For my theology class we have to write a series of position papers and I’ve decided to post them here. I don’t pretend to be an authority on any of these subjects nor do I offer exhaustive arguments in their support. I do want to get my thoughts out there and receive some feedback. Since our God is primarily a relational being, I believe theology is best formed in community. Beer me some thoughts.
Inerrancy vs. Infallibility
My arrival at Truett is almost a direct result of this issue. A pastor from a conservative church in Houston offered to pay for me to go to seminary. However, when I mentioned Truett he immediately qualified his offer by limiting it to schools that taught the true view of inerrancy. I had to reject his offer because I stand firmly within the infallibility camp. This prompted me to probe further into the theology of the seminaries that I was considering and as a result I decided to attend Truett.
The main reason I prefer infallibility is that I believe it most adequately deals with the Biblical material. Scripture clearly teaches that it is the primary source for knowledge of God, salvation, other matters of faith, and Christian behavior. The main passage dealing with inspiration (2 Timothy 3:16-17) focuses on the fact that Scripture is primarily used “for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” This text clearly deals with matters of faith and practice. However, nowhere in the Bible do I find the claim that it is a science manual or a history textbook. Quite to the contrary, I see things that are historically debatable and scientifically incorrect. In dealing with these things I see no need to throw my arms up in despair or yell “Mystery! We’ll figure it out later.” I simply acknowledge the fact that Scripture was written in a different time when modern standards of accuracy were not that important. The Biblical authors don’t seem to be as concerned with presenting historical fact as they are with presenting theological truths and the Grand Narrative. This lack of modern precision can be clearly demonstrated by the discrepancies found in the Gospel accounts. Most certainly the authors arranged things in ways to communicate theology and included details to prove points, rather than give a chronological, factual account of what happened. I think it foolish to force a modern sense of accuracy or inerrancy on a very ancient text. We only create a problem for ourselves by doing this. If we proclaim inerrancy, outsiders simply have to point out one discrepancy to nullify the whole of scripture. We create a slippery slope toward discrediting all of the Bible’s legitimate claims by inserting a claim it never makes. (I find it humorous that proponents of inerrancy often use this very argument against infallibility.) Infallibility preserves the fact that the Bible communicates truth from God while acknowledging that there are some factual discrepancies that simply don’t matter one way or another.
As a lesser reason, I also support infallibility because it stands against the prevailing bibliolatry that many inerrantists fall into today. (I don’t pretend to believe that all people that believe inerrancy end up here. However, I would argue that the people in the pews that believe inerrancy almost all fall into this trap.) The inerrant view seems to easily place Scripture on too high a pedestal, even to the point of implicitly equating it with God. No doubt, the Bible is the word of God and is very important. It is the primary source from which we derive all we believe about God. But it is not God. For example, this past Sunday the church I attended sang a song that I felt reinforced bibliolatry. The Bible was the focus of the song and rather than singing to God, the congregation was singing to the Scriptures. I understand the intention of the song and I agree with many of its claims but I believe it subtly supports a dangerous folk view. Infallibalists could end up making the same mistake, but they tend to acknowledge that Jesus stands over and above Scripture in all situations. The Bible is valued but it is not made an object of worship.
As demonstrated, I believe infallibility is the best term used to describe the authority of Scripture. However, I ultimately believe it should be a non-issue within the Church. Rather than getting caught up in this argument, we should focus on the fact that Scripture is the divine Word of God and that it communicates the truth of the Gospel regardless of errors. The Bible presents God’s story and invites us to participate.
Well, just because you said “beer me some thoughts,” I will do so.
I agree with you, but I’ve got an issue of semantics to take up with you about how you address the pre-modern mindset of the Biblical authors. Most people dismiss sematics as “just semantics” and I think that does a lot more harm than good because the way we speak about things not only expresses but also shapes our ideas… and I think you agree with that, so I’ll just get to it.
I think you’ve taken the right side in this debate, but you’re still using a lot of the language of the other side. You refer to the “modern standards of accuracy” as being unimportant, and as things being “historically debatable” and “scientifically incorrect”. I am pretty sure that I agree with the sentiment behind these descriptions, but I’m not sure I like the descriptions themselves – and it’s not just because they make me squirm a bit. I dislike them because all of them make implicit (though i’m sure unintentional) value judgments to the negative and are thus a little off.
Specifically, to say that “modern standards of accuracy” weren’t important seems to imply that modern standards of accuracy are a bit too high to be expected of Biblical authors. To say that the Bible is “scientifically incorrect” implies that it is asserting something scientific and that it got it wrong. In fact, using these decriptors goes a bit against a fundamental idea of infallibility, I think, which is that the Bible is never “wrong” or “inaccurate”, but that way that people have read the Bible has been wrong and thus has caused the Bible to seem “incorrect” or “inaccurate” at times.
Now, I should say that I know you don’t think that modernity is better than antiquity or that the Bible gets science wrong. It’s obvious that you don’t because you went to lengths to point out that the Bible wasn’t a history book or a science book. My qualm is that if it isn’t those things, then it moves us backwards to continue to discuss the text using those categories. It builds a huge wall between inerrantists and infallible-ists(?) because it confines debate to these categories in which we are in direct contradiction, and in doing so, it tends to paint us (the infallible-ists) as people with little regard for scripture – since these inappropriate categories corner us into statements of negation “that’s not historical fact”, “that’s not scientific”, “that’s not literal.”
In fact, my favorite thing about infallibility is how greatly it respects scripture because it seeks the true intent of the text rather than forcing it into some absurd outside scheme like “literalism.” I think we agree, but I think until we stop using old categories in our discussion, we will have difficulty convincing others and difficulty growing in our own concepts. I enjoyed most else that you had to say – particularly about the Grand Narrative. As for bibliolatry, I agree, but at the same time, I can see how scripture is also roughly the equivalent of a Protestant icon, and people are always being accused of worshiping icons when they may or may not be – so I think that’s a valid concern, but I’m hesitant to suggest a remedy.
Good post, man. Keep us thinking.
Johnno
Sorry it took me so long to find and read this one. I thought I might respond – seeing as how I dance around up here with an institution which classically supports inerrancy.
Let me begin by saying a few things…
1. Despite what I say here, you and I pretty much think the same thing – we lived together too long not to – like married people.
2. At the end of the day – the real discussion is not about the terms “infallible” and “inerrant” themselves, but about what one means when using the term. I say this because you tended to create an “either/or” category: either you hold to infallibility and you understand scripture according to its historical/literally context, or you hold to inerrancy and therefore must read scripture like a scientific textbook. However, there are many scholars (like Osborne, Blomberg,ect) who hold to inerrancy, and at the same time certainly affirm an appropriate historical/literary/contextual reading of the text – in fact most of the guys that taught us what we know about reading scripture “theologically” and “narratively” consider themselves “inerrantists”
So I emphasize again that the real issue is not the terminology, but what one means by it. However, if you want to press the point of terminology – inerrancy is classically defined saying that scripture, in the original autograph, does not mislead, and it is true and reliable in all matters it addresses. Under these parameters, misappropriate interpretation (reading Scripture like a text book) and bibliolatry are emendations. One could, then, hold to this view of “inerrancy” and affirm everything you said to be true.
If someone means by “inerrancy” what you characterized as “inerrancy”, then you’re definitely right and have made good points. There is one point that I didn’t follow you on (or that you might have meant to say differently). You said that “The Biblical authors don’t seem to be as concerned with presenting historical fact as they are with presenting theological truths and the Grand Narrative.” We have to be carefully here – as if we were to mean that the writers were concerned with ONLY theological matters over against historical ones. As if scripture must be theological OR it must be historical, and all that matters is what the writer meant theologically and not historically (e.g. Schleirmacher, Bultmann). But we want to claim both don’t we? I would argue that the authors weren’t negligent or ignorant toward historical fact – I would argue quite the opposite – that they were very concerned with what actually happened. The point though (what you were probably trying to say and now i’m just being redundant) is that the authors articulated what actually happened in something other than a modern framework, and things like form criticism, literary criticism, ect. help us understand how the authors communicated and used their material.
geeze…a lot more could be said. and we probably just agree anyway. i’ll stop
1.) The either/or framework was part of the assignment. We had to pick a side and defend it.
2.) Why use the term “inerrancy” if you nuance it so much that it means the same thing as “infallibility”?
3.) We do want to claim both. The key word was “as.” However, I was unclear even though you did get my point. Sorry I don’t have your brain.
4.) I got an A.
1. I guess you’re lucky i wasn’t grading your paper then.
2. My brain isn’t the only thing you wish you had.
love,
seth
3. you should come to chicago, and we’ll talk about this more.