Recently I wrote an entry that spoke of "biblical inerrancy" as an "essential doctrine", a basic belief necessary for the integrity of Christianity (as opposed to a belief necessary for salvation). I followed that with a post on Biblical Inerrancy itself -- is it logical and is it biblical? Of course, that whole concept is under fire these days. Skeptics even within the general heading of "Christianity" are pretty sure that the Bible we have is not inerrant. These assumptions vary in intensity. Some say, "The Bible is wholly reliable ... but, of course, we don't really know how to read it these days." Others are quite sure that what we have is wholly unreliable. There are, surely, pieces of truth in there, but figuring out which is which is a puzzle that, ultimately, can't be solved. Bottom line ... the Bible isn't as reliable as those who hold to inerrancy might think.
It begs the question. The entire Mormon Church and a vast array of varying and large groups say that biblical inerrancy is not true and not important. I said it was "essential". So how important is it really? Is there any reason for me to call it "essential"? Here's my reasoning.
The argument is derived largely from the position that says, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." That, of course, isn't a mere "position". It's a biblical claim. The logical conclusion is that if God exhaled it, it would be right. Evidence would include things like answered prophecy, the signs performed by genuine spokesmen for God, the internal consistency of a document written by multiple authors over a thousand years, that sort of thing. It is at this point that we discover the importance as well. How reliable ... is God?
How important is an inerrant Bible? As it turns out, the Bible is the source document for Christian doctrine. There are other sources available, but none with the same weight. Some may value Augustine's writings or Calvin or Luther or the word of the Pope, not to mention an innumerable pile of currently popular voices, but these are subjective. If the Bible is not the primary, reliable source, these all become a matter of opinion. "I like this one." "I like the other." "I think for myself." Without an inerrant Bible, then, we have an errant source document. Christianity itself becomes, frankly, a matter of opinion. You don't like the story of the Flood? Fine, maybe it didn't happen. You think that Christians should be handling deadly snakes? Sure, why not? It doesn't really matter because we can't really know. Historic orthodoxy is irrelevant. The ruling source becomes ... whatever you want to believe.
How important, then, is an inerrant Bible? Apart from the arguments (for or against), the question isn't merely, "Do we have an inerrant Bible?" Despite the accusations that we can't trust the Bible, that it's all "man-made", that we can't really know anything, the question isn't small. If we don't have a source document we can trust, we don't have doctrine we can trust. There is no possibility of unity. Christianity becomes a subjective set of beliefs. Without a reliable Bible, we are pretty much on our own. As a matter of fact, we might as well stop the arguing. There's no way to know anything or to argue anything. It's over, folks.
(Side Note: As a related but coincidental item, here is an interesting piece on where we got our Bible and is it changed?)
12 comments:
It seems many Christians make an idol of the bible. The Bible is the source document for Christians, but Jesus is the "source" of Christianity.
On biblical inerrancy:
1.On Tim 3:16 — the Greek word the writer uses is "Theopneustos", and means "breathed by or from God" — it does not mean or say "all Scripture is written or spoken by God".
2. The writer of Timothy has in mind the OT — written in Hebrew and even though Orthodox Jews believe God dictated the Torah, they do not think God dictated all the books, psalms and histories of the OT.
3. Since Jesus spoke Aramaic and the Gospels are written in Greek, now way these are actual words of Jesus.
4. Belief in biblical inerrancy is not based on what the bible explicitly says — instead, based on an argument that if God inspires Scripture, then God will prevent any errors occurring in it. But that underminded by Scripture itself — many small mistakes are in the Bible — Matt 28:2 v. John 20:1 for one example.
5. When the Timothy letter says all Scripture is useful for teaching, it is not saying it is just a collection of true beliefs we have to learn by heart — it is saying that prayerful reflection on Scripture, exploration of its difficulties and mysteries, search for its hidden meanings will be of great spiritual profit. Biblical texts convey insight by evoking discussion.
6. The view of biblical revelation as adopted by fundamentalists is more like that of Islam than of Christianity.'
7. The Bible is not one harmonious narrative or set of doctrines.
Naum: "The Bible is the source document for Christians, but Jesus is the 'source' of Christianity."
Interesting. While, certainly, Jesus is the "source of Christianity", all we know about Jesus comes from the Bible. Thus, the point is circular at best and meaningless at worst. (I will explain the worst.)
Naum: "it does not mean or say 'all Scripture is written or spoken by God'."
Nor does anyone (anyone I know) claim it does. It says He breathed it out. The idea is that He "exhaled" it and men wrote it. He told them what to write (not word for word, but concept) and they wrote it in their own way (personality, vocabulary, etc.) while He superintended it. Or, we have the opposite possibility -- God "breathed it out" and ... people did whatever they wanted with it. Duplicated it, twisted it, ignored it, whatever.
Naum: "The writer of Timothy has in mind the OT."
Two things. First, your use of the phrase "the writer of Timothy" tells us that you don't believe that Paul wrote it, or, at best, you have reason to doubt it. No reason, then, to assume that it has a modicum of either truth or authority. Second, I wholly disagree. He wrote "all Scripture". Unless there was a prior commitment to "the Old Testament is the ONLY Scripture and nothing else can be", there is no reason to think he intended anything other than ... "all Scripture".
Naum: "now (SIC) way these are actual words of Jesus."
First, how do you know that the Gospels were not originally written in Aramaic? There is the "Peshitta", the Aramaic New Testament, and there are those who argue (with some interesting evidence) that the New Testament was written in Aramaic and then translated into Greek. Second, since "Jesus is the 'source' of Christianity" and "no way these are actual words of Jesus", we can't really know anything, can we? (See "worst case" above.)
(Since words are limited, I'm skipping a few arguments.)
Naum: "The Bible is not one harmonious narrative or set of doctrines."
I will not dispute your position, even though I am thoroughly convinced it is wrong. However, once again you have skipped the point of the post and gone into a disputation of an argument I didn't make (here). My argument was essentially this: If the Bible is not the inerrant Word of God, then we have no source document we can trust and Christianity becomes a subjective, unreliable religion ... whatever each person cares to make of it. Your statement here makes my point. Your removal of the New Testament as Scripture at all makes my point. Your questioning of the Pauline authorship makes my point. Your questioning of the words of Jesus makes my point. Christianity, without the "idol" (your concept, certainly not mine) of a reliable source document is meaningless. Your arguments, then, while off target from my post, certainly demonstrate the point.
1. Yes the Bible is a "witness" to Jesus. But it's not Jesus.
2. How can a Bible written in English, translated from Greek (or Latin in some cases) based on remembrance of spoken Aramaic be the "exact words"? Even in the same language, word meanings "morph" over time. Let alone, the differences in the way ancient interpreters viewed Scripture.
3. I don't know if Paul or another wrote Timothy — if bible scholars (who spend their entire life in study) cannot agree on this, how can I be sure? It really is not germane to the points made, however.
Finally, IMO, you're advancing an absolutist fundamentalist argument when you write "If the Bible is not the inerrant Word of God, then we have no source document we can trust and Christianity becomes a subjective, unreliable religion" — an "all or nothing" argument that even those who take Scripture literally pick and choose.
C.S. Lewis: The total result is not “the Word of God” in the sense that every passage, in itself, gives impeccable science or history. It carries the Word of God and we (under grace, with attention to tradition and to interpreters wiser than ourselves and with the use of such intelligence and learning as we may have) receive that word from it not by using it as an encyclopedia or an encyclical but by steeping ourselves in its tone and temper and so learning its overall message.
Naum: "the Bible is a 'witness' to Jesus. But it's not Jesus."
Which means ...? The only way, then, to know "Christianity" is to go to the source ... which you cannot do except by some supernatural means ...? What is the point of this argument? (By "argument" I mean "line of reasoning", not "fight".)
Naum: "word meanings 'morph' over time. Let alone, the differences in the way ancient interpreters viewed Scripture."
Translation: "We cannot know what the Bible actually means; we can only guess. We can only offer thoughtful opinions. We can't know for sure."
Naum: "if bible scholars (who spend their entire life in study) cannot agree on this, how can I be sure?"
Once you accused me of copping out using an argument from ... who was it? ... Joyce Meyers, I think. This is a classic cop out. "They can't decide; how can I?" The truth is lots of people have. Because scholars (often with skeptic biases) can't doesn't mean it cannot happen. Still, you prove my point. If Bible Scholars can't decide what the Bible means, how can I know? I can't. It's all up to whatever you wish to believe.
Naum: "you're advancing an absolutist fundamentalist argument"
First, since you disagree with the argument, please offer an alternative. Since you affirm that we cannot be sure, please explain to me on what basis we can have any confidence of an actual, solid basis for doctrine or practice? (Note: The C.S. Lewis quote is a strawman argument. When we argue for "inerrancy", we are not arguing, "The Bible must be read like a science book." Inerrancy has always held that the Word of God is inerrant in what it addresses. Since it doesn't address a heliocentric solar system, any conclusions from the Bible regarding such (for or against) would be conjecture (by way of example). Inerrancy doesn't suggest "that every passage, in itself, gives impeccable science or history." Thus, it is either a strawman argument (we make no such claim) or a red herring.)
Look, it is a given that different people come to different conclusions regarding what the Bible says. If it is not actually "God-breathed", Holy Spirit-inspired, supernaturally superintended to be accurate, then it is a matter of opinion. It cannot, in this case, be authoritative. So when you toss out inerrancy and argue with a pejorative "fundamentalist!" cry, with what are we left? You say it's not "all or nothing". What then? When you offer biblical reasons for such and such a position, how can you offer biblical reasons? Isn't it merely your understanding of passage x which may differ from mine and, therefore, be purely subjective? Do you see the problem? Or is there some alternative of which I'm not aware?
In the begining was the Bible. And the Bible was with God. And the Bible was God.
What a minute...that doesn't sound quite right.
Is 'the Word'... 'the Bible'?
Or is the Bible an aspect of the Word?
Well, if the Bible is God-breathed, the genuine "Word of God", then it is an expression of God's thoughts. Christ Himself, of course, would be the expression of God's thoughts. (Kind of the point that Naum made at the beginning.) However, if we don't have a reliable Bible, we don't have any way of knowing what Christ expressed. So we're at an impasse.
This debate certainly validates the Biblical principle that there is nothing new under the sun. Satan is still asking the question "Did God really say...?"
Yeah, but, Dan ... why should we use biblical principles, eh? :)
Let me come at this debate from a different direction with another question, specifically in response to your (Stan, in original post) stated "…if we don't have a source document…"…
The church and band of Christ followers in the initial centuries AD were an oral culture. Besides the obvious differences in modalities between written and oral communications, a vastly different array of culture was in effect for a population where "the word" meant the spoken word. People in an oral culture grok information, knowledge, wisdom in a different manner than in a written culture. The written word espouses a "it is written", so "that settles it" belief window, whereas with oral tradition, the narrative is "true", but the emphasis is on the overarching story itself, and not the "details". In fact this cultural clash was an epic fallout in the post-Gutenberg era, where advancing literacy met head-on the style of the "ancient" interpreters.
Flash forward to modern times. Where we now are transitioning from that written culture we've inhabited for 400+ years and year by year, are entering back into an oral (actually image based) culture. Radio, TV, and now images on ubiquitous computer screens. We're in the throes of another revolution, even if we don't realize we're in the midst of transformative times that are going to rattle cultural memes.
So, do you think it's the same when that "source document" is read aloud (as Paul's letters + other NT epistles) to a gathering as when an individual engages in private study of a hardbound book or a hypertext web page? Or as presented as drama/video to an increasingly semi-literate (but just as intelligent, as literacy (and I write this as a voracious speed reader who consumes volumes of books like few others) is not necessarily correlated to intelligence) post-modern Christians?
As computers, technology, social networking, etc.… shake the mores of "traditional" industrial culture (which has been in effect since 19th century, with a run of ~200 years, ~400 years of a written culture age, where people still "clung" to the old way), the "old" way appears to be rigid and legalistic.
That's Satan's point Stan, we shouldn't! If the Bible is not inerrent, God is not good.
First, Naum, thanks for the new word. I do like vocabulary, and "grok" was new to me. (For others, it means "to share the same reality or line of thinking with another". In case you wonder where that came from -- not normal English, to be sure -- it was coined by science fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein in his 1961 book Stranger in a Strange Land. Obviously I had to look it up.)
For a culture of "oral tradition", it seems like Jesus used the concept "it is written" an awful lot. Matthew alone records Him using the phrase seven times. Paul uses it over 30 times. Seems like they understood that a written Scripture would have authority, and that what was written was significant.
But, Naum, you still haven't offered an answer to the dilemma. If we cannot take the Bible at face value (I'm trying to choose my words carefully), I hold that we have no common, authoritative source document. If it can only be taken as "the emphasis is on the overarching story itself and not the details", then it becomes subjective. "What was the overarching story? Well, I think it was this." "Oh, no, it was clearly that." "Well, maybe both are true." "Well ... maybe, but they are contradictory." "So?"
Of course, this only has application to a limited portion of the Bible -- the "story" sections. There is a section of poetry and wisdom writings in the Old Testament which are not "story" texts. The largest portion of the New Testament is not "story" text at all. So are we to take the same approach? "Don't bother with the details; it's the overarching message." And, again, who gets to decide what that "overarching message" is? And the moment I ask "who gets to decide" is the moment that my point is made ... again. It all becomes opinion and we don't have an authoritative source document.
So I'm back to the original dilemma. You said my approach was "all or nothing". You haven't offered an alternative. I really want to know the alternative.
Dan, that really is the bottom line question, isn't it? Is God willing and able to give us a source document we can use, or not? Is He able to superintend it and to make it "ageless" or not? Did He anticipate our culture, or is it just a cultural document that leaves future generations (ours) on their own? Is God good or not?
Post a Comment