Like Button

Monday, September 19, 2011

Is Biblical Inerrancy New?

The Bible has come under attack in the last half century. Well, longer, I suppose. Beginning in the late 19th century with "higher criticism", many have moved away from any sort of "reliable Scripture" to "a nice book that has some really good things in it" or something like that. Liberalism had come upon the Bible. Of course, a counter response was forthcoming and two groups, the Fundamentalists and the Evangelicals followed, standing firmly on the inerrancy of Scripture. That concept, that the Bible is without error, has really come across hard times at the end of the 20th century and into the 21st. In the 70's, the "conservative" Fuller Seminary moved from "the Bible is the Word of God" to "the Bible contains the Word of God". Today, the whole concept of inerrancy is considered silly by liberal Christianity and questioned by those who still call themselves "Evangelicals". "You know," they tell us, "the inerrancy of the Bible is a new idea. It was never held before you fundamentalists held it" because, you see, only one who is a fundamentalist (whacko, although that descriptive is usually implied, not spoken) would hold that doctrine.

John D. Woodbridge is a research professor of church history and the history of Christian thought at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois. He has written an interesting article on the topic that denies this accusation. Rather than being a new doctrine, Woodbridge says that it has been the case since the beginning.

The accusation was that A.A. Hodge and B.B. Warfield were feeling the press of higher criticism and responded in 1881 with a new concept -- biblical inerrancy. The accuser, Ernest Sandeen, back in 1970 claimed that the doctrine didn't exist before them. Hodge and Warfield, on the other hand, claimed that their view had been the standard view of the Church since the early church fathers. So, who was right?

Augustine was not unknown, nor was he unknown for his statements on the subject. In a response to the suggestion from St. Jerome that Paul wasn't being completely honest when he wrote Gal 2:14, Augustine said, "It seems to me that the most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the sacred books: that is to say that the men by whom the Scripture has been given to us, and committed to writing, did put down in these books anything false." He went on to say, "If you once admit into such a high sanctuary of authority one false statement ... , there will not be left a single sentence of those books which, if appearing to any one difficult in practice or hard to believe, may not by the same fatal rule be explained away, as a statement in which, intentionally, ... the author declared what was not true." Now, you may disagree with Augustine (as many have disagreed with me when I've made similar claims), but what you cannot disagree with is the claim that this idea of biblical inerrancy is new, or that the concern about the outcome of denying that doctrine would be dangerous to Christianity was a product of modern silliness. Augustine went on from there. He wrote The Harmony of the Gospels and said, "in order to carry out this design to a successful conclusion, we must prove that the writers in question do not stand in any antagonism to each other." The Gospels, he assured us, did not contradict each other. Augustine's approach to Scripture was that the original documents were perfectly inerrant and reliable. Regarding translations of the originals, he said, "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." What was not in question was the actual text.

Woodbridge goes on to cite a string of "witnesses", including Johannes Eck (1496-1543), a contemporary of Martin Luther, and Richard Simon (1638-1712). Eck warned Erasmus, "Do you suppose any Christian will patiently endure to be told that the evangelists in their Gospel made mistakes?" (Is that a claim that only false Christians would endure such an accusation regarding mistakes in Scripture?) Simon is considered by many to be "the Father of Higher Criticism." Simon wrote about the belief of the Jews and Christians regarding biblical inerrancy, "One is not able to doubt that the truths contained in Holy Scripture are infallible and of a divine authority, since they come immediately from God, who in doing this used the ministry of men as his interpreters." Thus, the Father of Higher Criticism confirmed that the doctrine of biblical inerrancy preceded higher criticism as well as Hodge and Warfield or modern Evangelicalism.

Well, there is a lot more in there and it's a good read. Woodbridge goes far in dispelling the myth that the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy is a new thing, but demonstrates that it has always been the case for the Church. From Augustine through modern times, the doctrine has been maintained by the orthodox and revived repeatedly when opposition forces tried to take it down. It was held up in Augustine's day as an assault on the reliability of Scripture, repeated through the Roman Catholic period when some would claim otherwise, agreed upon by both the Roman Catholic Church and the Reformers, sustained in the 19th century when higher criticism and the new god, science, attempted to tear it down, and continued to be one of the premier marks of Evangelicalism. So, I suppose I'm not entirely accurate when I say that the Bible has come under attack lately. But you can certainly set aside that tired old argument that "no one believed that before the 19th century" or the like. Lies, all lies. The Church has always believed it.

26 comments:

David said...

That's all well and good, but these days it doesn't matter what the Church Fathers believed, or the Church has believed from the beginning. We are newly enlightened to see the Truth that isn't quite clearly told in our storybook we call the Bible. And though we no longer have a basis for Truth, we're going to argue against those that maintain that basis, because we're smarter now than they were then, so NYAH!
If they are going to throw out all these other beliefs that you've talked on, even the the Church has continuously held to that belief, why would inerrancy be any different? Not that you shouldn't make the argument that the Church has held this view, that is a good point to be made, but if they've ignored this argument in other areas, they won't hesitate to ignore it out now.

Stan said...

The funny thing to me (of late) is that I've so often heard the reverse argument. "Well, if the Church couldn't agree on this doctrine, why do you think we can?" But the things I've been looking at of late are things that all the Church for all time has always agreed upon. I guess the bottom line is that people will believe whatever they choose to believe. And I will still continue to view the Bible as God's inerrant Word, the Holy Spirit as fully capable of leading His own into the truth, and the truth as more real than my often mistaken perceptions of reality.

Craig said...

But Stan, that's all just tradition. You don't just blindly accept tradition do you? ;)

Craig said...

Just sayin' I actually got this response when I suggested that thousands of years of Christian and Jewish scholarship affirming the accuracy of the OT was not a at all an acceptable reason to suggest that the OT is accurate.

Stan said...

Yeah, I've heard the same. And, of course, the right answer is not that it is "just tradition". The right answer is that Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would lead His disciples into all truth. The requirement, then, is that HE FAILED. Well, He didn't fail. It just was too hard for Him to accomplish until this latest generation of believers finally learned to listen to Him. I personally reject that notion of Christ's promise and the abilities of the Holy Spirit. I find the supreme arrogance of "We figured it out when no one else could" and the assault on the power and effectiveness of God's Spirit to be too massive to contemplate. Tradition? Not as much of a deal to me.

Craig said...

I totally agree on the arrogance part, it just blows my mind when you hear people act like they are the first person who ever thought about this stuff.

While, I'm not much on tradition for the sake of tradition, there are just too many really intelligent godly people who have wrestled with these kinds of things for years and why not start from the foundation we already have?

Stan said...

I suppose that would sound unkind or condescending if I took that approach, but you're right. I mean, we don't ask our algebra teachers to prove that 2+2=4 once our earlier math teachers demonstrated it. Modern science isn't advanced by repeating older findings. Yet modern "Christianity" seems to think they have a unique insight.

Still, for me it remains ultimately a question of the ability of the Holy Spirit to lead His own into the truth. It took Him 2000 years for this?

Dan Trabue said...

Craig asked...

why not start from the foundation we already have?

The simple answer is: Because it leaves you with a God that might command you to kill babies or who knows what else and with a god who might command you to do evil, which leaves you with a contradictory "word of God" and one that is inconsistent with itself (which is it? Is it WRONG to shed innocent blood or is it sometimes OKAY to do so? It can't be both, can it??) and illogical.

The result of that is a Christianity that increasingly seems morally and spiritually irrelevant and anti-rationality/anti-morality, which is an astonishing thing.

Not striving to be combative, I'm just trying to point out what the problems objectively are with your positions.

Stan said...

The assumption, then, is that for all of time the Jews and the Church had a morally and spiritually irrelevant belief system that was anti-rational and anti-moral. Today, of course, we've managed to figure it out. The only possible conclusion is that all of Judaism and Christianity prior to today failed to see that a historical narrative understanding of the text would be contradictory and inconsistent and contrary to God's nature, but we have solved the problem that they never saw. And, the only possible understanding is that the Holy Spirit FAILED for 2,000 years to get across to the Church what He has finally managed to get across to you. And you see this is a reasonable position to take.

Marshal Art said...

"The simple answer is: Because it leaves you with a God that might command you to kill babies..."

No, Dan. It might leave YOU with that kind of god, but it hasn't once led me, or I assume, Stan, Craig and others on this side of this issue to believe any such thing. You have no real basis for such a premise. You simply like to use that to make your weak point.

Dan Trabue said...

Stan, the church "failed" to strongly oppose slavery for hundreds and hundreds of years. The church "failed" to oppose sexism for hundreds and hundreds of years. The church "failed" to understand medicine in a modern way for hundreds of years.

There is no sin in learning from the mistakes of the past. It would be wrong, I would hope you could agree, to suppose that the church was and is infallible on every point. That would be sort of a blasphemy, wouldn't it? Presuming to make ourselves perfect? Into "gods"?

The point remains: The problem with the interpretation is it leaves you with an inconsistent and possibly immoral Bible, god or both. IF you rely upon that interpretation.

Stan said...

"The problem with the interpretation is it leaves you with an inconsistent and possibly immoral Bible, god or both. IF you rely upon that interpretation."

Or you have failed to understand (because, you know, the funny thing is I rely on that interpretation and do not see any of the problems that you do).

David said...

Gotta love the presumption that the women and children and goats and cows and on and on that were commanded by God to be killed were all innocent. Sure, maybe they hadn't done any of the "big" sins, but we're told in the New Testament that no one is innocent, no one is righteous, no one is good. So, from God's point of view all those women and children were traitors to His throne, and even in our society, traitors are executed. The fact that Mankind has survived this long is only based on God's mercy in staying His hand in executing traitorous criminals. But, if you want to think we've got a better understanding of innocent than God, by all means, accuse Him of ordering the deaths of the "innocent", since He pretty clearly ordered it. To me, that's a sign of a lack of conforming to the Word of God, and more of a conforming to the word of Man. Who's word are you gonna believe?

Dan Trabue said...

You don't see a problem with a god that might command the killing of babies and children?

You see, that's the problem with your interpretation and approach: You just don't see why that's a moral, logical and biblical problem.

Stan said...

I have to say, Dan, that you are simply astounding. The church "failed to strongly oppose slavery" ... although there is no biblical injunction against slavery. The church "failed to oppose sexism" ... although no command of God demands it. And apparently it is a sin to fail to comprehend medicine??? Or is your version of "all truth" every single possible scrap of knowledge? On the other hand, the Bible clearly forbids a man to lay with a man as with a woman, but you're not opposed to that. There are lots of things you disagree with, in fact. But your agreement isn't any better. You believe that God is really concerned about having too much worldly goods, but you haven't done anything to get rid of them yourself. You agree that murder is a sin, but aren't willing to impose such a belief on women killing their unborn babies. Yet you want the church to impose your belief that slavery is a sin on the world? Really astounding.

Clearly you have failed to understand. You believe in the sinless when Scripture explicitly denies it. You decry "the killing of babies" when God Himself says, "If a calamity occurs in a city has not the LORD done it?" When a baby dies in a tornado or a hurricane, who do you think did it? Well, I suppose it's not the God of the Bible who claims to work all things after the counsel of His will or Christ who claimed "All authority is given to Me." Indeed, while the singularly highest, all-encompassing attribute of God is His holiness, you have a measly God who is required to conform to your sense of right and wrong and certainly doesn't do whatever you consider to be "mean" instead of the God who struck Nadab and Abihu dead for offering strange fire because "By those who come near Me I will be treated as holy, and before all the people I will be honored."

Different sense of morals. Different sense of "sinful". Different sort of God. Yeah, I'm sure you understand your version of Man and of God, but it's not the one I see in the Bible. The one I see in the Bible is entirely consistent.

David said...

I would have to ask, by who's standard is that a moral, logical, or biblical dilemma? If I hold that the OT is an accurate historical narrative preserved to be true by the work of the Spirit, and that God doesn't command sin, then I must hold that the Israelites killing women and children isn't a sin and that God had a good reason for it. I have to believe that God is the ultimate authority on morality and thus His command to execute women and children must be just. Otherwise I have to try to explain away what the Bible says, or redefine moral and just.

Craig said...

So, we must learn from the "mistakes" of the past, while dismissing everything else as tradition. The fact that some in the church made mistakes and possibly interpreted things poorly, in no way means that you throw everything out.

Also, I am not at all concerned that God will command me to kill "innocent" women and children. Perhaps this is due to not having a narrow view of God.

David, but it goes against Reason to believe that.

David said...

Which part is unreasonable?

Stan said...

Craig can correct me, David, but I think that was a tongue-in-cheek statement.

Craig said...

David,

Stan is correct. There are those who seem to elevate Reason to a higher level than it deserves.

Stan said...

God tells us "Come now, let us reason together." We are called to be transformed by "the renewing of your minds". We are, indeed, to have "the mind of Christ". In all of this I would argue that Reason is a key component of biblical understanding. The problem isn't "Reason". The problem is "It doesn't make sense TO ME. Therefore, it is not reasonable." Forgetting the key problem ... the suppression of truth.

Craig said...

I would suggest placing "Reason" as the final test of whether scripture is accurate shows a bit of hubris. I would agree that reason is a tool, but it's nothing more. For that matter if it was "lets reason together" instead of "my Reason tells me...", it probably wouldn't be an issue for me. You just mentioned us wanting to put ourselves in God's place, I see this dependence on "Reason" as a symptom of exactly that.

Stan said...

Point taken. The use of "Reason" as opposed to "reason" (a favorite tool of mine) indicates that in one case Reason is king, god, the decider, and in the other it is a component, a factor, something to include.

I love the line from Paul to Timothy: "Think over what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything" (2 Tim 2:7). Yes, we think, we reason, we analyze, we use our minds ... but the final determiner of understanding is the Lord who gives it.

Craig said...

Stan,

Amen, I've been getting sniped at for a week now for insisting just that. That it is somehow wrong to turn to the Holy Spirit for guidance, rather than reason.

FYI I usually capitalize reason in that context for exactly the reason you gave. The fact that reason is somehow the final arbiter of true and false.

David said...

Then I guess I should have stuck with my original question, "Which part is un"Reason"able?" :p

Stan said...

I do the same thing with "Truth" to reference genuine truth rather than mere perception and "Free Will" when it is made the god of choice as opposed to simple "free will" as the ability to choose.

And my contention that, if the contention that the Old Testament is "epic" or "myth" or something other than what it seems, the Holy Spirit has failed to lead His people into the truth hasn't warmed people's heart at all.