The Inerrancy of Scripture: closing thoughts
One of my professors here at Azusa Pacific University, Steve Sommers, told our Theology and the Christian life class about an experience he had when interviewing for a professor position at a Christian university. He had recently attended Fuller Seminary in Pasadena. At fuller there had recently been a debate between two doctors of theology about the inerrancy of scripture. The two doctors held opposing views. One held the view that the bible was infallible meaning that the bible is true in all its intention. The infallible view is concerned with the intention of the authors. To them, from my understanding, and to this first professor the bibles truth depends on what it’s trying to tell you. It might have problems and even mistakes and it might not be scientifically or historically accurate. It’s accurate wherever the authors speak concerning matters of faith and practice.[1]
The other, the second, doctor was a strict inerrantist. He held that the bible contained absolutely no mistakes and that it was basically dictated from God to men. He believed that it was accurate in every way, about every subject. He even went as far as to say that every true Christian should hold this view.
The debate was a hot topic surrounding Fuller Seminary. When my professor interviewed at a nearby university the first question was “where do you stand.” They were talking about the debate. Sommers thought about his answer for a second and said “I’d rather be friends with the infalliblist who loves his friends and loves his family than the inerrantist who goes home and beats his wife.” His point was made and he didn’t get the job (but good old APU hired him).
The point of the story is that the point of the whole thing is that no matter what you believe about the nature of scripture if it has no authority on your life it’s all for not. As I’ve said before, the point is not the bible, the point is God. I worship, I love, I pray to, and I serve God… not the bible. If we get all caught up in the argument about inerrancy but then we do nothing that the bible says to do, we are hearers but not doers of the word[2], then we’ve missed the point. The authority of scripture; its’ command over the way we live our lives is a lot more important than whether it contains mistakes or not.
May the people who blog here and all those who claim the bible be people who do a lot less talking about what the bible is and a lot more doing what it tells us to do.
End Notes
[1] Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2000) 399.
[2] James 1:22-25
The other, the second, doctor was a strict inerrantist. He held that the bible contained absolutely no mistakes and that it was basically dictated from God to men. He believed that it was accurate in every way, about every subject. He even went as far as to say that every true Christian should hold this view.
The debate was a hot topic surrounding Fuller Seminary. When my professor interviewed at a nearby university the first question was “where do you stand.” They were talking about the debate. Sommers thought about his answer for a second and said “I’d rather be friends with the infalliblist who loves his friends and loves his family than the inerrantist who goes home and beats his wife.” His point was made and he didn’t get the job (but good old APU hired him).
The point of the story is that the point of the whole thing is that no matter what you believe about the nature of scripture if it has no authority on your life it’s all for not. As I’ve said before, the point is not the bible, the point is God. I worship, I love, I pray to, and I serve God… not the bible. If we get all caught up in the argument about inerrancy but then we do nothing that the bible says to do, we are hearers but not doers of the word[2], then we’ve missed the point. The authority of scripture; its’ command over the way we live our lives is a lot more important than whether it contains mistakes or not.
May the people who blog here and all those who claim the bible be people who do a lot less talking about what the bible is and a lot more doing what it tells us to do.
End Notes
[1] Stanley J. Grenz, Theology for the Community of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 2000) 399.
[2] James 1:22-25
Comments
According to academic resourses, including the one I used "theology for the community of God," there is a difference between Infallibility and Inerrancy. I think I defined them well in my post. If you disagree with this definition, that's ok but we'll just use these definitions for simplicity's sake, ok?
I don't think I really understand your analogy.
Inerrancy is defined as being "without error whenever it speaks to any subject." including, "history, geography, astronomy, measurement, science." and here's an important part; "even when the details included are incidental to the central intent of the text." This basically means that even though Genesis 1 is a poem abou the goodness of creation we can also draw from it that the world was created in six literal days... even though the time is really incidental to the text.
Infallability means that "the bible is without error whenever it speaks concerning matters of faith and practice." "hence they reject the emphasis on perfect historical and scintific accuracy they find in the strict inerrantist position." Does this make sense? to use Genesis 1 again, the infallabilitist would not likely draw a conclusion that the earth was created in six literal days (some infallabilitists still make a case for this view but only by saying that it isn't incidental to the text). They also might argue that the historical accuracy of certain stories is incidental and therefore MIGHT not be perfectly acurate.
I hope our terms are clear. I'm sorry if I didn't really answer your question.
It's ok to prefer a different definition but on the street the definitions I presented are going to be the ones people use. They are the "accepted" definitions in acadamia and any other definition found in an academic sourse should thouroughly explained in contrast to these definitions. In the end it doesn't matter what label you put on it people will approach it in one of the two ways I described. Here we are choosing to accept the "accepted" definitions.
That is why we're using the "accepted" definitions. On this blog we'll agree to use the definitions I gave so that there is no confusion, we can direct the conversation from there.
You're right. I might fit better into the infallability category but in the end it's the authority that's more important. I'm not sure that I'd totally pick a side yet, myself, only because I'm not sure I'd ever say that there were mistakes in the bible. I would say, on the other hand, that if something is incidental to the text we should get caught up in it. If science contradicts something that isn't even specified in scripture (meaning that it was mentioned but only to prove a different point) then science might be right and I'm ok with it. One thing I know will never be proven wrong is this: the greatest commandment is "you shall love the Lord God with all your heart, sould, mind, and strength... and love your neighbor as yourself."
Sounds like a limited view of the Bible to me....