Inerrancy, as believed by most Evangelicals, means that the bible, in the original manuscripts, is free from error and completely truthful in all that it addresses. The Chicago Statement has a detailed explanation of the doctrine. It is my contention that this doctrine is of little or no practical use.
We do not have the original manuscripts of the bible. It is true that we can reconstruct 98 to 99 percent of it with a very high degree of confidence and that few issues of any importance are contained in the areas most in dispute. Nevertheless, this leaves us in the position that, even if inerrancy in the original manuscripts was accepted, in which we do not have an inerrant bible today.
Another major problem is the issue of canon, or just what should be considered to be a part of the bible. Famously, Protestants and Roman Catholics have a different canon. The Eastern Orthodox Church, the Coptic Church, the Ethiopian Church, and the various Oriental Churches, also have slightly different canons.
This is important because a major benefit of having an inerrant bible is to have a 100% accurate highest authority. But of course, the bible did not fall to us from the sky a complete, single entity. Any “highest” authority must make a circular argument for itself, that is, it must say that it is the highest authority. The bible fails a crucial element of this task in that it contains no list of what should be included in itself. That is, the bible does not say which works should be in the bible. So, should Tobit be considered inerrant? Heck, what about Jude? And if Jude, why not the Book of Enoch? Where is the inerrant source that decides?
There are other issues, but I think the two above are enough to show why the doctrine of inerrancy has little practical use.
The doctrine forces people to defend a position that is not provable, as well as forcing focus on a verse-by-verse defense of apparently mistaken or inconsistent passages and textually uncertainties. Instead the focus should be on just how well preserved the biblical texts are and it’s amazing contents
All and all, I’d say we need a better way to express our view of the bible.
I agree, and have had a post in the works on this for a while, but never got back to it. For the issue of canon, there is a book called A High View Of Scripture? that looks at the common evangelical belief about how the canon was formed (Ie. everyone just agreed to what books belonged until the Catholics messed it up), and totally demolishes it by looking at the history of what actually happened and shows why the evidence evangelicals use for their position does not hold up.
I wrote two entries on my own now abandoned blog on this subject last year where I tried to wrestle with this whole issue:
Part 1
Part 2
“The doctrine forces people to defend a position that is not provable…”
I always thought that Christianity was defined by FAITH, not reason, modernity, and what’s “provable.”
So you think that God doesn’t have the power to keep the Bible inerrant through the centuries?
A pastor friend of mine just wrote on the inerrancy of the Bible on his blog this week…
http://twog.wordpress.com/2007/12/12/is-inerrancy-best/
Darius said: “I always thought that Christianity was defined by FAITH, not reason, modernity, and what’s “provable.””
There’s nothing about Christianity which requires one to abandon reason. I hear some people say that God demands we have faith in the unprovable and the unreasonable, and that if we can prove everything, we would no longer be capable of having faith. That’s a false view of the truth. Christianity is perfectly compatible with reason and proof.
“So you think that God doesn’t have the power to keep the Bible inerrant through the centuries?”
Sure he does. Which Bible is the inerrant one? The point is, we’ve got different branches of the church with slightly different canons. How can we tell which of these Bibles is the one that God kept inerrant?
Jew, everything about Christianity demands that faith fill the gaps that reason can not. For example, it is NOT reasonable that Christ was resurrected. The essence of Christianity is faith, not modernism and reason.
For one, the NTs in the Catholic and Protestant Bibles are the same. That’s huge, since Christianity is based on those books. Second, from what I understand, most Catholics don’t actually believe that the Apocrypha is God-inspired.
I once had an opportunity to read a great book (ignorant of the name and author right now) that went through a history of the text. At first, it rocked my faith a bit, and then I realized that even with the possibility of minor errors, additions or translation issues), the scripture can still be inspired. Moreover, in looking at the way the bible was preserved - especially those parts that have a significant impact of the doctrines and core beliefs of Christianity - one cannot but see a clear reason to believe that the bible is what it claims.
Furthermore, one HAS to make judgments about the Apocrypha. This is where systematic theology comes in quite handy. Does Bel and the Dragon or Maccabees 1 & 2 match up with what other Scripture says? Catholics consider these texts to be secondary, yet they base many of their theological differences on them (purgatory, for one).
Darius, that’s not even remotely what I’m talking about. Let’s restrict this issue to the canon. There is no reason why we must take the canon on blind faith. We can and should study it critically and reasonably. It’s great that we have widespread agreement on most of the canon. But where there are still questions and differences, those need to be addressed. You yourself even agree with this, so I’m not sure why we’re arguing. I guess it’s just because I get worked up whenever somebody denigrates reason and makes vague appeals to faith. That implies Christianity is incompatible with a rational worldview, and makes us appear close-minded fools.
Ok, I think we mostly agree, just are coming at it from two different directions. Jasen said that believing in the inerrancy of Scripture forces people to believe in something that is not provable. I would contend that that is the point! There is no possible way (outside of a divine revelation) that we could prove beyond any doubt which canon is divinely inspired (or if any of them are). Thus, it takes FAITH, the essense of Christianity. However, we can (and should) use reason to figure out which canon is most likely divinely-inspired. Does the unique parts of the OT in the Catholic Bible jive with the rest of Scripture? If not, then they should be thrown out (or at least treated as non-inspired, as most Catholics already do).
Darius, do you have a reference to the Roman Catholic Church considering the apocrypha secondary? As I have always understood it they are considered scripture, period.
I would also say that faith is not the essence of Christianity, but Christ is
There is a major problem with your stance on this I think Darius. If one is to accept by faith whatever canon they believe, then are they not accepting it only on their own authority? Why should I believe the canon you hold to? You wouldn’t argue (I think) that I should believe it because you have faith in it, but if you don’t argue that way then I would guess that it’s not really because of faith that you hold to it. Your faith may make some facts, traditions, or history, more acceptable to you, but it’s likely these things that are the reason you believe in the canon you do. I think.
“A pastor friend of mine just wrote on the inerrancy of the Bible on his blog this week…”
Darius, I read the blog from that pastor friend of yours and I believe its right on. I encourage everyone to read it. I couldn’t agree more.
Link below…
http://twog.wordpress.com/2007/12/12/is-inerrancy-best/
Good point, Bryan. I’m just saying that reason ALONE (what is “provable”) shouldn’t be depended upon when deciding if the Bible is inerrant and which canon is the “right” one.
My “reference” is the same “pastor friend of mine.” He said that you don’t hear any sermons from those books as they are considered secondary by most Catholics. I am pretty ignorant of Catholic beliefs myself. Perhaps there is a Catholic (or former Catholic) who reads this who can correct/confirm that.
I agree with the article Darius posted. But I think it is saying a very similar thing to Jasen but still calling it “innerrancy.”
I think it differs very much with Jasen’s article, in that the author would not agree that the reason to avoid the word “inerrancy” is because of the other “bibles.” I don’t mind doing away with the term “inerrant,” but not because of differing canons. Rather, use a different word if you think inerrant means “all details are exact and accurate.”
Yeah, there may be a problem with that terminology. If one speaks Christianese he might understand it, but then again he may not. But really there is no consensus on the meaning of many theological terms, and so we cripple our ability to get on the same page.
Here are couple of terms I don’t like: Eternal Security and Total Depravity (Calvinese). They can imply different things to different people, and like the word “inerrant” they are not thoroughly scriptural. Any term that embellishes on a biblical concept, in my opinion, should be discarded. But its almost like you would have to invent a new language in some cases. So if we are to converse with one another, it may be more practical to stick with the old terms and expound on their meanings.
I agree, Chris. Rather than deconstruct and throw out all the old terms, why not just expound on the ones we have?
Darius wrote:
Yes, the problem is that inerrancy is the cornerstone of some people’s attempt to make Christianity a system of thought were everything can be neatly proven with reason. (Which is not to say that Christianity is unreasonable).
I am saying that He did not. In the sense that we cannot (re)produce the original - if some textual variants are uncertain than saying today’s version of the bible is inerrant is a meaningless statement.
Bryan’s link was a bit hard to understand, but it’s clear that the Catholic Church considers those books to be a part of the Old Testament, as fully a part as Genesis. I don’t know how often Catholics refer to them in worship (although I know that they do), is it as often as we have sermons from Obadiah?
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03267a.htm
But the question is not just over books that are “disputed” today. Why is Jude considered canon? There’s evidence that some of the Christian writers of the second century considered to Book of Enoch to be canon because Jude quoted it. Later, things changed and some writers thought Jude wasn’t canonical because it quoted the Book of Enoch.
If the bible does not say what should be in the bible, then the reason many value inerrancy - because it provides a perfect base from which things can be proven rationally - isn’t justified.
So, if we take this to its logical conclusion, how do we trust any Scripture? After all, if the Protestant Bible is incomplete, then how are we to know that what it says about the Atonement or salvation or fruit of the Spirit is complete? After all, the Catholic Bible has some things in the OT which are not supported by the Protestant OT.
“So, if we take this to its logical conclusion, how do we trust any Scripture?”
Exactly! That’s why I’m such a heretic.
Bryan said, “Darius, do you have a reference to the Roman Catholic Church considering the apocrypha secondary?”
Perhaps we are getting confused by the meaning of the word Deutrocanon. The word refers books not in the first or earliest canon, thus the name “the second canon.” It is similar to, but not quite the same thing as, the apocrypha (meaning “hidden”). They are called the second canon for a reason.
It is, IMHO, a very good thing that we do not today possess the original manuscripts. If they existed, they themselves would be venerated and it would be a crime to mess with them (aka translating them).
“Exactly! That’s why I’m such a heretic.”
Ok, as long as we’re clear what the logical conclusion of this idea is, I’m good.
There are reasons to trust the bible, but ultimately it comes down to faith, subjective experience, and tradition.