Certain questions about Scripture have dominated the Christian church throughout modernity. Most of those questions served the purpose of defining the exact nature of the Bible with terms like inspired, inerrant, infallible and supreme authority. In many circles, how one answered these questions revealed whether one was a true Christian or not. For example, in certain denominations (like the Baptist one I grew up in) it was not enough to believe in the inspiration of Scripture, one had to believe in the “Verbal Plenary Inspiration” of the Bible to be a true believer. “Verbal Plenary Inspiration” means that God supernaturally directed the human writers of Scripture so that God’s complete and coherent message to mankind was recorded with perfect accuracy in the original languages of the Bible. The very words of the original manuscripts were the very words of God, totally without error in every area including theology, history, geography, and science.
It is important to note that this obsession emerged with the Protestant Reformation’s emphasis on the supremacy of Scripture in the early 16th century and does not accurately reflect the pre-modern approach to the Bible. I also believe many of these concerns are being rendered irrelevant as we move from modernity into the emerging paradigm commonly referred to as postmodernity. In fact, some of the more fanatical modern beliefs about Scripture are beyond irrelevancy and downright dangerous.
For example, last year Congressman John Shimkus exemplified the reckless naivety of this attitude in a speech he made to the House Energy Subcommittee declaring that global warming isn’t something we need to worry about because in the Bible God told Noah that he wouldn’t destroy the earth again after the great flood. He opened his Bible and read aloud Genesis 8:21-22:
“Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though all inclinations of his heart are evil from childhood and never again will I destroy all living creatures as I have done. As long as the earth endures, seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, will never cease.”
“I believe that’s the infallible word of God, and that’s the way it’s going to be for his creation.” Shimkus concluded. I don’t want to come across as snide but I find it more than a little disturbing when a Christian uses the Noah narrative as grounds for abandoning our call to be good stewards of creation (caretakers of the environment.) Even more frightening is the fact Shimkus could soon be the Environmental Policy Leader of the House in the United States.
I am not bringing all of this up to debunk the theological position of Scriptural inerrancy and infallibility or to attack those who view the Bible this way. (I know Christians who hold to the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture but in no way would agree with what Shimkus is suggesting.)
My objective is twofold:
- To encourage those who hold modernistic understandings of the Bible (i.e. the inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God) to cautiously and prayerfully consider the possibility that the Bible might be viewed other ways without one automatically falling into heresy or damning oneself to hell. Perhaps where we stand on the Bible is not as high on God’s list of criteria for what makes one a Christ-like person as we have been led to believe. Perhaps we should take Jesus and Paul seriously when they say the Scriptures can be summed up in one sentence – love God with your whole being and love others as you love yourself. I would encourage us to give more time, passion, thought, energy and significance to the mandate of love than to an agenda of making sure everyone agrees with our theological position on Scripture.
- To suggest that we might be asking the wrong questions with regards to the Bible when we become fixated on things like inerrancy and infallibility. As a follower of Jesus in the postmodern paradigm I am not concerned with these questions. Primarily because I believe they cannot be answered meaningfully. You cannot prove the Bible is inspired, inerrant or infallible and the circular reasoning (i.e. we know the Bible is God’s Word because God says it is and we know God says it is because that’s what the Bible says) that seemed to work for many people of faith in the past has lost its persuasive punch for many of us today. This is okay. We need to learn to let go sometimes! The question regarding Scripture I would like to suggest we focus on as important and relevant is: What is the role of Scripture for followers of Jesus in the time and place we find ourselves? (i.e. postmodernity)
I am attempting to keep my posts short and to the point so I will give my response to this question in my next post. On another note, I realize this subject is sensitive to many Christians. My aim is not to offend anyone, attack or belittle any group’s stance on Scripture or to increase divisions but rather foster friendly conversation and provide safe space for Christians to think about this stuff.
For common ground and the greater good.
eppster
wiebe
leahgood
Laura Mullet Koop
tracieonaquest
troydwatson
Another Tribe Called Quest 
Great post Troy and some great questions. I look forward to your follow up response. I am sure you have read N.T. Wrights article “how the bible can be authoritative.”. It is a great place to start for questions like these.
Interestingly enough I also think denominations like the baptists are starting to recognize some of the issues you raise in your post. During my ordination council (which was through the baptist denomination) I refused to use any of the words you mention above in regards to scripture (inerrant and infallible) and still passed. I think this is an issue many are wrestling with so I eagerly await your follow up post.
Hey Troy (brother to brad?) and Brad,
My name is Matt Fraser. I am an old friend of Brad`s from his school days and now work as a missionary in Zambia. I stumbled across your post through facebook, and I too am interested in this topic. Your whole post is interesting, and it seems biblical authority is a perennial issue for Christians, a factor which shows its importance for people from all perspectives. I have limited internet access as I live in Africa, but I just wanted to make a few comments about the whole thing. To state my position openly at the beginning (as I appreciate it when others do this for me for I find it reduces confusion) I am an inerrantist but am concerned about the environment. Thus, I will respond to your post in the same order in which you wrote. Concerning the good senators statements about the Bible and the earth, I agree with them in what he says (although he may not say enough). I could have said the same. His statement does not abdicate our job of being vice-regents and ruling creation with care. However, God does make a promise to sustain livable conditions (whatever might come of human rebellion in the future) on the earth in the very opposite way that he had destroyed the earth through the flood. This does not promise that global warming cannot and does not happen (maybe something assumed by the good senator, I don’t know) but it does ensure that global warming has not escaped God in his intentions or sovereign will and he will preserve livable conditions for the world (this does not exclude huge loss of life for some and destruction for others). We must be careful not to make this statement say too much (as the senator may have done) believing that humans make no different to the earth’s health or to say nothing at all (as this text is so often ignored in creation ethics) and to believe that God has completely delegated earth care to us. For a fuller exploration I recommend Christopher Wright’s Old Testament Ethics of the People of God. In terms of the NT, Douglas Moo has a helpful article on New Testament Eschatology and Environmentalism, arguing against some dispensational readings. God’s sovereign goal for creation should provide us with tangible goals, but statements about taking good care of God’s land are clear enough elsewhere in the Bible that we need not feel threatened that a statement about God being in control of climate and a good number of other things undercuts responsible stewardship.
Concerning inerrancy, this is probably the much thornier issue of the two. I have read Wright’s essay (and he reworking of it in the New Testament and the People of God, the two volumes by Carson and Woodbrige, most of Volume 4 in Carl Henry’s series and some other scattered things here and there. By no means an expert, I do come with a little bit of experience.
I agree that the Bible can be viewed in other ways than innerrancy without people being heretics (I don’t know many [if any] innerantists who would say this?). Those with other views on scripture may be (unfortunately) shunned by certain Churches (I assume this is a veiled reference to Temple Baptist), but most people who deal seriously in these issues realize the issues are more complex. And, rather than distracting from the cause of the ‘two great love commandments,’ I think innerrantist and anyone else who debates seriously about such things think they are loving God by making sure what we say about him is true. We would not accept false statements about what our spouse has said? How much less our God? Furthermore, the way in which God has spoken matters deeply for our fellow human beings (both Christian and non-Christian), thus fulfilling the second commandment. If the Bible is only a record of religious experience and God-conciousness (so Schliermacher), then this matters how we use it in people’s lives. This concern is very much like your own of what role the Scripture plays in peoples lives, but careful thinking (the formulation of doctrine) in the area of Scripture is important. A vague doctrine of scripture will lead to lack of confidence in how we should use the scripture, and therefore, lack of confidence when we use it (whatever we perceive that to be). Thus, although our doctrine of Scripture is not the center of our faith, it does have a profound impact on how we love God and others, and I think all who debate the issue would say the same thing. That is not to say we should not care for street kids or help AIDS orphans, but good thinking is important. It is a clear doctrine of scripture that has led me to do these very things. But I digress.
To return to innerrancy (I take inerrancy to mean ‘without error in all it affirms- but what have to be careful what we say the Bible affirms), ever since a series of books in the 1980s people have thought that innerrancy is an idea that has only emerged in the last two centuries, mainly finding its origins from the old Princeton theologians (such as Charles Hodge, well known for his Systematic Theology). Whenever the term innerrancy emerged is up for debate, but the idea of the Bible being without error is actually quite old. Hans Kung, and many other theologians who are not innerrantists, will gladly confess that for most of church history the Bible has been considered “without error.” Obviously, I cannot rehearse the whole of church history here, so I will just put down a few quotes which demonstrate the strong lineage that innerancy has in church history (granted without their context) that point clearly toward this idea.
Augustine (who is clearly a pre-modern and a towering figure among the church fathers)
“I have learned to yield this respect and honor only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And 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 it.”
Luther
“But everyone, indeed knows that at times they [the Fathers] have erred as men will; therefore I am ready to trust them only when they prove their opinions from Scripture, which has never erred.”
“The Word of God is perfect: it is precious and pure: it is truth itself. There is no falsehood in it.”
Concerning the circular reasoning, we all use circular reasoning and we need to get over that. If we assume anything to have ultimate authority, then we can use no other authority to verify its authority. Scientists are not shamed out of appealing to the ‘self-evident’ presuppositions they have in their scientific method, why should Christians be? In fact, if we appeal to something else (whether it be the historical record or any other science) to prove the Bible is true, we have made that criteria the ultimate authority for truth. To appeal to any other authority to prove the Bible’s authority would be to remove the Bible as the ultimate authority. There is nothing wrong with the Bible claiming itself true and authoritative (although it may not convince outsiders), so long as it is true. And if the Bible claims to be completely truthful and is not, well then you have the Bible in clear error (purposeful deception?) in matters of not just history but doctrine. This leads us down the garden path very quickly, and in a very different direction than historic orthodox Christianity. I believe the Bible does repeatedly affirm its truthfulness in both Old and New Testaments (although a discussion of canon could quickly arise here). Indeed, one could rightly say that Augustine’s thought quoted above emerge from a Biblical framework. All sorts of sciences and philosophies appeal to their own writings as an authority (which may also not convince those outside there circle). To insist on another authority to which to verify the Bible leads us toward a strong foundationalism by which some sort of self-evident reason judges all things. The real question is whether or not what the Bible adequately accords with the reality of the world. This is a form of critical-realism epistemology (argued for by Wright, Carson, and a great many other scholars). Jesus takes just such an approach when he says in John’s gospel that “If anyone’s will is to do God’s will, he will know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority.” (John 7:17). Christianity can affirm its truthfulness, and this should be a legitimate proof to insiders, but for outsiders the only real proof is an assumption of the Biblical worldview (at least for the sake of argument).
Finally, one final note on ‘verbal plenary’ inspiration. Some say that God only inspired the ideas behind the Bible and others say God inspired the words, but this is a false dichotomy. A short study in linguistics, discourse analysis, and lexical semantics tells us an idea is composed not just of words, and that the definition of each word in the sentence is informed by all the other words in the sentence and even paragraph. Obviously if one says that the words are inspired, this probably means that the ideas are inspired. But, as we can learn from the studies of language noted above, an idea simply cannot be separated from the words in which it is expressed, and neither can the words be separated from the idea. The ‘idea’ of a whole paragraph is different if one changes the words, and the meaning of the words is different if one changes the context of a word, sentence, or paragraph.
And as for Brad my old buddy, I say this toungue-in-cheek? You refused to use the words ‘innerancy,’ etc. in your council? Why? Is lack of precision in theology an admirable trait? The words, if carefully defined, are at least useful in clarifying what you are not. Julian would be shocked and appalled. 😉
Sorry for rambling on like this. I don’t blame you if you don’t allow my post. I hope this is at least a helpful contribution to the discussion. I look forward to chatting more about this, if my internet holds up.
Grace to you both,
M
Matt,
Wow. That was a long comment. You have given me a lot to think about. You are obviously well read in this area. It will take me a while to digest everything and respond in kind. Keep it coming though – without this kind of dialogue none of learn or grow. Thanks man.
Wow Matt, good to hear from you all the way from Africa, and yes, that was long, and I am just seeing it now. Suffice it to say, that yes, I do believe lack of precision in theology might be an admirable trait. If theology is the study of God and I have my theology figured out precisely, what does that make of me and the God I have so precisely defined?