the early fathers fairly quickly recognized a body of texts as “authoritative” accounts and viewed scripture as somehow “inspired”, but I wonder if the early fathers ever saw them as “inerrant” in the strong modern/evangelical Chicago Statement way. It gets back to the question of defining inerrancy. My tradition, Anabaptism, has never used the term “inerrancy” to describe scripture, and I personally avoid it when describing the bible as I think it has misleading connotations.

5 Likes

The early church leaders viewed many documents as inspired, not just canonized scripture.

“It will have been noticed that in the preceding discussion concerning criteria used by early Christians in discerning the limits of the canon, nothing was said concerning inspiration. Though this silence may at first sight seem to be strange, the reason for it arises from the circumstance that, while the Fathers certainly agreed that the Scriptures of the Old and the New Testaments were inspired, they did not seem to have regarded inspiration as the ground of the Bible’s uniqueness. That is, the inspiration they ascribe to the Scriptures was only one facet of the inspiring activity of the Holy Spirit in many aspects of the Church’s life.7 For example, while Clement of Rome speaks of the sacred Scriptures (here referring to the Old Testament) as ‘true and given through the Holy Spirit’ (lxiii. 2), the author of the Epistle to Diognetus writes for his own part to his correspondent: ‘If you do not offend this grace, you will learn what the Word (λόγος) talks about through those through whom he wishes to talk, when he pleases. For whatever we have “been moved painstakingly to utter by the will of the Word that commands us, it is out of love for the things revealed to us that we come to share them with you’ (xi. 7–8). Among the writings of Eusebius there is a sermon attributed to the Emperor Constantine; whether or not this attribution is correct, the preacher clearly does not consider inspiration to be confined only to the Scriptures. He begins his sermon with the prayer, ‘May the mighty inspiration of the Father and of his Son … be with me in speaking these things’ (Orat. Const. 2).

Not only do early ecclesiastical writers view themselves to be, in some degree at least, inspired, but also others affirm, in a rather broad sense, the inspiration of their predecessors, if not their contemporaries. In a letter that Augustine addressed to Jerome, the bishop of Hippo goes so far as to say (Epist. lxxxii. 2) not only that Jerome has been favoured with the divine grace, but also that he writes under the dictation of the Holy Spirit (Spiritu Sancto)—which may seem to be rather strong hyperbole applied to the often irascible Jerome. “That Gregory the Great enjoyed the reputation of being inspired is easier to understand than is the case of Jerome, and Gregory’s biographer, Paul the Deacon, describes how the Holy Spirit, ‘under the form of a dove whiter than snow’, would explain to him the mysteries of Scripture (Vita S. Gregorii, 28).

That the early Church saw the inspiration of the Scriptures as but one aspect of a much broader activity of inspiration is clear from the use made of the word θεόπνενστος (‘divinely inspired’). This word, which is used in the affirmation that ‘all Scripture is given by inspiration of God’ (2 Tim. iii. 16), is chosen by Gregory of Nyssa in referring to his brother Basil’s commentary on the first six days of creation as an ‘exposition given by inspiration of God … [admired] no less than the words composed by Moses himself (Hexaemeron, proem.). The same word is used also in a synodical epistle from the Council of Ephesus to describe the council’s condemnation of Nestorius as ‘a decision given by inspiration of God’. Indeed, a still later writer even describes the epitaph on the grave of Bishop Abercius ‘as a commemorative inscription inspired of God’ (Vila…

“In other words, the concept of inspiration was not used in the early Church as a basis of designation between canonical and non-canonical orthodox Christian writings.

In short, the Scriptures, according to the early Fathers, are indeed inspired, but that is not the reason they are authoritative. They are authoritative, and hence canonical, because they are the extant literary deposit of the direct and indirect apostolic witness on which the later witness of the Church depends.”

Excerpt From

The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance

Bruce M Metzger

This material may be protected by copyright.

4 Likes

This issue of inerrancy and inspiration are intertwined. Kelly’s book doesn’t address inerrancy but it does inspiration. The paragraph following your quote has this.

With this view of inspiration then of course the text would have to be considered inerrant. Other ways of viewing inspiration would result in different views of inerrancy.

Bill, that view of inspiration and prophecy seems quite contrary to Paul’s writing in 1 Corinthians 14:

Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said.

30 If a revelation is made to someone else sitting nearby, let the first person be silent.

31 For you can all prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged.

32 And the spirits of prophets are subject to the prophets,

33 for God is a God not of disorder but of peace.

If two prophets start prophesying at once, one should stop. The spirits of prophets are subject to the prophets.

1 Like