Focusing on single texts when discussing the issue of inerrancy/errancy does not usually yield a very fruitful discussion. At times it can, but most times it ends up with both sides digging in their heels and constantly explaining their own viewpoint and why they do not see the validity in the other side’s viewpoint. The reason this seems to be the case is because each side of the debate is approaching the text with different epistemological and theological presuppositions that shape both the way they view the text and how they believe the text should behave. Without understanding one’s own presuppositions, one will be forever blinded by them.
To be completely honest with you, the whole idea of ‘inerrancy/errancy’ is not something that I particularly care to discuss. It’s not something that is generally on my map of things to explain or doctrines to defend. I started this series to hopefully show people who happen to read this than even though a person does not affirm inerrancy, it does not mean that they are off the theological deep-end. One can hold to orthodox creeds of the Christian church, be an evangelical Christian, and yet not affirm inerrancy. Moving along through the series, I came to realize what I have written in the first paragraph and that is something that is worth discussing.
Many of us who do not subscribe to inerrancy still hold Scripture to be authoritative, inspired, and infallible. We understand Scripture as a witness to revelation (i.e., it is comprised human records and recollections that have been inspired by God), and that the ultimate revelation of God was in the person of Christ. It gives us a recollection of the history of the people of God and reaches its climax in the person and works of Christ. Its authority is not grounded in some objective fact about itself (i.e., its inerrancy, its beauty, its profundity, etc.). Rather, its authority is grounded in the person to whom it points and reveals: Jesus Christ.
We do not presuppose that Scripture must have X, Y, and Z as objective characteristics before we begin reading it. God has chosen to use Scripture as his revelation and as his witness to revelation, and we accept that fact because of the renewal of the Holy Spirit in our lives without putting parameters or restrictions on how God must have revealed himself. If he has chosen to reveal himself through myth, historical fiction, contradicting law codes and histories, or through fallible human beings, that is not something that we need to cringe at and defend against. Rather, it is something that we have to accept. It’s actually quite an exciting way to read Scripture as one dives into attempting to understand why God would reveal himself to his people at this point in history in this particular way; or to dive into the questions of how this revelation from God points to Christ and his authority over every aspect of our lives. Gone is the nervousness that the Bible has got something wrong and, therefore, our entire house of cards will crumble to the ground. It’s actually quite freeing to presuppose the authority of Christ as being ultimate and the authority of Scripture as being derivative in that one’s faith rests securely on our sovereign Lord instead of in a set of characteristics of a book.
Because of this, questions of ‘inerrancy/errancy’ are somewhat off the map for us. To say that ‘Scripture is inerrant’ is to presuppose a list of things that we do not presuppose (i.e., that God must speak through historiography as defined by modernity, that Biblical authors must have cited everything correctly, that myth is an unacceptable way for God to communicate to his people, that the authority of Scripture is derived from its own set of characteristics and behavior, etc.). To say that Scripture is infallible is probably closer to what most of us believe, but I prefer a different word: perfect. I fully believe that Scripture is perfect for that purpose which God has given it to us. I have a hard time buying into the idea that it was to give us a modern historiography of the ancient Near East or to provide us with scientific facts. I have an easier time holding the conviction that it was to point us to the one in whom he is most fully revealed: Jesus Christ.
23 June 2009 at 9.49 pm
Consider what it truly means to protect ones flock and I think you will find the answer and the end to this discussion. You cannot convince a man of something until he understands that you are not a threat to what he stands for. If what he stands for is right he will be saved, if what he stands for is wrong meaning causing death then he will be condemned. Should we not be concerned for the one who will be condemned?
A layman
23 June 2009 at 9.58 pm
@adeathmarch
I’m not quite sure what you mean. I’m not looking for an answer or an end to this discussion, so I’m not getting what your comment is attempting to say.
I’m also not sure I agree with your statement about being ’saved’ as I locate salvation with being united with Christ and not with holding a certain set of things one stands for.
Please explain your point a little less cryptically and a little more clearly.
24 June 2009 at 5.49 am
I made the assumption that you wanted the inerrancy/errancy debate to be over with as you wrote above, “the whole idea of ‘inerrancy/errancy’ is not something that I particularly care to discuss”.
As far as the comment to protecting ones sheep. I had asked the question in Green Baggins what good is this debate (inerrancy/errancy) doing? And in an indirect way the only answer I got was that Reed was trying to protect his sheep.
As far as salvation goes, a great number of people think they are united to Christ. About a third of the world. I would have no doubt that all 2 billion think they are going to heaven. This does not seem to be a narrow road/door.
22Then Jesus went through the towns and villages, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem. 23Someone asked him, “Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?” He said to them, 24″Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. 25Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, ‘Sir, open the door for us.’ “But he will answer, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from.’
26″Then you will say, ‘We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’ 27″But he will reply, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!’ Luke 13
Mainly wanted to try and help end the inerrancy/errancy discussion for you that’s all.
24 June 2009 at 6.33 am
Wait, I don’t get it. You said,
“the whole idea of ‘inerrancy/errancy’ is not something that I particularly care to discuss.”
But then you discuss it. So, it seems you want to discuss it as long as you can tell us the conclusion
“its authority is grounded in the person to whom it points and reveals: Jesus Christ.”
This appears to be no argument. Anyone writing anything they want about Jesus could use that argument. And certainly you don’t want THAT to happen. So it seems you allow error-laden, human-contrived writings as authoritative as long as they talk about someone you admire.
“Because of this, questions of ‘inerrancy/errancy’ are somewhat off the map for us.”
Dude, this sounds so cultish. You don’t want to talk about it, but you do. You plug your ears to criticism and call them “modern” and thus limited. You consider beliefs in parting-of-seas, multiplying-fish-and-bread, walking-on-water as real but you have no criteria. If you had been raised Hindu, I’d love to see what you believe now.
error lad
24 June 2009 at 7.57 am
Nice post, Art. You seem to be at a point where you want to stop being in the defensive position on the inerrancy debate. I’m so with you on this, brother.
For me, your commitment to the Bible is not grounded in how you come down on inerrancy, but in how you take the Scriptures seriously and authoritatively for your faith and understanding. In this regard, Art, you have done well. Don’t let the propagators of the shibboleths weigh you down any longer.
24 June 2009 at 8.12 am
Sabio Lantz:
Obviously, in the case of the Bible, there are other contributing variables. But these go without saying. The apostolic witness of the authors is an overwhelming example all its own, that gives the New Testament significantly more authority than “just any book anyone could write about Jesus.”
24 June 2009 at 8.13 am
@Sabio: No offense meant, but this isn’t a discussion I would expect an atheist to understand as it is an in-house debate between Christians that has been going on for more than a century.
@Manlius: Thanks for the encouragement. This whole series has really helped me, which is a result from commentors like you asking great questions and pushing me on some key issues. So thank you very much for that. It has helped me out tremendously.
24 June 2009 at 10.24 am
I’m with Manlius; good stuff, Art!
It seems that the past 100 years have demonstrated that inerrancy, a doctrine intended to defend the Bible’s authority over discipleship, has instead caused endless debates about epistemology and apologetics, where the focus needs to return to discipleship. Epistemology is important for us Christians, but it isn’t our exclusive priority – it must be constantly wedded to discipleship or it because useless.
24 June 2009 at 1.18 pm
I am also in hearty agreement. I do not self-identify as an inerrantist, but I also don’t like identifying various Scriptural phenomena as “error” since that could imply that God made a mistake. Contradictions, yes, inconsistencies, yes, historical fabrication, yes, naïve science, yes, JEDP, yes, but apparently this is exactly what God intended, so I don’t like calling them “errors.”
24 June 2009 at 1.44 pm
I like the Christotelic emphasis here, but I still question whether it is possible to distinguish so sharply between God and his Word.
24 June 2009 at 2.58 pm
I’m probably too naive, but I still believe this is a topic where both sides can contribute fruitful discussion, discussion that will benefit the church. The shouting is, in my view, the result of not really hearing what moves the other side to its view. I affirm inerrancy. I don’t, however, want to affirm it in such a way that I dictate to rather than receive the Scriptures. I affirm it because words like ‘authority’ became too vague in the context of the debates in the early 20th century.
24 June 2009 at 3.48 pm
@Rick: Does Frame talk about this in Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (or if anyone else knows, feel free to chime in)? I’ll have to take a look at both Frame and Vanhoozer on this point when I get all my books back from being in storage (which won’t be for a while
).
@craig: I do hope that you are right on this discussion still being able to take place. I think that it can, although the contexts that I usually find myself in it usually doesn’t fly.
24 June 2009 at 5.42 pm
There may be a section in DKG, but he addresses it in detail in his Doctrine of the Word of God (forthcoming, but available in seed form in his lecture notes, and Perspectives on the Word of God, Wipf & Stock), which is exactly what I was hinting at. For Frame, God’s Word is his “meaningful, powerful, self-expression.” This self-expression characteristic, or perspective, seems incompatible with an ‘errant’ view. Any thoughts?
24 June 2009 at 5.48 pm
That’s interesting. I’m going to have to kick that around in the ole brainbox before I shoot off an answer. Right now I want to say, ‘Yes, to doesn’t seem compatible with an errant view,’ but that may be able to be tempered with a view of infallibility that I would affirm or, as Nathan said, “I also don’t like identifying various Scriptural phenomena as “error” since that could imply that God made a mistake.” I’ll take a look in some other books and see if I can put together some clear thoughts on the issue.
24 June 2009 at 5.53 pm
@art – you said:
No offense taken. Would you expect an former fervent Christian who studied theology to understand, even if they were an atheist now? Or once you foresake the holy spirit are we not only irredeemably damned but also really blind?
But if you are saying you want the conversation to stay “in house”, I can respect that. Let me know and I will take you off my sites to visit list — I can respect that. But meanwhile:
I think the inerrant folks here are right to worry about those of you who aren’t. To me it seems the inerrant folks are comfortable saying, “I believe, and I don’t care what the evidence is.” While the inerrancy folks think their stance avoids that uncomfortable place. The errancy folks, when they are cornered for “Why” they hold any stance, appear to fumble around — as seen in the comments above. It seems that errant folks want the to secretly believe in the bible’s amazing value but want to back out with inerrancy talk when the going gets tough. I think inerrancy folks would agree with me but would be too polite to side with a pagan.
Yes, I know, I am an atheist, so I couldn’t understand anyway.
24 June 2009 at 6.01 pm
Sabio:
Your last paragraph seemed a bit unclear (maybe you accidentally put “inerrancy” when you meant to put “errancy” a couple times).
“The errancy folks, when they are cornered for “Why” they hold any stance, appear to fumble around”
It looks like you will find an answer to most of your objections/questions by reading Art’s previous 8 posts in this series.
It’s actually the opposite of what you contend: it is the “errancy” crowd that is guilty until proven innocent. It is the “errancy” crowd that has to actually prove when cornered “why” they hold their stance, and it is precisely this crowd that even has any answers, because they are the dissenters.
On the contrary, it is the traditional/wider opinion of “inerrancy” that would more likely not have an answer to defend the position, because this position is innocent until proven guilty, because this group has the bigger base of subscribers.
How long were you a Christian for, and what theological studies did you engage in?
24 June 2009 at 8.21 pm
Yeah, flipping between those words is confusing.
Though I find errancy is OBVIOUS, I still have not met a inerrancy liberal Christian who can can show me their inerrancy view without slipping into using words that they likewise can’t intelligently pin down like “inspired”, “informed” or some other such abstraction that let’s them feel that “Inerrancy-feeling” while confess in Errancy. Hmmm, hard to explain.
24 June 2009 at 8.25 pm
Ooops, sorry Aaron, I forgot to answer your question.
If you want to read about my religious background, you can find it here.
24 June 2009 at 8.42 pm
With greatest respect, can you give me the “non-five-posts-long” version? 0=)
24 June 2009 at 9.03 pm
It is an art to figure out how to answer questions in sound bites without feeding into false assumptions or miss leading.
“Christian” probably for 5-10 years. It depends how one defines it.
I graduated from Wheaton College — one year of formal classes on theology. Graduate School in comparative religion. And I have lived a very experimental, explorative life with much learning since then.
Does that help.
I remember when I was young, “What was your major?” meant something, but in creatures like me, it is a rather meaningless question. But I hope that helped.
24 June 2009 at 9.21 pm
“‘Christian’ probably for 5-10 years. It depends how one defines it.”
This is exactly what I was curious about. “Christian” is a somewhat ambiguous term, as 80% of Americans testify to being “Christian”
.
24 June 2009 at 9.39 pm
Glad I satisfied your curiosity, Aaron. Is your mind all tucked in? So, which of these conclusions do you find yourself making (try to be honest and blunt, it is more enlightening) :
a) “ah, he was never a REAL Christian”
b) “he may have been a Christian, but never baptized in the Spirit. Otherwise he would have never left.”
c) “he may have begun his walk in the Lord but he never had a deep relationship and discipleship with Jesus. Otherwise, he would have never left”
d) “wow, he probably was a Christian just like me, and he gave it up, now he is irreparably damned. How sad.”
e) “wow, he probably was a Christian just like me, I hope he comes back to the Lord to avoid eternal damnation.”
Bottom line, do you believe you could loose your salvation like I have?
24 June 2009 at 9.55 pm
“Bottom line, do you believe you could loose your salvation like I have?”
That’s exactly the question that I was implicitly directing toward yourself
.
You’ve taken a couple theology classes, tell me what you think. Do you think that the Bible teaches that a person can “lose their salvation”?
(Maybe we should give Art his thread back, by the way…0=)
24 June 2009 at 10.04 pm
Well thank you for so carefully directing my mind.
I have already posted your answer.
Read it and take the quiz yourself dude.
You are hiding yourself.
The Bible is written by lots of folks — no holy spirit guiding.
There are, then (quite expectantly) inconsistent opinions in the NT. And humans continued creating theologies. Thus there are many opinions of salvation So I was asking YOUR opinion — there ain’t no right answer. Try to choose ! Don’t hide.
24 June 2009 at 10.27 pm
“Well thank you for so carefully directing my mind.
Actually, what I was meaning was that I was directing a question to you, not directing you, hehe. To direct a question to someone as in, simply to ask
.
Sorry, the hyperlink you posted didn’t work, so I wasn’t able to take any quiz.
But I assure you, I’m not trying to hide. But it seems that our conversation has come full-circle, and we’re (thankfully) back on the subject of Art’s thread:
“The Bible is written by lots of folks — no holy spirit guiding.
There are, then (quite expectantly) inconsistent opinions in the NT. And humans continued creating theologies. Thus there are many opinions of salvation”
This is where it gets interesting.
The Bible is written by lots of folks, absolutely. No Holy Spirit guiding? Perhaps—that is one theory on the table. Perhaps God “adopted” the texts, after being written by fallible humans.
There are definitely inconsistencies in the NT, sure. But does that necessarily mean that it’s not God’s “adopted” vehicle of communication? Not necessarily, no.
And even though the NT may have inconsistencies, does that mean that they are necessarily inconsistent on having “many opinions of salvation”? Not necessarily, no.
You’re definitely talking to the right group of Christians here, because both Art and I (and other commenters here) would happily agree with you on perhaps inconsistencies in the texts. But does that mean we have to necessarily draw those same conclusions that you are drawing?
Not by necessity, no.
What was your hyperlink you wanted to show me?
24 June 2009 at 10.56 pm
Art,
Sorry to digress but speaking of inerrancy is it true that WTS is hiring G.K. Beale? If so, its certainly fitting that they filled Peter Enns chair with his chief protagonist. Picture perfect.
And I close with a bit of ICBI:
“…the authority of Christ and that of Scripture are one.”
“…Holy Scripture is nowhere culture-bound in the sense that its teaching lacks universal validity (but is sometimes culturally conditioned)”
“…the authority of Scripture is in “no way” jeopardized by the fact that the copes we possess are not entirely error-free.”
And for those like Art Boulet “at the bottom independent reason now has authority, as opposed to Scriptural teaching.”
24 June 2009 at 10.58 pm
Revision: Of course I meant: Peter Enns’s chief “antagonist”. After all Enn’s is at the center of the story.
24 June 2009 at 11.10 pm
@Brandon:
It is true that GK Beale has been hired by WTS.
Also, please expand a bit on what you mean when you wrote: “And for those like Art Boulet “at the bottom independent reason now has authority, as opposed to Scriptural teaching.””
24 June 2009 at 11.32 pm
“We are conscious too that great and grace confusion results from ceasing to maintain the total truth of the Bible whose authority one professes tot acknowledge. The result of taking this step is that the Bible which God gave loses its authority, and what has authority instead is a Bible reduced in content according to the demands of one’s critical reasonings and in principle reducible still further once one has started. This means that at the bottom independent reason now has authority….” (ICBI, Inerrancy and Authority)
I suppose the argument runs that once you dismiss the inerrancy of Scripture, its authority is then reduced to your own “critical reasonings” (which are shaped, in large part (arbitrarily), by your culture, community and unique psychological makeup).
Personally, I am still working through the inerrancy issue. I just finished GWHW and started Beale’s book this afternoon. And I read through the Chicago Statement this evening I was struck in several cases (some quoted above) by things that make little sense:
-Jesus and Scriptures authority don’t seem to be identical.
-Scripture is “culture-bound” and even “time-bound” is some of its universal applicability.
-The authority of Scripture is somewhat (even if to a small degree) jeopardized by the fact that we don’t posses the autographs. And further this means that our Bible’s are “not” inerrant.
-And lastly, the slippery slope argument fails.
But perhaps I misread the Chicago Statement is some of these places.
24 June 2009 at 11.55 pm
“This means that at the bottom independent reason now has authority….” (ICBI, Inerrancy and Authority)
I suppose the argument runs that once you dismiss the inerrancy of Scripture, its authority is then reduced to your own “critical reasonings” (which are shaped, in large part (arbitrarily), by your culture, community and unique psychological makeup). “
The problem with this argument is that it juxtaposes faith and reason as opposed to one another. This is completely a false dichotomy.
God is the “author” of scripture, however we understand that to mean. Similarly, God is the author of creation. Traditionally, these are referred to as God’s “special revelation” (scripture), and his “general revelation” (creation).
Theologians study the scriptures, and scientists study creation; but we are really all after the same goal: understanding God’s revelation. (Even if the scientists don’t acknowledge that they are studying God’s creation!)
Faith and reason are not enemies; they are allies. So when we say things like, “Well, now your independent critical reason has authority,” that is actually part of how God created the entire system to begin with.
We are supposed to have faith, but we are meant to have reasonable faith; not arrogant faith. God reveals himself both through scripture and creation. And if God’s revelation in creation says that the universe is heliocentric, then we should re-evaluate the scripture in light of that. This is not making “critical reasoning” the authority over scripture, it is harnessing God’s revelation to understand God’s revelation.
25 June 2009 at 5.33 am
@ Art : here is the hyperlink. (hope it works, this blog offers no preview — I hope WordPress creates that soon).
And you may claim not to be hiding, but you keep avoiding answering my question — A,B,C,D or E — or gee, write your own.
25 June 2009 at 5.47 am
Aaron, your reply to Brandon seemed like so much double speak — but I am sure it is common in your circles and perhaps hard to hear beyond.
A common technique in deceptive rhetoric is to redefine terms. So “author” is still desperately clung to in describing God’s role in scripture, but when cornered, you don’t mean it in its normal sense, but you keep it because you love the implied meanings of the normal sense.
You claim 2 revelations: scripture and creation and if scripture is contradicted by nature, you just say it is only the revelations balancing each other.
Come on, are you serious ? ! Can’t you hear the double speak there.
You say “Reasonable faith”, you mean, “We are to obfuscate the believing-without-evidence with lots of twisting of words, renaming of abstractions and community buy-in and try to pass if off as reason. Heck we live in a world of science and we don’t want them to laugh at us.”
The Japanese have a great word for that “Fart Logic” !
25 June 2009 at 7.11 am
@Sabio: I never said anything about hiding or not hiding. You directed those questions to Aaron, not me.
25 June 2009 at 7.15 am
@ art — ooops, “Art” “Aaron”, I mixed you boys up. My bad – especially since it is your site. So that link is for “Aaron” — awaiting his response. Have a great day Art !
25 June 2009 at 7.24 am
Art, btw, we share our libertarian “theology”.
My confusion was with your colleague, Aaron, over at Dust and Light who accused me of being a Capitalist because I expected miracles to be evident and testable. (OK, I am characterizing but it is not my point).
But my point, do you ever write about your libertarian thinking. Have you explored how it informs your theology and how that differs from the Marxism that informs the theology of some of your fellow believers?
Just curious.
25 June 2009 at 10.57 am
Hi Sabio,
Now that you’ve invited me to further discussion on three different threads (here, my blog, and your blog), it is somewhat dizzying trying to follow your flow
.
Actually, I’ve never written about capitalism or miracles on my blog. The blog that my name links to is actually a collaborative blog that I run with two others, so it must’ve been one of the other authors you are mixing me with. (Simon, perhaps?)
In terms of redefining God as the “author” of scripture, that’s what this entire thread (and Art’s 10-part series) is all about! We need to redefine how we understand God as the “author” of scripture.
To be honest, I think Art’s original point may still stand: this is a pretty sophisticated in-house debate in Christianity, so you may be distanced enough from Xianity now to be slightly out of the loop.
“You claim 2 revelations: scripture and creation and if scripture is contradicted by nature, you just say it is only the revelations balancing each other.
Come on, are you serious ? ! Can’t you hear the double speak there.”
I don’t mean to say that if they contradict they are “balancing” each other. It’s not a balancing act of one being right sometimes and wrong others, and vice versa. Rather, they are BOTH correct ALL the time, but we simply have to understand each of the two in light o the other.
This is Augustine, Aquinas, et al.
To relate it back to Art’s thread for example, let’s look at his notes on Joshua (“consistent errancy 6″, I believe). If the scriptures (special revelation) say that there were cities destroyed, but archaeological evidence (general revelation) says there isn’t, then we must need to reconsider exactly what type of text Joshua is. Maybe Joshua is a “theological/ideological” history, rather than 21st-century style “literal history.”
Therefore, the scripture of Joshua was never contradicted and needing to be “balanced” by the evidence. But rather, it is our interpretation and understanding of Joshua that is wrong, and Joshua the text was actually “correct” all along, right with the evidence.
Does that make more sense?
I will go and take your quiz. But it seems like you have a slight misunderstanding of Reformed (“Calvinist”) theology in regards to salvation. Anyone can cite the old maxim “once saved, always saved,” but it’s much more nuanced than that. For example, reference Matthew 7, where Jesus says that not everyone who calls him “Lord, Lord” will be saved. Similarly, look at Jesus’s parable of the farmer sowing seeds. Just because someone says they are saved (80% of Americans), the proof is in the pudding.
“Once saved, always saved” is a terrible evolution of altar calls, where people (Baptists) couldn’t reconcile people’s “professions of faith” with their lack of Christian discipleship in their lives. You may be interested to read the latest scholarship, the New Perspective on Paul (NPP), to get a more interesting take on soteriology.
I am Japanese, by the way
.
25 June 2009 at 11.55 am
Sabio,
Aaron’s answer to your question was way too long to read, so I thought I might try to help.
You forgot: F) Non of the above.
As far as your salvation goes that is for God to judge not Aaron or Art.
Since we are on the discussion of flatulence check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpQQpIOCp_A
My thesis in school was the The chemical pathway of methane, really quite fascinating
25 June 2009 at 12.39 pm
Aaron & Art:
Re: Conquest. I believe the issues are more complicated than you assume. Several weeks I visited many tell’s in Israel and the Middle East with several archeologist (including Max Miller a seminal minimalist scholar). In our group there was a range of views on the historicity of the OT narrative, including:
1. Accurate: even in its finer points; i.e. inerrancy (so ICBI)
2. Basically Accurate: the major backbone of OT narrative corresponds to “what really happened”. At the same there is some tweaking of the data for theological purposes, some errors in the details, etc (so most Bible Atlas’, Albright, Kitchen, Bright, etc)
3. Late Narrative: which is a reconstruction of the story. Which of course includes much “made-up” content. The Exodus is unlikely, Solomon/David, if they existed, possessed nothing close to the kingdom the Bible explains, etc. (so Noth, Miller/Hays, much of mainline Protestantism)
4. Just Stories: like that of Paul Bunyan. That is, the biblical authors make up stories using the contextual furniture of the ANE (so the Copenhagen School, Thomps, Davies)
Although these categories simplify the matter a bit, I think they are helpful for understanding where people are coming from. Because as we know ones starting points often are pointers toward their ending points (but ideally this is a reciprocal relationship). Now throughout our trip we visited sites archeologist’s say either:
(a) fit very well with the biblical texts (see the dating and burning of Hazor) and
(b) others are more problematic (see the lack of evidence at Jericho of destruction, assuming a late date for the Exodus).
Further, when one interprets this data their one of the four starting points aforementioned seriously comes into play. As does ones trust or suspicion in the value of the Scriptures as a reliable historical source. And I would argue that view (3) and (4) above are too dependent on Enlightenment principles of autonomous human reason to and do not wrestle enough with the notion of divine inspiration.
Further, many, if not most scholars, in camp (3) and (4) outright reject the divine giving of the law at Sinai (and the Exodus outright) which is quite problematic. For the entire Deuteronomic history (and even much of the Latter Prophets, Psalter, and Second Temple Lit) are built of the cornerstone of the Law. Take its historical nature out from under it and the entire OT is in jeopardy. In a similar way I would argue that if one denies the historical nature on the other mountain the NT, Mount Golgotha (and the Tomb), then the entire NT crumbles.
Thus its best to stick with some variation of (2) as our starting point which presupposes the historical nature of the major backbone of the OT (allowing for some error). And I would argue that this indeed fits with and takes into account the genre of the early books of the OT. So Joshua show no signs of being “made-up” stories considering the fine detail of it all. And further is written at a late enough time period that even Peter Enns would argue the writers had more of a “historical consciousness” that is closer to our own than say the book of Genesis.
25 June 2009 at 3.40 pm
Hi Brandon,
That’s very interesting. I haven’t formally studied enough to make a call where I stand yet.
“I would argue that view (3) and (4) above are too dependent on Enlightenment principles of autonomous human reason to and do not wrestle enough with the notion of divine inspiration.”
I do think, however, that I might not quite follow along with this statement. See my points in this thread above, re: Aquinas and the relationship between faith and reason.
I think it is a false dichotomy to pit faith and reason in a battle against one another. You can have both hand-in-hand, as they each corroborate and reevaluate each other.
25 June 2009 at 10.18 pm
Aaron:
Re: Faith and Reason. Even if we concede your points on the necessity of employing both faith and reason, the question still lingers: How do we properly (or improperly) utilize our reason in the interpretation of Scripture?
And its here it seems there are some nuanced, but important, differences between you and I. Through the rational components of by brain I am convinced that typically Scripture functions as a reliable and trustworthy source of revelation. Moreover, I give pride and place to special revelation in a unique way that gives it the “benefit of the doubt” on matter which it speaks to (including historicity).
For example, lets my friend Bart presented me with a few good sounding arguments against the resurrection. Perhaps arguing there are no (or few) sources outside Christianity attesting to Christ resurrection. And that the the principle of analogy and correlation make it highly unlikely (but not impossible) that a dead person could rise, etc. Even if I could not entirely refute all of these arguments, I would trump them with another set of arguments stemming from the source of special revelation because I find the Scriptures to be a reliable and even superior “source” of revelation.
My point is that we need to have a “posture of trust” (not suspicion) when we approach the Bible because it is a unique source of revelation. Practically, this also means that I may say the “jury is still out” in places where some archeological findings do not entirely prove the Conquest. We may have looked in the wrong places or interpreted some of the tel’s wrong, etc. Several decades ago many well respected archeologist doubted that David ever existed (despite the Mesha inscription, strangely), then we found the Tel Dan Stele and even the minimalist admitted some sort of Davidic dynasty. So my point is lets not be so quick to shout “error” or “don’t read the Conquest as historical history” just because we don’t have all of the pieces right now. Indeed, “the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”!
I probably should qualify all of this but stop there.
26 June 2009 at 11.05 pm
Hi Brandon,
Yeah, I actually agree with you completely. Scripture is our true, ultimate authority. “Innocent until proven guilty,” rather than guilty until proven innocent,
.
Hopefully, though, I didn’t sound too much like I was advocating the opposite. Because you’ve articulated perfectly the exact position I hold on the subject.
26 June 2009 at 11.17 pm
You don’t treat the Mahabharata like that or the Koran. Why do you hold the books canonized by your orthodoxy as innocent until proven guilty? Why the worship of a book?
26 June 2009 at 11.23 pm
Hi again, Sabio. You certainly popped up quickly
.
I will happily answer your question after you first answer my response to you above: http://aboulet.com/2009/06/23/consistent-errancy-9/#comment-11974
27 June 2009 at 6.40 am
Sabio and Art: Sabio, to me, you seem very angry about the church. I, to some extent, share your anger. I was taught some things by the church which I later discovered just were not true, When I tried to discuss these things constructively with church members, I was ignored. I have tried to find some middle ground of discussing issues without getting too angry, but it has been difficult and I have not been very successful with it. To me, the conservative position of interpreting the Bible literally, at least, makes sense even if I do not think the evidence supports this view. What makes less sense is to contend that the Bible contains fiction and literature and errors and contradictions and divine killing, but is still the Word of God. I tried to discuss this on this website and Art suggested, kindly I think, that this is the wrong website for that discussion. I was offended at first, but understand it better now. I still like his website and appreciated reading the Jesus Manifesto to which he referred. I think, however, that this website is an “in-house” website which serves those on the dividing line between very conservative and moderately conservative Christianity. It really is not for those liberals and agnostics who are struggling to make sense of it all and who are angry about the answers, or lack of answers, they have received. I think you should read this website, but there are lots of more liberal websites where you might find the discussion more in the direction that you are seeking. I have been where you are and moved on to other websites.
27 June 2009 at 7.00 am
Hey Ronald,
Why do you think I am “very angry about the church”? Which church (I assume you mean “all of Christendom”) and why “angry”? If you knew me, you would see I am not an angry person and actually would be typified by others as humorously immature ! But I do hold strong opinions on things. Maybe since I am countering things you strongly value, it can seem like anger. Actually, on other sites I argue against some vary angry atheists — I ask them to inspect their anger. Nonetheless ….
Your point about the theology and purpose of this website is well taken — and I totally respect that. If Art asks to keep it “in-house”, I will respect that. But Aaron a participant believer at this site wrote me long replies so I responded. I would be glad to not contribute and “just read”, it might be good for Art to put up commentor guidelines (many sites do that) which says “This is an In-House” site, non-Christians or Christians of very different theologies are welcome to read but please do not engage in controversy. Thank you kindly.”
Maybe Art will comment.
Thanks Ronald — it looks like your advice may be accurate.
27 June 2009 at 7.46 am
@Sabio and Ronald: I don’t want to speak for Art, but I think he just meant this particular series of posts. Art often has posts where the discussion is well suited to a belief vs. unbelief framework (for example, his posts on Hitchens and Ehrman).
27 June 2009 at 9.34 am
This has been an interesting series of posts.
28 June 2009 at 8.24 pm
I just read this on a Mormon site and thought of you all:
I would guess most readers at this site would be highly critical of Mormon use of your canon and their choice of additional canon. It would be interesting to see how you feel about their non-literalists. Of course, I find both you and their methods of picking and choosing rather confusing. But I thought you’d enjoy seeing how another faith words their thoughts.
3 July 2009 at 8.05 am
[...] on the topic of inerrancy. This series is well worth reading, the most recent of them can be found here. A listing of the entire series can be had here. There isn’t much more that needs saying in [...]
9 July 2009 at 1.40 pm
Ronald, you wrote: “What makes less sense is to contend that the Bible contains fiction and literature and errors and contradictions and divine killing, but is still the Word of God.”
Pete Enns actually addresses this point in the introduction to his book, “Inspiration & Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament.” (Highly recommended, by the way.)
Here is an excerpt:
You can read my summary of his introduction here [LINK]. I found his insight particularly interesting on this point—that both conservatives and liberals make the same mistaken assumption about what the text “should” be.
10 July 2009 at 10.57 am
Aaron: Thanks for addressing my question. I did read your “summary” and found it helpful. Actually, my question is related, but a little different. How does one know that the Bible with its human imprint is the Word of God and Aesop’s Fables is not the Word of God? In other words, when did God select these books and how did he let humans know that He had selected them? Ron
28 July 2009 at 8.36 am
Hi Ron,
Sorry for the delay in correspondence =).
You wrote: “How does one know that the Bible with its human imprint is the Word of God and Aesop’s Fables is not the Word of God? In other words, when did God select these books and how did he let humans know that He had selected them?”
For me personally, the incarnation of God into human flesh in Jesus of Nazareth is the crucial matter. If the gospels can be deduced to have historical veracity about Jesus, then that is my start. If this little Jewish guy Jesus died and was raised from the dead, I’ll listen to what he has to say. This is not the same beginning point for all Christians, but this is for me.
Following this, Jesus himself called his collection of writings in the Hebrew Bible the “word of God” (Mark 7:13). So if the dude-that-died-and-is-back-again tells me that he is in fact God, and that this book is the “word” of God, I take him on it.
This isn’t necessarily the approach all would take. Some people would just accept the Bible as the “word of God” on faith, and let that be their beginning point. At some point, there must be an element of faith. For my approach, the faith is in the incarnation of Jesus, and the historical veracity of the gospels (which I think is a reasonably-placed faith).