Showing posts with label Inerrancy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Inerrancy. Show all posts

Thursday, September 8, 2011

Inspiration and Inerrancy...A short essay


When one truly examines the foundations of Christianity it becomes inescapably clear that the question of both Inerrancy and Inspiration of the Scriptures are paramount to one’s theology. Reflecting on the above the issue of authority is raised. The Lord Himself taught with great authority (Matt. 7:29) and furthermore He utilized great power and authority in healing the sick (Mk. 8:22-25). This type of authority is ontological authority[i] and was the basis for Christ’s self-contained authority. Christ has been given the divine title of the logos, “Word” (Jn. 1:1) and if by ontological epistemology Christ can claim his authority then by the same the logos of God is authoritative, being in its very nature “God breathed” (2 Tim. 3:16). Naturally you would expect such an authority to be both faithful and true (Ps. 119:89) and the Word attests to itself this absolute faithfulness and truth.[ii]
            The Inspiration of Scripture is hard to deny and as one looks deeply into the text you discover countless examples of men speaking from God and being prompted and moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21). This inspiration also gains its very creditability in the fulfilled prophecies of the Old Testament in the lives of historical figures such as Cyrus (Is. 45:1). This fits nicely with the theme of truth and faithfulness discussed in the previous paragraph. Yet those critical of such a view of inspiration lean on another idea, a conceptual form of inspiration where God inspired the ideas of Scripture while neglecting to inform the readers which parts were inspired[iii]. These critics also appeal to manuscripts that have no actual evidence of existence[iv] from which to draw the texts we have today. It would appear safer to assume the historical, traditional understanding of inspiration, which is the Bible as a whole is the written word of God.[v]            
            As the debate continues the topic of Inerrancy arises. When Paul claimed he sailed to Troas (Acts 16:8) it should be understood by the reader to be fact. Likewise when Christ proclaimed Himself as the way, truth and the life (Jn. 14:6) it should be properly understood that Christ claimed these things. Yet what we cannot say of Scripture is that it is completely without error because we lack the original manuscripts to empirically verify that no errors, including grammatical, were made in transmission. However, on my view of Inerrancy, from the grounds of God’s Middle Knowledge, the doctrine of Inerrancy need not be the reason one forfeits his faith ala Bart Ehrman. If God does in fact posses counterfactual knowledge, knowledge of what one would freely do in any given situation, inerrancy does not need to be such a hotly contested doctrine. Certainly some of the salutations Paul wrote (Eph. 6:21, 2 Tim. 4:19-21) could have been indifference to God, yet we can affirm on Middle Knowledge, that the Bible says precisely what God wanted to say and it conveys his message of salvation to mankind.[vi]
            The arguments on Inerrancy start with The Biblical Argument. This argument has some strong points yet its downfall comes when it attempts to relate error to authority. When defenders of this position state that if something contains errors it cannot be essentially authoritative[vii] they ultimately take a path to the edge of the cliff. If in the future errors are discovered in scripture then they will jump into disbelief. The second argument, The Historical Argument, appears to be the strongest argument for affirming the inerrancy of scripture. Yet this argument is not without its problems for history shows starting with Benedict de Spinoza and his publication Tractatus Theologicopoliticus in 1670[viii] that theologians believed in alternate views of inspiration thereby raising the question of inerrancy. The third argument, The Epistemological Argument, falls victim to the thought that if there is one error then all scripture is false, overplaying the worry that this calls all of Scripture into question.[ix]  Just as with the Biblical Argument, the bar need not be raised this high. The Slippery Slope argument is the weakest argument presented by Feinberg, and as such has the smallest defense. A great many theologians hold a less rigid view of Inerrancy and are still professing Christians, they have not surrendered the central doctrines of Christianity[x]. There is simply no proof to support the necessity of such a conclusion.
            The relationship between inspiration and inerrancy find their locus in God Himself for it was through the Word that became flesh (Jn. 1:14) that men were revealed salvation, which is the overarching theme of Scripture.[xi]            
            When properly applied to life, the Scriptures come alive by the very inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Just as Peter and the apostles were filled with the Holy Spirit and the Word of God (Acts 2:4) my view on Scripture continues to fuel my passion to pursue the things of God with a focus on spreading His message to the lost.

Bibliography
Craig, William Lane. “‘Men Moved by the Holy Spirit Spoke from God’ (2 Peter 1:21): A Middle Knowledge Perspective on Biblical Inspiration.” Philosophia Christi, NS 1, 1999.
Feinberg, P.D. “Bible, Inerrancy and Infallibility of.” In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2nd ed., 156-59. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001.
Henry, C.F.H. “Bible, Inspiration of.” In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2nd ed., 159-63. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001.
McDonald, H.D. “Bible, Authority of.” In Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2nd ed., 153-54. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2001.
Towns, Elmer. Theology for Today Mason, OH: Thomson Custom Solutions Center, 2001.


[i] H.D. McDonald, “Bible, Authority of.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 153.
[ii] McDonald, 154.
[iii] Elmer L. Towns, Theology for Today (Mason: Thomson Custom Solutions Center, 2001), 61.
[iv] C.F.H. Henry, “Bible, Inspiration of.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 162.
[v] Henry, 161.
[vi] William Lane Craig, “‘Men Moved by the Holy Spirit Spoke from God’ (2 Peter 1:21): A Middle Knowledge Perspective on Biblical Inspiration.” Philosophia Christi, NS 1 (1999): 73.
[vii] P.D. Feinberg, “Bible, Inerrancy and Infallibility of.” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell, 2nd Ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), 157.
[viii] Craig, 58.
[ix] Feinberg, 158.
[x] Feinberg, 158.
[xi] Towns, 53.

Thursday, September 1, 2011

The Bible - Fundamentalist view of Transubstantiation?

I am currently reading Elmer Towns work on Theology, Theology for Today, and as I was reviewing the second part - Bibliology - my brain began to ponder a few things.

Here are my thoughts, your comments and feedback positive or negative are gladly accepted.

When I hear the debate about inspiration I am in agreement with most scholars that the Bible is the inspired word of God. When it comes to inerrancy I am certainly okay with the idea that the Bible is without error yet I am open to other views about this.

Where my thoughts caught me this morning was thinking about some of the statements I read from Towns. Here is the one that got me thinking the most,
"Just as a man can say, 'I am as good as my word,' God can say the same thing, for the Bible is God's Word. When the Bible is raised to this level, it is as perfect as God, and its perfection extends to every word." [1]
On the surface the statement may seem to be harmless but if you dig a little deeper you might see where I came up with my thought.

When you review what was said Towns seems to infer that the Scriptures are in fact God if they are as perfect as he is. Earlier he denies this point as something non-inerrantists like to use as a tactic of ridicule.  He states, "They accuse the inerrantist of 'bibliolarty' - worshiping the Bible." [2], yet it appears Towns could be leaning towards this point.

I think Scripture would be best understood like a good biography. If I wrote my biography and someone was to read it they would be able to get a feel for my life, personality, thoughts, beliefs and my very nature (namely that I am human). Yet on the other hand the reader could not carry the book to bed with them and state to their partner that, "Chris is coming to bed with us tonight." That seems most absurd to say something like that and I would suggest that person seek psychological intervention. Yet when we elevate the Holy Scriptures to this status it does leave the window open for someone to make the Bible the 4th person of the divine union of God.

In this way I believe some inerrantists place a burden on the Scriptures such as the Catholic theologians did when they postulated and instituted the doctrine of Transubstantiation on the Eucharist. Every time a Catholic takes communion they are literally eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Christ. This makes the wafer and wine out to be the very God we are said to worship. My God is no cracker or liquid and as we can see from a elementary study of Scripture, God is an immaterial being, "God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship him in spirit and in truth" (Jn. 4:24), how can he be imbued in a wafer?

Well those are my thoughts, we need to be cautious of the weight and burden of inerrancy we put on the Scriptures. Though I am certainly inclined to believe and affirm the Bible as God's perfect word, I am never open to claim God's word as equal to God, this is heresy. Again, though Towns does not affirm this, such a strong stance on inerrancy may lead one down a slippery slope to idolatry. It happens to pastors who are on radio or television, these men are raised to rock star status when they did not nor were they intended to be raised to this status. When this happens it becomes more about their message and transformation than the Heavenly Message Giver and Transformer. I think again, this could happen to some who places such a weight on Scripture, they would worship God's Word and not the God who uttered and inspired those words.


1. Elmer L. Towns, Theology for Today (Mason: Cengage Learning, 2008), 72.
2. Ibid., 65.

Wednesday, August 31, 2011

Would man really write the Bible if he could?

I will attempt to keep this brief, but this question was brought to me and I was prompted to answer it. When considering Bibliology - the theology of the scriptures - we will draw upon inspiration, inerrancy, origin and the very revelation of the text. When we examine this then we can draw a conclusion as to the nature of the very text and whether or not it was in fact God breathed.

As we do this we come across the point of who Christ claimed to be. As C.S. Lewis put it,
"You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse...Let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to." [1]
So as one justly and diligently reads the Scriptures you cannot deny the fact that Christ claimed to be God. So given that point one must then ask the question posed in the title, Would man really write the Bible if he could?

As Lewis S. Chafer, founder and former president of Dallas Theological Seminary wrote, "It (the Bible) is not such a book as man would write if he could, or could if he would." [2] In other words,
"Man would not write the Bible, for in doing so he has created a message of the perfect Son of God who condemns all men. Since God will judge sin, no rational man would write a book that would be self-condemning." [3]

Furthermore man could not write the Bible if he would because of the simple limitations on human understanding. It would be most impossible for an imperfect creature like man with limited rational capabilities to conceive of an unlimited God who is certainly most-powerful with his accompanying eternal attributes.

So to answer the question, above, I would say no, man would not write the Bible if he could for the reasons above. That point given, then the author of the Scriptures had to be God himself. As Scripture attests, "All scripture is God-breathed..." (2 Tim. 3:16)

1. C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: MacMillian Company, 1952), 40-41.
2. Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology (Dallas: Dallas Seminary Press, 1957), 22.
3. Elmer L. Towns, Theology for Today (Mason: Cengage Learning, 2008), 46.

Thursday, March 3, 2011

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is a document that helps the Christian gain some understanding when they hear people speaking about "Biblical Inerrancy." Apart from this Short Statement below, the document contains 19 articles each with an affirmation and denial as well as an Exposition section elaborating on a few key doctrines, which include: Inerrancy and Authority, Infallibility Inerrancy and Interpretation and a few others. Take some time to chew on this and see where it leaves you in regards to your personal held views on the Word of God. It may just impact the way you view and study scripture!

I have pasted the "Short (Summary) Statement" below and the full article of the statement can be seen at http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html


A SHORT STATEMENT
1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.

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.

3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.

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.