I have often participated in discussions about the use of the word “inerrancy” in reference to the Hebrew Bible, both online and via good old-fashioned physical dialog (which I should note, does not normally involve physical contact such as slapping someone). James McGrath has recently reviewed G.K. Beale’s book on the topic. I have not yet read Beale’s work, and so I cannot comment on it. However, John Hobbins has waded into the discussion with a post in which he argues yet again that Christians simply cannot dispense with the term inerrancy.
I should note at this point that I am friends with John, and respect him greatly. I also respect my wife who, last time I checked, shares his view. However, I simply do not see how what Mandy and John call inerrancy has any relationship to what the mass of conservative evangelicalism calls inerrancy. I think that John understands this, and so he argues that we need not give up the language altogether, but rather that we need to seek to “appropriate” and “re-contextualize” it. It seems to me that this is another way of saying “redefine.” That may be fine and good, but I think it is a dead-end debate for the church.
Lest I be accused of simply disregarding John’s proposition without due consideration and a proposition of my own, I present the following reasons for abandoning the term inerrancy.
1. The term has, on the whole, been co-opted by conservative evangelicalism to mean a very narrow view of Scripture. Specifically that view which has been codified in the Chicago Statement on inerrancy. It is highly unlikely that any group will be able to wrest control of the word’s definition from conservative evangelicals and the Chicago statement. For better or for worse, the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy is the modern definition of the term.
2. Inerrancy frames the question in the wrong light. To every lay person whom I speak with, “inerrancy” frames the question of the Bible in the following terms: a) God wrote/inspired the Bible, therefore it cannot have errors or b) God could not have inspired the Bible because it has errors. I believe that Peter Enns brings up a similar point in Inspiration & Incarnation. Both of those ways of framing the question of the Bible in relation to God and inspiration are unhelpful.
3. Relatedly, the language of inerrancy in our modern world automatically causes one to expect from the Bible a definition of error which conforms to our modern, scientific definition of error. Such a standard simply cannot be applied to a document that is over two thousand years old. It is patently absurd to expect the Bible to conform to our definition of error, yet that is exactly what we do when we use language such as “inerrant.”
Could all of the above be overcome with proper explanation? Most likely. However, is it worth fighting over a word? I’m not convinced that it is. In fact, I think that the Church, and those in it who wish to call themselves evangelical but do not agree with the definition of inerrancy contained within the Chicago Statement, would do much better to simply begin using different language to refer to what we mean. Am I advocating abandoning the term “inerrancy” to the conservative evangelical sect? Yes, I am. I don’t see where the word, regardless of how it may have been used in the past, is a good term to use for today.
I agree whole-heartedly with John on this, that each generation must appropriate doctrine for themselves. This means, at times, that a particular generation must dispose of antiquated language in favor of language that more adequately does what language is meant to do–communicate something.
In the end, discussion is good, and I’m sure that is partially John’s intent with his post. Nevertheless, I do believe that what we ought to be discussing is not how to restore a modicum of balance to the word “inerrant,” but rather what other word(s) might better describe what we want inerrant to mean.
Hi Calvin,
Very fine post. I love the passion and righteous indignation. It is unfeigned, genuine, and will serve, I’m convinced, the greater glory of God.
I will resist pointing out that if Mandy and I agree on this, it probably is because there are two sides to this coin.
Mark Traphagen pointed out to me on McGrath’s thread that you entered the fray on this. As I noted there, tt is a fine thing to watch how this debate plays itself out across the blogosphere.
I continue to think that *how* we talk about these things matters as much as *what* we say about these things.
I understand why walking away from the language of inerrancy, rather than qualifying it properly, is an attractive option in contexts in which a narrow definition has been used to disqualify transgressors thereof.
In my case, I take that as one more reason not to throw in the towel. The problem is not confined to the language of inerrancy.
An analogy: it is undeniable that the need to be born again is taught in John 3. Luther’s sermons on John 3 are fabulous. Nevertheless, it is tempting to stop referring to the “new birth,” given the insipid way the language is used today. I have to admit that when I hear a revivalist ask the question, “Are you born again?”, my instinctive response is, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
We dare not cede these terms to those who fail to understand their true connotations. The fact that the Catholic Church has chosen to retain the language of inerrancy, new birth, atonement, justification, etc. ought to give evangelicals who wish to walk away from any of this language pause.
All of the language just cited has healthy, non-stupid uses which are worth recovering.
We find ourselves in a curious spot. Many, many people continue to believe and confess and know that Scripture is a lamp unto their feet and a light unto their path.
People who confess this do so within a positive feedback loop in which, without any contribution of their own (sola gratia), Word and Spirit cooperate such that the stories of Scripture are seen to tell their story; to be a window to God and the things of God; a mirror we hold up to our face in which we see ourselves as we really are; a map which tells us where we are and where we need to go; a toolbox and storage shed full of equipment and supplies for the journey; a compass which points in the direction of true north; a lifeline to hang on to when we lose our way and find ourselves in enemy territory.
Those who know and confess these things will also confess that scripture’s words are sweeter than honeycomb, more precious than fine gold. It is natural to confess from there that Scripture is flawless, exactly what God intended it to be. Not one word in it needs changing. It does not err and does not lead us into error.
In scripture we find the questions God poses to us, from “Where are you?” in Genesis to “Who do you say that I am?” in Matthew. In it we find the words of life.
The language of inerrancy makes sense within a confessional context of the kind I just evoked. Outside of it, the language is debased and misconstrued.
I realize that many conservative evangelicals don’t get that. But I don’t see why we have to follow them in their error.
John, I think one of your strongest points is the term “born again.” Although, I think that there are instances where one might not want to use the term, I would not advocate abandoning it as I do inerrancy. There is a rather sizable difference, of course, between the term “born again” and the term “inerrant.” One, more or less, communicates what we mean, the other does not. I’m not saying that a term needs to require no explanation, or even that it can’t have different nuances depending on who uses it. Rather, I am arguing that the term inerrant has only one meaning, the meaning that conservative evangelicals (oddly enough, strongly influenced by modernity) have given it.
I agree that language speaking of the Bible as being “what God desired it to say, without err” certainly makes sense within a confessional context. But within a confessional context one expects explanation and discussion, perhaps in the form of a catechism. The TERM “inerrant,” however, I do not see as being helpful anymore to that explanation and discussion.
Perhaps it simply comes down to a difference of focus. I would like us to discuss the issue, rather than the term we use to describe it. But I think the term is unhelpfully obfuscatory; therefore we end up getting stuck in a debate of “does the Bible have factual errors,” the answer to which determines whether one is “in” or “out,” when it would be more productive, in my opinion, to speak of the doctrine that God inspired the Scriptures, and therefore they are profitable for teaching, rebuke, exhortation, etc. It is this more Biblical language that I wish was more often on the table during these discussions.
Calvin – you should probably listen to your wife on this one!
P.S. How does the view of GCTS agree with you on this one?
Funny that you should say that, since I think that I’ve almost convinced Mandy of my view.
As for GCTS, the school, obviously, does not agree with my views here. Quite the opposite. Although Professors vary as to how “historically accurate” they expect the text to be (New Testament profs are comfortable speaking of Q, and how the Evangelists “shaped” their narratives, most of the OT profs feel that if one challenges Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, one no longer believes the Bible to be God’s word), they all affirm that it is “inspired, infallible, inerrant;” whereas I would affirm only the first two.
I see. It is reassuring to see that if you slide in liberalism, it is not GCTS’ fault
Well – it was nice finding this website (why Qoheleth at the top, since you say that you are interested in Job?). I also went once to GCTS (with Tom Petter, Carol K etc). GREETINGS to them all.
I also have strong interests in Job (my dissertation), Qoheleth etc. Maybe we will cooperate some day.
It must have been fun in that Hebrew Epigraphy class (I actually took that class with Tom and Donna at U of T, with the late Brian Peckham). I am just curious, who did you take Targumic Aramaic with?
Many blessings and good luck with your thesis.
It’s actually a cycling image that has Genesis, Qohelet, Proverbs and Job. We’ll probably add Lamentations soon, since that is one of Mandy’s interests.
I’m hoping to meet with Tom Petter sometime in the next few weeks, I’ll pass along your greeting.
I took Targumic Aramaic with Dr. D. Stuart. Hebrew Epigraphy was with Dr. T. Petter. Out of curiousity, with what specific aspect(s) of Job was your dissertation concerned?
Thanks. I didn’t know that Doug teaches T.A. Was that an independent study?
My thesis was on the finite verb in Job. I also like Lamentations (this is a more recent interest).
I believe you will find very useful the following small book by Barry Web: Five Festal Garments. It has really good discussions and theological points on the Megilloth.
It was an independent study. I’ll add the book to my Amazon wish list.