Someone define inerrancy for me, please!
[If you don't want to read this entire post, but you'd like to participate in the discussion, please skip down to the last two paragraphs.]
I have been part of evangelicalism for about seven years now. When I went to college it was a school organized by Pentecostals who taught Scripture from a Fundamentalist perspective (e.g. Genesis 1 must be six literal days). When I moved into evangelical circles I was taught about inerrancy, but it seemed to be a tad more flexible. For example, someone like John Walton can write about Genesis 1 as the construction of a cosmic temple, argue that Scripture is completely true in what it says, and acknowledge that it doesn’t have to be six literal twenty-four hours days putting it at scientific odds with modern science.
Most evangelicals I know allow for this flexibility, but I’ve been wondering for a while whether or not I understand what is meant by inerrancy. Yes, I am an evangelical, but an adopted one and though I’ve been in the family for some time I still don’t understand the language. Also, I’ve noticed many evangelicals have abandoned or don’t use the word “inerrancy” while teaching about Scripture in a way that I find most comfortable, e.g. Daniel Kirk, Peter Enns. I wondered aloud after watching the Enns situation a few years ago if I understood inerrancy correctly. I found nothing wrong with Inspiration and Incarnation. In fact, it may have rescued me from greater doubts about Scripture. Yet he was driven away because of what he wrote.
I consoled myself by telling myself it was the particular corner of evangelicalism with which he was affiliated that didn’t accept what he wrote, but then I watched as he never came back into an evangelical institution and it made me wonder why. I haven’t asked Enns whether or not he couldn’t find a place to teach or whether he just wanted to go a different direction, but I’ve thought about it a lot. Other situations like Waltke being removed from RTS was similar.
When G.K. Beale left Wheaton College for Westminster Seminary it seemed to confirm for me that within evangelicalism there are more conservative circles and less conservative circles that affirm inerrancy. I assumed Beale and Kevin Vanhoozer or Beale and Nicholas Perrin aren’t that far apart, yet they both belong, so the evangelicalism that does affirm inerrancy has a broad enough definition of the word to allow for a wider-array of interpretations.
Over the last several months I have debated within myself whether or not I want to continue to use the word “inerrancy”. I am very, very comfortable with infallibility. In other words, I think the Scriptures tells us the truth about God in Christ and the Gospel has been faithfully relayed, but I don’t know that I am opposed to there being historical inaccuracies and I expect scientific inaccuracies.
For example, if Luke 2.2 is wrong about Quirinus being a governor in Syria when Jesus was born (I understand there are responses to this accusation like πρώτη being translated “before” rather than “first”) can one acknowledge this and still affirm inerrancy or does one have to say Luke 2.2 must be correct? If Acts 5.36 is anachronistic, and Gamaliel is portrayed as speaking of Theudas many years before it actually happened in 45 CE, can we acknowledge this or must we assume that the author was accurate because one affirms the word “inerrancy”?
When Norm Geisler began attacking Michael Licona (see “If Michael Licona is a heretic then who’s safe?”) because he “dehistoricized” Matthew 27.52-53 it made me think that maybe this word inerrancy is too abused to be useful. Currently, though I respect the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS), and some of my favorite people are highly involved in ETS, I decided to avoid renewing my student membership because I don’t know what I am being asked to affirm.
Does it have to align with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy? If so, I don’t think I can do that. What about what Michael Horton has written on the subject? For instance, he wrote in “The Truthfulness of Scripture: Inerrancy” that if there seem to be contradictions:
“Some discrepancies are due to imperfect copies, which textual criticism properly considers. In other cases, an original reading may be lost, or we may simply fail to have adequate data or be blinded by our presuppositions from understanding a given text. Sometimes we are ‘destitute of the circumstantial knowledge which would fill up and harmonize the record,’ as is true in any historical record. We must also remember that our own methods of testing the accuracy of Scripture ‘are themselves subject to error.’ (A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield, Inspiration (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 27.)
This seems problematic. For example, in the story of Jairus and the woman with the hemorrhage recording in Matthew 9.18-26; Mark 5.21-43; and Luke 8.40-56 there are many details that correspond, yet Matthew differs with Mark and Luke by pointing out that when Jairus arrives at Jesus his daughter is dead already. In Mark and Luke she is dying and very close to death. This is only one small detail and I don’t think it ruins the truthfulness of the account, but it is a difference. As I’ve understood inerrancy it didn’t seem like I could admit that there is a difference here that is somewhat substantial, but I could be wrong.
If inerrancy allows for scientific and historical errors/contradictions/tensions then what makes if different from “infallibility”?
I have invited some people who hold to the confessional position of inerrancy to guest post on this blog. I am waiting to see if this happens. In the meantime, I want to open this discussion to people who affirm inerrancy and people who deny it to explain what it is that you affirm or what it is that you deny when you affirm or deny inerrancy? How do you understand “inerrancy”?
I’ve come to see the term “inerrancy” as a holdover from the liberal vs. fundamentalist battle for the Bible in the 1900′s. As that whole discussion is filled with rhetorical and modernist baggage that I have no interest in affirming (or clarifying my disagreement with) I shy away from using the term.
I have heard articulations or inerrancy which I’m quite comfortable affirming, but usually I find myself asking how they count as Chicago-Statment style inerrancy anymore, and if they don’t why are we bothering with the label?
@Mason: Often I think that part of the problem is exactly what you say. This debated is framed by a bygone language and culture and I am foreign to it. I don’t know what is being argued!
Like you, there are definitions with which I agree and then suddenly someone says, “Inerrancy means/demand/includes A, B, and C.” When I hear this or that it makes me assume that I must not affirm the word. Very confusing.
I am proud to say that I had no idea what the difference was between inerrancy and infallibility until reading this blog post. No, I’m not proud of my ignorance, and I don’t deny that correct terminology in academic or general theological discussion is important.
The reason that I feel no remorse for the lack of attention I’ve given these two words is that in avoiding them I have managed to accomplish several important things:
1. I have not had to divide myself from any other believer.
2. I have not had to squeeze my view of Scripture into a box into which it does not properly fit.
3. I have been able to continue reading the Bible with respect, care, humility and thankfulness to God, without internal crisis or the fear of stumbling across something in the written Word that contradicts my official affirmations.
@Refe: I apologize for spoiling your innocence!
What I do gather is that you find the word useful only for defining who is “in” and who is “out”, but not really for explaining the nature and content of Scripture.
I forgive you
. As for defining “in” and “out,” what other function does requiring an official affirmation like this serve? Not that defining who is in or out is always bad, it’s just that with an issue like inerrancy or infallibility we are discussing things about which Scripture itself only deals with indirectly.
One possible solution would be to always put an adjective in front of the noun, as is done for creationism (e.g., young earth, old earth, day-age, progressive, evolutionary). Applying this to inerrancy, one could, for example, speak of absolute inerrancy, full inerrancy, limited inerrancy, and inerrancy of purpose. This particular set of adjectives is taken from Millard J. Erickson’s “Christian Theology: Unabridged, one-volume edition,” (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990), pp. 222-223, where Erickson gives definitions for each of these options.
I myself am inclined to favor limited inerrancy. I am looking forward to an interesting and lively discussion. Thanks for bringing up this rather complex topic.
@Refe: I assume those who are more positive about the word would say that it is a confessional word that allows the truthfulness and authority of Scripture to be taken seriously over against critical methods, but I would like a more authoritative voice to weigh in!
@Paul: Those terms could be helpful. I took a class with Erickson back in 2006, and I read that textbook, but I forgot about those distinctions.
It’s a commonplace observation that today’s Generals are perfectly trained to fight yesterday’s battles. So, too, with theologians. Institutions move slowly, and rarely have the ability to address the questions most asked today.
Questions like these are exactly why I am a practitioner and not an academic. I have no patience for the questions and fail to see their relevance in everyday life. So with great folly I’ll weigh in: questions of infallibility and inerrancy do not matter, because even if we answer the questions to everyone’s satisfaction, we have only spoken about the text and not the people reading the text. Say whatever you want about the Bible–it will still be read, interpreted, handled and applied by decidedly imperfect people. We will bring our biases, ignorance, and finite capacity to something so much larger than ourselves.
Not because of any flaw in the scripture itself, the practical application of questions about infallibility and inerrancy end up meaning, “The Bible means what I say it mean, and you must agree with me!”
I suppose your right, and that certainly is important.
@Ray : While I do see some differences in pragmatics between someone who affirms Scripture as the Word of God and uses words like “inerrant” or “infallible” and those who think Scripture is just another 100% natural work of literature, I understand you’re overall point. Whether one enters the pulpit thinking of Scripture as “inerrant” or “infallible” will likely make very little difference though, which is what I think you are saying.
Jim West defined “inerrancy” this way:
“…to speak of the Bible as incapable of causing believers to err or stray from the revealed will of God. The Bible reveals the truth about the Divine and the Human. Believers who adhere to that revelation are kept safe from errant behavior or belief and the Scriptures do not err in teaching said proper behavior or belief. Furthermore, those who plant themselves in that revelation are ‘like a tree planted by the waters’ to borrow a phrase from Psalm 1.
“Scripture is inerrant, then, because, rightly understood, it cannot and does not cause error in faith or practice.”
This sounds like how I’ve understood “infallibility”.
Read Jim’s post here: http://zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.com/2010/01/11/rethinking-inerrancy/
I also don’t like using the term “inerrancy” because its definition has become so muddled. Like Paul, I would place myself in Erickson’s “limited inerrancy” camp if I was forced to choose, although I also have a certain attraction to position #7 which views the whole subject as irrelevant. Erickson’s own take on the matter is fairly well summed up in his explanation of the theological importance of the subject:
“If God is omniscient, he must know all things. He cannot be ignorant of or in error on any matter. Further, if he is omnipotent, he is able to so affect the biblical author’s writing that nothing erroneous enters into the final product. And being a truthful or veracious being, he will certainly desire to utilize these abilities in such a way that humans will not be misled by the Scriptures. Thus, our view of inspiration logically entails the inerrancy of the Bible. Inerrancy is a corollary of the doctrine of full inspiration. If, then, it should be shown that the Bible is not fully truthful, our view of inspiration would also be in jeopardy” (251).
I agree with Erickson that one’s view of inerrancy is tied to one’s view of inspiration. So, if you start where Erickson starts with a verbal plenary view of inspiration where “The work of the Holy Spirit is so intense that each word is the exact word God wants used at that point to express the message” (232), then you are almost certainly going to land on some higher “level” of inerrancy. So, you really need to understand your position on inspiration if you are going to understand your position on inerrancy.
My particular problem with inerrancy is its expression in terms of the original autograph. This does not make any sense to me. To me, we are just grasping at straws when we can only claim the inerrancy of a text that we do not and never will possess. Such an expression does not make any sense of our current experience either. Even if the theoretical “original autograph” were perfect in every way, what does that mean for us now? We (most of us) do not profess that we had an inerrant transmission of the text. We do not profess that we have an inerrant translation of the text. And, we (most of us) do not profess that we have an inerrant interpretation of the text. If we rely solely on the inerrancy of the original, then we are forced into a position of saying that the texts we now have are in some way corrupt. Are the English translations we read and interpret somehow less inspired than the original?
The usual solution to the problem of the differences in the manuscripts (which ignores the other areas of translation and interpretation) is to affirm that the minor flaws do not affect any “weighty” matters of doctrine. While some would disagree with such a statement (see Ehrman and co.), I would generally affirm that to be true. However, if one holds to a verbal plenary model of inspiration and affirms inerrancy, then I can see how it would be a problem that we don’t have all of the actual words that were originally penned. If we then make the move to affirm that the essential doctrines haven’t been tampered with, then we have a different problem. In effect, we are now saying that “propositional revelation” is all that really matters, so long as the concepts of doctrine are not affected. Aside from the fact that we have now distanced ourselves from the importance of every word, we have now moved inspiration away from the text and to the concepts that are taught in the text. At this point we are ignoring the form in which the biblical text was delivered to us. Is the Bible simply a guide for informing our doctrines? Why is there so much narrative if it is simply a repository of propositional truths? I want to affirm that the Bible is certainly more than that.
And I would give an amen to not causing “error in faith and practice.”
@Jesse: You recognize some of the important issues on both sides. I agree that the appeal to “autographs” is complicated. I know what they are trying to say, but the fact is that we don’t have those autographs. At least it gives motivation for evangelical contributions to textual criticism.
On the other hand, like you said, Scripture seems too deep to be merely a deposit of true propositions that is full of errors. When we say this we must ask what can be false while the proposition is true.
Would ETS accept Dr. West’s definition? Does anyone know?
This is the statement from the ETS doctrinal basis:
“The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.”
After that they note that the definition of inerrancy flows out of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978): http://www.etsjets.org/files/documents/Chicago_Statement.pdf.
These are the primary sections of relevance:
2. Holy Scripture, being God’s own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by
His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be
believed, as God’s instruction, in all that it affirms, obeyed, as God’s command, in all that
it requires; embraced, as God’s pledge, in all that it promises.
And especially:
4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its
teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world
history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving
grace in individual lives.
5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in
any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible’s
own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.
So, I would say that they would be opposed to Jim West’s definition as it does not go far enough.
@Jesse: You’re correct that it doesn’t seem to be in agreement with his interpretation. I wonder how strictly ETS affirms CSBI today?
Jim’s definition nicely exposes the ambiguity of the infallibility position. Reported events make it easy to compare supposedly inerrant text to the “facts on the ground”. Did David really rule over a united kingdom? We have some hope of finding out. The question, “Are the teachings of Paul concerning women’s behavior in church correct?”, is unanswerable beyond Ray’s “The Bible means what I say it mean, and you must agree with me!”
This view would have a hard time separating Gnostics from the Orthodox. Perhaps I am am straying fro the topic by insisting on practicality but how useful can it be in light of the ways in which it must be interpreted by Fallen – Totally Depraved if you’re Jim
– , every day Christians?
Marc Cortez provides this valuable guest post: http://nearemmaus.com/2011/09/13/an-opportunity-lost-why-geisler%E2%80%99s-critique-missed-the-mark/
@Scott: Certainly, West’s position does result in much fluidity, but he does provide the clarification that it must be “rightly interpreted” which is where Gnosticism would fall away.
If inerrancy allows for scientific and historical errors/contradictions/tensions it is nothing more than infallibility.
Inerrancy is at it’s heart a term that signals. Literally speaking it is without content as it applies only to the “original autographs” which, if they ever existed (And I think there’s a strong case that many books of the Bible, such as the Pentateuch, have no original autographs), are historically inaccessible to us.
In practice it is a gate keeping term designed to exclude and marginalize certain beliefs about the Bible from and within institutions (Such as ETS). These boundaries are, of necessity, fuzzy.
The reasons that I deny inerrancy are historical, philosophical, ecclesial, and theological.
1) Historical – There really isn’t any evidence to suggest there ever existed original autographs in the sense they are used to define inerrancy. The books of the Bible come to us through historical processes and redaction.
2) Philosophical – Language doesn’t really function in a way that any text can be inerrant. See works on Reader Response Criticism (Stanley Fish’s Is There a Text in This Class as an excellent example).
3) Ecclesial – Grounds for excluding persons from fellowship or subjecting persons to church discipline should never be based on personal belief but rather on behavior (Which would include public teaching but not belief).
4) Theological – The theological conviction behind inerrancy is one that holds to the notion the the Scriptures are or should be the primary location of our experience of God in the world blurring the distinction between the scriptures and revelation. I believe the concept of revelation is bigger than that and primarily grounded in individual experience.
Brian: The examples you gave of mistakes or contradictions in the text were but a few of thousands. And that is not even getting into how the theology of the texts develop over time, which wouldn’t make sense if they were inspired by an unchanging deity. (For example, the destination of the dead, or the nature of god (one father or triune being?), correct punishment (eye for eye or forgiveness?) consequenses of sin (impact the entire clan or not?) and on and on and on.
There is only one rational conclusion: that the texts do nothing more or less than reflect the ideas of the authors and the surrounding culture.
Some might find that to be an inspiration. After all, a lot of smart and temperate people think that we shouldn’t sweat the details as long as we understand the major doctrines or that what really counts is the way we live and our relationship with God.
However, it’s hard to have much faith in the big ideas when the little facts that the big ideas are built upon are so shaky. And we really have no logical reason to believe that these particular texts out of all writings in history have any special insight into the almighty, other than tradition of primitive people. Seriously, do we want to live life in a way that reflects the values of say, David, a warlord who died 3000 years ago?
Hi Brian,
I would suggest a read of John Frame’s take on inerrancy in his The Doctrine of the Word of God.
I think that all evangelicals would wish to defend the authority and trustworthiness of scripture, which is what the doctrine of inerrancy is attempting to do as the CSBI makes clear. Peter Enns has however posted some helpful things over at Biologos on this, see his series “The Truthfulness of Scripture”.
Sorry, wrong thing! The image threw me!! It’s Science, Faith and the Chicago Statement
I’ve found some parts of The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (as well as the companion The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics) to be problematic and maybe even weasel-wordy at times. I wonder if some of its authors and affirmers more believe in the Bible they wish we had than in the Bible we in fact do have?
Before one can assert the inerrancy of the Bible, I think one first has to define “inerrancy” (regardless of whether one will be talking about the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Qur’an, an encyclopedia, or Scientific American, etc.) in a consistent and universally-applicable way. Otherwise, you can end up creating (by caveating with numerous qualifications) a meaning for “inerrancy” when applied to the Bible that does not really mean “inerrant” in its true sense, or when applied to other writings.
According to the dictionary, “inerrant” means “free from error; infallible.” This suggests that trying to get away from “inerrancy” by trumpeting “infallibility” instead may be a false refuge.
David Hubbard had it right many many years ago: Inerrancy dies the death of a thousand qualifications. Why are we still misleading the Church by talking about this?
I personally find the Chicago statement to be two things at the same time: A fairly precise definition of what “inerrancy” is and a useful tool for understanding how all of Scripture is true, and a perfectly good demonstration why the term “inerrancy” itself is confusing and unnecessary, since it requires such a long definition. Usually, when people refer to inerrancy, they mean the infallibility of their interpretation of scripture, as in, if you disagree with MY view on this, you’re disagreeing with GOD! I think the percentage of people who truly mean “Chicago style” when the sling around inerrancy like a litmus test is sufficiently low enough that I don’t believe the term will survive. The historic language of the reformation confessions have enough to say about the truthfulness of Scripture already.
However, when it comes to “errs” in Scripture, I’ve heard them all. Digging beneath the surface and doing some actual legwork usually reveals either historical consistency or a category mistake: Genesis 1 is not a historical/scientific treatise, so quit treating it like an ironclad chronology.
I think inerrancy has died the death of a 1000 qualifications, but some have not heard of its death yet and so claim it has some value for the conversation. I think it is clear that God accommodated to the original readers/hearers of each book, else they would not have understood it. This does not mean God lied, rather God came down and spoke/inspired to their level of understanding.
Both terms are simply circular, selfjustifying criteria that are used to dupe others into believing that what one says about scripture (which is assumed to be inerrant and infallible, though never exactly defined) is also of the same caliber. After all, if I am capable on interpreting that which is “inerrant” and “infallible”, then surely I must be an authority that one should listen to.
Of course, the elephant in the room is the simple question of what inerrancy and infallibility actually look like. Since it is the claim if it’s propronents that the scriptures are the only documents which fit the bill, it’s ever so convenient that they are their own criteria and proof.
@Dan H: Those are four good reasons and I think they all contribute to why I have decided to abandon the word.
@Richard: I’ve heard of Frame, though I confess being a bit allergic to Reformed authors. Enns’ posts have been helpful as well. I’ve read a few.
@Eric: One reason I suggest “infallibility” rather than “inerrancy” is because in Christian-talk among evangelicals they have come to have different meanings. Inerrancy usually means all historical and scientific details are correct while infallibility usually means those things can be wrong here and there, but that in general Scripture will never lead us away from the God of the Gospel and give us the narrative we need to know of him.
@Tom: That’s a fair critique. It does seem to be a debate over semantics at times.
@Miguel: True, inerrancy can be used to support one’s own authority. And I think you’re right that often the criticisms of Scripture need to be rethought, like the common criticisms of Genesis 1 (and the defenses).
@Donald: That is how I see it as well. I’ve been influenced by Peter Enns.
@Exist: If used as a logical argument then yes, they are both circular. I think they are both meant to be confessional though, not “logical” (e.g. the Trinity is really hard to argue from logic, but it is confessed).