John Mann, who has contributed to SBC Today before, has offered a new treatise which we are happy to publish. He is pastor at La Junta Baptist church and in 2001 he lead the congregation to disfellow themselves from the Baptist General Convention of Texas and uniquely align themselves with the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention. In this first article, he argues that the battle for the Bible is really not over, as some still cannot affirm the inerrancy of scripture. Altogether, the next series of posts from him will be his “apologia” as to why La Junta Baptist church made this move.
After having been asked numerous times why our church felt led to affiliate with the Southern Baptists of Texas Convention (SBTC), I felt it necessary to put our thought process into print for the benefit of those who are seeking direction for their congregation. After having participated in many hours of research, discussion, and observation, I have concluded that the SBTC stands closer to my view of what it means to be a Baptist, both historically and doctrinally.
My observation is that there has been a widening in the gap of like-mindedness and doctrinal unity between the Baptist General Convention of Texas (BGCT), the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), and LaJunta Baptist Church (LJBC). As two rivers flow what is seemingly a parallel path, time will eventually reveal if there is any degree of variance. The further they flow, the wider the distance between them becomes. The gap will eventually become so great that they both cannot be viewed from a common standpoint. It is my contention that this is what has happened with the BGCT and LJBC. When that is the case, it becomes necessary to choose one path or the other, for both cannot be followed.
In sum, our church felt that we needed to withdraw from the BGCT and to affiliate with the SBTC because it is the state convention that stands closest to the Biblical principles, missions support, and convictions that we embrace as a congregation. We are a Southern Baptist church because we believe in the work and message of the Southern Baptist Convention. We are convinced that the Scriptural interpretation and practice of the SBC is closest to our own. On the other hand, the continual drift of the BGCT away from the SBC has revealed a great chasm. Our study was one which began with what we understood Scripture to say, and then, which convention stood closest to Scriptural purity. Our study revealed that to be the SBC, and by extension, the SBTC. We found the BGCT to be sorely lacking in Biblical faithfulness as we understand it.
With that in mind, I offer the following reasons why I believe this to be so. The evidence that is offered is public and accessible for all. I have copies of all the original material on file. The congregation of LaJunta Baptist felt so deeply about the importance of these issues that we voted on August 12, 2007 to include this paper in our historical records and also to allow the distribution of this paper in its entirety to all interested parties. The comments are intended to reflect the personal convictions of the pastor and the people of LaJunta Baptist Church.
Please understand, though I fiercely oppose theological errors (those made by others and those errors of my own), I believe every individual to be of value to God, His Creation, and the work of His Kingdom. My ruminations are simply an attempt to contribute to the work of the Kingdom as we seek the edification of the saints, which occurs in fellowship, and often, in tension.
SCRIPTURE
Doctrine is part and parcel to what it means to be a Baptist. Baptists are people who believe what they do about God and the world because of what the Bible teaches about God and the world. The SBTC without reservation affirms the complete Word of God as being inerrant. However, after studying the BGCT’s stance on Scripture, I noticed a hesitancy to affirm “inerrancy.” In a document produced by the BGCT in 2002 for the purpose of comparing the SBTC to the BGCT, they stated, “most BGCT leaders and messengers in recent years have shunned that word as a politicized codeword more than a descriptive theological statement, while still affirming the complete authority and trustworthiness of the Bible.”
I do agree that the Bible is authoritative and trustworthy, but I must go further and say that the Bible is the perfect and inerrant Word of God. I believe many entities are trustworthy and authoritative. For example, I personally would say that the police force and the military are authoritative and trustworthy; however, I would not say that they do not make errors. I do not hesitate in stating the Bible is inerrant, neither does the SBTC. The Bible is certainly trustworthy and authoritative, but it is much more.
Most BGCT pastors and churches would affirm inerrancy, yet interestingly enough, denominational employees of the BGCT and the agencies and entities to which they send Cooperative Program money may not be required to follow suit. That means that state convention employees may have a different view than the majority of the pastors and churches to whom they offer service. To the contrary, the SBTC has made clear that all employees must affirm their belief in the inerrancy of the Bible. The resulting difference is best illustrated in an article that appeared in February 6, 2006 Baptist Standard which was written by Dr. Roger Olson, a professor of theology at Truett Seminary (a BGCT supported seminary). The title of the article is “Why Inerrancy Doesn’t Matter.”
In this article, Dr. Olson states that Truett professors “vary in their views of biblical accuracy while holding firmly to biblical authority.” He further states that Truett does not need to dictate what professors believe because inerrancy is one of the “secondary matters of doctrine.” Dr. Olson offers his conclusion by asserting that the Bible is “(often) infallible,” and even goes on to state that, in regards to a particular text, “the best approach is to admit that Paul made a mistake.” Biblical inerrancy is not a matter of secondary doctrine to me. It is of primary importance. Without a sure word in our hand we have no sure word for the people. I desire to give my congregation more than a ‘best guess,’ but rather to give them a rock solid word from God. This demands a perfect revelation from God that is both sufficient and inerrant.
Dr. Olson’s conclusion is highly concerning to me because this particular professor is teaching the pastors of the future, and is being supported by monies given by the BGCT. For the time being, the majority of pastors support inerrancy, but given a generation of theological education under men such as Dr. Olson, how far away are we from drifting down the river of theological liberalism? In most cases, as goes our seminaries, so go our pastors. As go our pastors, so go our churches. My concern is that if we remove the Bible from the pastors’ hands, we remove the message from our pulpits. I desire to be aligned with organizations that offer an unqualified voice to the inerrancy of Scripture. I believe this stance is more clearly articulated by the SBTC, not only in denominational documents, but more importantly, by denominational practice.
In sum, the BGCT has left herself without a solid foundation for theological exercise and doctrinal accountability because they have allowed a crack into the foundation upon which they have tried to build their structure. I reiterate, each and every individual is due respect, freedom of conscience, and opportunity to speak. However, where cracks creep into one’s foundation, we are demanded to warn others of the error. A failure to maintain a solidified doctrine of Scripture will inevitably leave one without a foundation capable of the task before it. I believe a failure to embrace a doctrine of inerrancy is to lay a foundation with cracks beneath the surface. These hidden cracks ultimately will be revealed.
Recent Southern Baptist Conventions have heard the repetition of the statement, “the battle for the Bible is over.” However, a keen ear and sharp eye will be quick to discover that the battle for the Bible begun in Eden when the word of God was first questioned, and certainly remains to this day as Satan continues his efforts to seduce Another’s Bride to commit harlotry by satisfying one’s own temporal hunger for self-appeasement. The battle for the Bible will not be over until the Word once again manifests Himself to the kingdoms of the world as the supreme King and Lord.
In light of this Apologia, how do you, John Mann, and others feel about BGCT Executive Director Randall Everett speaking at SWBTS chapel on October 15?
BDW
I can answer that. The BGCT is still apart of the SBC. To invite the Executive Director to SWBTS is another piece of evidence that Dr. Patterson is not the narrow minded fundamentalist some are still trying to paint him as. One might even say he is trying to “Build Bridges?”
I would hope that the relationship between SWBTS and the BGCT will be a fruitful one for the time being. We could possibly see that BGCT churches would encourage their members to go to SWBTS. That way they would not have to listen to the liberal theological dribble by one Dr. Roger Olson. I also seriously doubt they would hear any professor say that, “the best approach is to admit that Paul made a mistake.”
At SWBTS, I can guarantee that no one will say that inerrancy is a secondary issue.
BDW,
I echo Robin’s response, and follow it with applause for Dr. Patterson’s irenic spirit and Christian love. Though I have never met Randall Everett, I have no doubt that he is a man who loves the Lord and demonstrates a Christian spirit. However, I do think he should lead the BGCT to affirm the doctrine of inerrancy, as well as a few other items of interest.
I pray Christ is exalted and the Cross is magnified when Bro. Randall is at SWBTS. Doctrinal disagreement does not an enemy make.
John
May I also “echo” your sentiments. While Dr Olson is not our enemy, theological liberalism must be questioned and refuted.
Robin,
I agree. Perhaps a word of clarification regarding BDW’s question. Randall Everett (or Dr. Olson) is not my enemy, but an insufficient doctrine of Scripture is an enemy for our churches. I believe the leadership of the BGCT has an inadequate doctrine of Scripture, which demands a response.
First of all, how would being a narrow minded fundamentalist be a bad thing?
2nd of all, kudos to John Mann and La Junta Baptist Church for breaking ties with a group of people who are so open minded their brain might leak out. If a church or denomination does not want to affirm the complete verbal plenary inspriation of scripture and that it is perfectly without error in whole or in part in the original autographs needs to find people to fellowship with who will affirm their low view of scripture. While certainly we have textual variants in the manuscript copies we have available, someone reading one of the regularly used versions available today (NASB, NKJV, etc) can be completely confident that they have a reliable copy of God’s word that they can study and trust.
I ask someone to simply define for me “inerrancy”. This issue continues to prove so divisive.
Tom
I would be comfortable with the Chicago statement on inerrancy which has been affirmed by many Southern Baptists and the Evangelical Theological Society.
Robin:
Thanks for the response. In summary what does the Chicago statement say in layman’s terms.
Tom
I have always thought of you as a pretty intelligent person, so I don’t know why you have asked your question. I believe you or any other layperson can google the CSI and read it for yourself and understand it.
But I also believe you miss the big picture. When a professor says that we need to admit that Paul made a mistake when looking at a particular part of scripture, that is crossing the line.
Tom,
Joe gave a pretty short and concise definition of inerrancy above:
“…affirm the complete verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture and that it is perfectly without error in whole or in part in the original autographs…”
Ron P.
Robin:
Please help me to understand your need to bring into question my intelligence? It is what it is. If I was in your presence is that how you would speak to me when I ask you a sincere question. I sure hope not.
Robin:
I have always thought of you as a courteous and respectful person. I’m not so sure now.
Tom
The intent of my commet was not to question your intelligence. Rather, I thought it affirmed it. That is why I do not understand why you needed me to explain the CSI in layman terms.
I do apologize for offending you.
I would also agree with Ron in that joe did give a pretty good definition.
Robin:
I have looked up the CSI on the internet and it is page after page of in my opinion not so easy reading. I was hopeful that you might give me a short summary. I agree that Ron P. and Joe’s definitions are brief and to the point and maybe I should be satisfied with their explanations. I do thank you for the discussion.
Tom
I also thank you for the discussion. I understand your remark about the length of the CSI. It is rather intimidating, but a few years back I spent some time on it and it proved to be fruitful. Allow me to encourage you to do your own study on the CSI.
John,
Excellent post. Let me add that I believe that there are a lot of folks that muddy up inerrancy. Some intentionally, and some not. All of us would agree that the word inerrancy does not appear in the text itself. But the principle is clearly there. I would argue the same for the words Trinity and rapture. None of these words appear in the text, but are clearly “seen”. I believe those that argue against using the word because it is not in Scripture, do so to the peril of other doctrines such as the Trinity. How can they argue for one, but not the other? If they can not use the word inerrancy, then they would be inconsistent to use the word Trinity or rapture. I say that because there is no way around the fact that Scripture clearly teaches and believes in inerrancy. Jesus own words on the Scripture also clearly teach the principle of inerrancy. Peter clearly had the same view of Paul’s writings.
So if the Scriptures, Jesus, Peter, Isaiah etc. have such a high view of Scripture, why doesn’t the BGCT? The battle for the Bible is far from over.
Ron P.
Brother John,
What great insight. You certainly make a clear presentation of the variables pertaining to the term inerrancy. One is hard pressed to commit to the authority of Scripture but then admit that the very document they say is their authority contains errors. That would be like a mathematician saying he is committed to the principles of math, but believes that 2 + 2 = 4 could possibly be and probably is wrong.
Blessings,
Tim
Ron,
Thank you. Most references to inerrancy by the BGCT that I have found use the language of it being a “politicized codeword” and not much more. However, I would say that it is a necessary and proper doctrine for the 21st Century in order to have a common ground for pursuit of theological enquiry as well as missional and evangelistic activity.
Brother Tim,
Thank you. Only in a postmodern world can 2+2=5 and the meaning of Scripture lay in the hands of the interpreter and not its Author.
Tom,
Though inerrancy cannot be simplified without emptying it of some of its goal and context, I will attempt a satisfying explanation.
1). Inerrancy affirms that ALL of Scripture is breathed by God through human authors in its original autographs. That is, there is not one verse found within the canon that was not given by God. A claim that Dr. Olson dismisses when he wants to lay a “mistake” at the feet of the apostle Paul. Its origin is from God. Therefore, to propose that there is a mistake in Scripture is to propose that there is the ability for God to make a mistake.
2). To say that Scripture is inerrant is to say that it is without error in all that it teaches and is not limited to faith, religion, or spirituality [Article XII]. In other words, scientific investigation does not trump Biblical revelation. Scripture stands over humanity and not humanity over Scripture.
3). Scripture and the Holy Spirit are in agreement and not contradiction. This avoids both the subjectivism of Neo-orthodoxy and the rationalism of the Enlightenment.
In sum, where one fails to understand Scripture, the fault lies with the interpreter and not with the Scripture. Again, this answer is far too simplistic, but hopefully, you will find it profitable.
Brother John,
I think you are right to defend what God has written. Some in academia find is fashionable to digress from God’s method of revealing His word to man. They, being some in academia, place too much tension on human delivery instead of recognizing that God’s purpose in communicating to us is to glorify Himself. God being all perfect and immutable by His own testimony is the only reliable defendant in the court of human appeal. The Gnostics were up to these same old tricks just after the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.
What’s a good Gnostic to do though, but to simply diminish the glory of God for the sake of knowledge. It pretends to be a worthy pursuit. We, being called as the people of God, should without hesitancy confront a dependence on the medium of myth and force religious (Christian oriented) Gnostics to make good on their defense. It is a struggle that will be with us until the return of Christ, but a worthwhile struggle it is…..
It appears some are back to the same old practice of placing too much inerrancy in the errancy of man.
Thank you for your efforts….
Blessings from an errant observer,
Chris
Ron P.
I think this is the first time I’ve ever had someone quote something I wrote. Most kind of you. I have to keep things simple and concise. I’m an accountant. I’m not creative enough to make things difficult. Haa
Robin
Thank you for your affirmation.
Very interesting discussion. I note that Joe Blackmon in #6, Ron P. in #11, and Robin Foster in #14 combine inerrancy with a further qualification, the theory of verbal plenary inspiration and call them the same thing. You know, ther are other theories of inspiration held by conservative Christians and scholars, even those who affirm inerrancy. I wonder though: (1) how many contributors to this blog and (2) how many professors at SWBTS and other SBC seminaries would hold that inspiration and verbal plenary inspiration are one and the same? Anyone want to pitch in and give a clue?
John Fariss
John
I have absolutely no idea what your point is. The bible is inerent because God revealed Himself using exactly the words (verbal) that He intended in the original autographs. Therefore, the writers of scripture made no error in the words they used because what they wrote was superintended by the Holy Spirit. Further, the bible is inerrant in all the subject matter it reveals–all of it from the smallest detail to the greatest detail (plenary). This includes history, geography, and anything else on which the bible touches. Further, if science appears to contradict the bible, science is in error because God made no mistakes whatsoever in revealing His word. Therefore, it is inerrant.
Joe,
You said ” While certainly we have textual variants in the manuscript copies we have available, someone reading one of the regularly used versions available today (NASB, NKJV, etc) can be completely confident that they have a reliable copy of God’s word that they can study and trust.
So is it reliable, trustworthy, or inerrant? And can someone please give me the link or address where I can get me a copy of the original autographs. My library is lacking.
Joe, your posts always make me belly laugh.
Robert,
One need not see the original manuscripts to believe they are inerrant anymore than one needs to literally see God to know He is triune. The very nature of faith demands believing the revelation of God without a further demand for proof from God. Scripture reveals God as triune and itself as inerrant. If one needs to see the original manuscripts to trust God’s ability to communicate His word, does one also need to see Heaven before he can believe the promises?
Robert,
We have enough of the originals quoted by the Early Church leaders to make up the entire NT. We also have the manuscript copies from way back, and lots of them to compare. So, I do believe that we can rest assured that we know what the originals had on them.
Why do you have such a problem with it is a question that I’d have? Why would believing in an inerrant Bible be a problem with you?
David
PS. Good word, John.
Joe,
I like what you say. It blesses me. Keep saying it, Brother.
David
Robert
You’re a cut up yourself, you old card.
volfan,
I am encouraged, sir. Keep the faith.
Brother John,
I know we have been down this road before, but lets try and at least give these guys a distinction between inspired and verbal plenary vs. inspired, but we haven’t a great deal of confidence in the manuscripts we have.
Inspired – God Breathed
Verbal Inspiration – the actual words as they exist,.. then written down as given.
Plenary – every subject and claim of those words as they exist
So most Christians believe that what they (Prophets and Apostles) wrote was the very Word of God and that there are real documents.
Are you suggesting that the inspiration is God breathed, the actual words, subject matter, and claims, yet we only have available to us pseudographs and not autographs. And because we only have copies of copies, you can believe that the bible is inerrant, but not without error in those copies. It that somewhere close to your line of thinking?
I’m just trying to get a feel for where you are going with this….
Blessings,
Chris
Dear Joe & others : re “complete verbal plenary inspriation”:
Maybe we are talking at each other instead of to each other, but my understanding of the phrase is that it means God literally dictated every word of Scripture to the human author, leaving little or no room for the education and language skills possessed by the authors. Now maybe the definition of the term has changed in the 22 years since I left seminary, and if it has, please share with me what it is to you. You see, at least to me, this theory of inspiration does not explain the differences in style between different authors. If God chose the exact words, it does not matter whether or not the author would have understood (it could have been Schroder’s equation or about America), or whether it would have been in keeping with the author’s vocabulary and stylistic preferences. Joe said, “what they wrote was superintended by the Holy Spirit,” and I don’t think that is in question by any of us–it is just how the Spirit “superintended,” as what you have described seems to be uncomfortably close to what an earlier generation called “automatic writing,” in which the author went into a kind of trance, and when he emerged, there was a book of the Bible. I will grant that we have passages where “Thus saith the Lord,” so we certainly could have something akin to dictation (maybe–even there, God could speak in different ways, including verbally as you imply, symbolically as He did with some of the prophets, or through leadings and inclinations), but there are other whole books–the Wisdom literature for instance–where such comments are absent AND the same material is known from earlier, non-Biblical sources. That is not a problem for me, because the alternative to full or complete plenary inspiration is what used to be called “dynamic” inspiration. This is where God planted or inspired the thought in the writer–directly or indirectly, through other peoples, books, writings, etc–but allows the writer to express the though in his style, to his understanding, and as mediated through his education and language skills.
Where am I going with this? As I though I stated plainly, I am simply curious as to whether professors at SBC seminaries and yourselves as contributors to this blog have deliberately (or unintentionally) combined two separate ideas, the fact of inspiration and one specific, rather narrow theory of how inspiration took place. Do you realize that these are two separate issues? I have no problem with you accepting one theory of inspiration and me another–unless you insist that Southern Baptists must subscribe to your view, and that mine is invalid.
A couple of other thoughts: my old debating buddy, volfan007, surely you are not serious when you say, “We have enough of the originals quoted by the Early Church leaders to make up the entire NT. We also have the manuscript copies from way back, and lots of them to compare. So, I do believe that we can rest assured that we know what the originals had on them.” Unless something has turned up while I have been concentrating on churchs and congregations, the oldest manuscript of the New Testament we have is a little fragment about three inches on a side from John’s Gospel dating from appx. 125-150 AD, then the Beatty papyri of Pauline epistles from the 200′s AD (I am at home now and going from memory, but I think that is close). We can be confident that we have, in the most modern translations and versions, what the Bible said in the 200-300s AD, but to claim absolute accuracy to what was written in the 50s to 90s AD is without support.
And Christ Johnson, I have to disagree with the dichotemy you set up in comment #31. The difference is NOT between “between inspired and verbal plenary vs. inspired, but we haven’t a great deal of confidence in the manuscripts we have.” Rather, at least IMHO, the difference is between accepting that every word is what what chosen by God and whether the human authors mediated what God inspired them so write. I would characterize it as almost the difference between grace and law.
And by the way, Joe: be careful in speaking about science and the Bible. Between four and five hundred years ago, the church “knew” that when the two were in conflict, the Bible was right and science was wrong. Granted, none of us today believe that the earth is flat, or that the earth is the center of the solar system, much less the universe. But if it turns out that science is “right,” then reality will be that we misinterpreted what the Bible said, not that the Bible was wrong. Oh, and I think that is easier to swallow if one subscribes to dynamic inspiration rather than to plenary verbal inspiration. And it makes us more palatable to those scientific types too.
John Fariss
John,
…..On second thought, nevermind.
John (Mann),
Thanks for a good summary post. I think one thing we forget is, no matter how satisfying the evidence remains for those of us who embrace the scriptural doctrine of biblical inspiration–the short-hand of which is Inerrancy–those who deny the view we embrace will not–indeed cannot–be content. Indicative of this are the identical questions raised for the last half century:
-Where are the original manuscripts?
-How do we account for the various author’s personality and style?
-Why are there so many qualifications to “inerrancy”?
-Why do variants exist in the Greek texts we do possess?
-Why do we make a view of inspiration born at Princeton in the 19thC a non-negotiable of our faith?
-How do we account for the “errors” in the texts we have? Errors like numbers and time-lines on the one hand and historical and scientific on the other?
Of course, there are sober answers to these questions; nonetheless, the answers are not suitable to our brothers who a priori reject inerrancy.
That is why, for the most part, I have stopped dialog about this particular doctrine. Until substantial challenges are forthcoming, the dizzy feeling one gets on this merry-go-round is too much for me in my older age.
If our brothers can ever demonstrate to us how, given their view of inspiration, the Bible is more than rather than simply equal to the literary genius of Shakespeare, we possibly could consider that a challenge.
Grace, John. With that, I am…
Peter
I see some took my post the wrong way. I have no problem believing the Bible is inerrant and serves the exact purpose God intends it to. I do think it is irresponsible to say that every period, exclamation point, or other grammatical issues are exact. We have too many conflicting copies in these areas to believe that it is the Bible we have today is completely and totaly correct. Does that change the fact that I believe it is God’s perfect word. No. Actually it strengthens my belief. It amazes me to think that through all the copying and passing down of the of the biblical writings that we still have what we have today without corruption. That is definitely a God thing. It may not be in the form of the original autograohs, but it is in the form God wanted us to have.
Peter,
Good word. If the Bible is indeed NOT the very word of God, then at best, Christianity is nothing more than a “best guess” of God’s attempted communication.
John Fariss brings in “dictation” as the same as verbal plenary inspriation. It is interesting that many books list dictation as one view of inspiration, but I have never read a person of any scholarship avow it.
I like Chris Johnson’s short definition. I might add that God was so involved in the process that He used the education, experience, and style of the human author.
In the article at the beginning of this post it is clear that the problem is not in scribal mistakes, but did Paul’s writing reflect God’s design.
Good post and good discussion from all sides!
Brother John,
Thank you for the explanation, it does help…..
Yes, the dichotomy was set up to help everyone understand your approach. For instance, I do not take the translation of the following scripture to be without error, yet I do realize that God revealed certain words from which this translation was created. And those certain words were written down by men moved by the Holy Spirit. It seems to me that is how God has always seen fit to reveal His word to us. (2 Timothy 3:16-4:4)
Paul declared to Titus an even clearer picture of inspiration “manifested” by “God our Savior” in Titus 1:1-4
I does not appear that the best translations of the copies of script we have found lean toward trusting “human mediation” as a way, as Paul was put it,…that God has “at the proper time manifested, His word, in the proclamation with which I was entrusted”. It seems that there is a “time” component in the revealing of His Word that is important. The question that enters my mind,…it why would God use men (sinners) to reveal His Word in perfection, even as Christ spoke? I guess the best answer I have is that it appears to be His plan, way and purpose. Accepting what God has done to reveal His truth by way of fallen men through faith is equally sure as the strength and substance that faith delivered making good on the imputation of righteousness.
Isaiah 25:1 O LORD, You are my God; I will exalt You, I will give thanks to Your name; For You have worked wonders, Plans formed long ago, with perfect faithfulness.
As I said earlier,…these discussion will go on until Christ comes again. My caution would be for Pastors not to inadvertently turn God’s word into myths by way of inspiration. John, I know that is not your intent by what you have written.
Steve has brought out the salient issue. Some would say that is does matter that actual words were delivered and transferred,…Paul seemed to think this as well….as he informed the Roman church in this way in his benediction.
Romans 16:25-27 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, (26) but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith; (27) to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen.
The birth and subsequent life, death and resurrection of Christ is a wonderful picture for how the Word of God is “delivered” forensically and becoming crucial evidence to the character of God’s word given through the prophets and apostles. It appears that God has established times, ways and means, and the written word (not just true meanings from words and thoughts) is not a foreign means of transmission.
Blessings,
Chris
Peter:
Where in the Old or New Testament is the term Inerrancy?
With that, I am
Tom Parker
Tom,
Where in the Old or New Testament is the term Trinity? Do you hold to a Trinitarian view of God?
If you are putting forth the argument that one can not hold that inerrancy is Biblical because the word itself does not appear in the text, then to be consistent, you would have to hold that Trinity is not biblical. But that is only if you want to be consistent in your argument.
Scripture clearly teaches inerrancy, just as it teaches that God is a Triune God. Neither word appears in the text, but both are clear doctrines of the Scripture.
Ron P.
Ron P:
How does scripture clearly teach inerrancy? Where did this term come from?
Tom,
Let me imitate Christ here. I’ll answer you if you answer my questions. Do you believe in the Trinity? Have you ever used the word Trinity and do you believe it to be biblical?
Once we can establish that you do (or not) use a word that is not in Scripture for a major doctrinal view, then we can build upon that foundation.
Thank you,
Ron P.
Ron,
Your taxing response to our Brother Tom is precisely that to which I referred in my note.
As for Tom’s query into the original source of the term “inerrancy” makes little difference to the viability of the view. Indeed were that the case, virtually every systematic textbook becomes a useless bundle of hubris.
Nor are we dependent on Princeton for the term since the first writing Southern Baptist theologian employed a form of it:
“To us in these latter days, he speaks to us in his written word, the Bible, whcih is the perfect source of religious knowledge, and the infallible standard of religious truth…The men who originally wrote the Holy Scriptures performed the work under the influence of the Holy Spirit…From all this, we learn that what was spoken and written by inspiration came with as high authority as if it had proceeded from God without the use of human instrumentality…
“The question whether inspiration extended to the very words of revelation, as well as to the thoughts and reasonings is answered by Paul: ‘We preach, not in the *words* which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth’ (emphasis original).
The doctirne of plenmary inspiration, if not properly understood, does not imply that the Holy Spirit employed the writer as an unconscious instrument. It maintains that his memory, and other mental powers, were employed in the execution of the work, as truly as his hand; but it insists that the latter was as certainly controlled by the *unerring* guide as the former (emphasis mine).
Although the Scriptures were originally penned under the *unerring* guidance of the Holy Spirit, it does not follow, that a continued miracle has been wrought to preserve them from all error in transcribing. On the contrary, we know that manuscripts differ with each other; and where readings are various but one of them can be correct. *A miracle was needed in the original production of the Scriptures; and accordingly, a miracle was wrought…” (Dagg, Manual, pp 21-24).
For Dagg, biblical inerrancy stands as a necessary plank to argue for biblical authority.
Inerrancy is at least as old as our first Southern Baptist theologian. Thus, an interest in “where the word” originates cannot be taken seriously in the least, it seems to me.
With that, I am…
Peter
Steve,
If y’all mean something for full plenary verbal inspiration something significantly different from dictation, then by all means, please explain it to me. I’m not trying to bait anyone; I am honestly curious , and I want to know. I try always to be open to learning something new.
I am still waiting for someone to explain to me why inspiration must be linked with what I regard as one narrow theory of how inspiration happens. I have read Chris’s explanation of and the passages he cited (Titus 1:1-4, Romans 1:1-6 and 16:25-27, etc.) and even if I make the assumption that “truth” here is meant propositionally and that “gospel” means something broader than the Good News of Jesus Christ (that he bas born as human, was/is God the Son, that He was crucified and died for our sins and was resurrrected, etc.), I fail to see how that expands on the word “inspiration” significantly (if at all).
And Ron P., I’ll bite at your question for Tom. A word does not have to be in Scripture to represent a Scriptural truth, although it certainly removes most controversy over its use. Can you now show me where inerrancy is as solidly Biblical as the trinity without using passages that can be interpreted differently by different Christians, or has been held as an historic position by the church for a similar period?
Ron P.
I 100% believe in the Trinity.
As for Peter, he said
“Inerrancy is at least as old as our first Southern Baptist theologian. Thus, an interest in “where the word” originates cannot be taken seriously in the least, it seems to me.” I ask you again where did this word come from? Great battles have been fought over this word and continue to be fought. People have been removed from their positions and charged with not believing the Bible, that is they are considered Liberal. Personally, I believe my question is a valid one whether you do or not.
With that, I am…
Tom Parker
Ron P.
I 100% believe in the Trinity.
As for Peter, he said
“Inerrancy is at least as old as our first Southern Baptist theologian. Thus, an interest in “where the word” originates cannot be taken seriously in the least, it seems to me.” I ask you again where did this word come from? Great battles have been fought over this word and continue to be fought. People have been removed from their positions and charged with not believing the Bible, that is they are considered Liberal. Personally, I believe my question is a valid one whether you do or not.
With that, I am…
Tom Parker
Ron P.
I 100% believe in the Trinity.
As for Peter, he said
“Inerrancy is at least as old as our first Southern Baptist theologian. Thus, an interest in “where the word” originates cannot be taken seriously in the least, it seems to me.” I ask you again where did this word come from? Great battles have been fought over this word and continue to be fought. People have been removed from their positions and charged with not believing the Bible, that is they are considered Liberal. Personally, I believe my question is a valid one whether you do or not.
With that, I am…
Tom Parker
Brother Tom,
Christ alluded to the inerrancy of the Old Testament in Mark….
Mark7:6 And He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: ‘THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS, BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
Christ spoke of a specific “grapho” by Isaiah as penned by Isaiah. Was Christ only referencing the thought of what Isaiah was proposing, or did He mean to imply that Isaiah brought forth the Word of God in perfection through writing? Mark, as he remembered the words of Christ, doesn’t seem to hesitate with attributing accuracy to Christ’s statement. Some might argue that Mark was not completely accurate. But, if he is,…it seems Christ is very specific as to how things were done in the days of Isaiah and how it was revealed in writing.
Blessings,
Chris
Brother John F,
I appreciate your feedback here. What I am proposing is that the incarnation of Christ has given us Saints and others (post resurrection) a surer and more clear example of forensic reality, of which scripture whether by Moses or the Apostle John is made with exacting authority and veracity.
2 Peter 1:16-19 For we did not follow cleverly devised tales when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of His majesty. (17) For when He received honor and glory from God the Father, such an utterance as this was made to Him by the Majestic Glory, “This is My beloved Son with whom I am well-pleased”– (18) and we ourselves heard this utterance made from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. (19) So we have the prophetic word made more sure, to which you do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star arises in your hearts.
My proposal should be thought out carefully I believe, because it does bring into question if God’s sovereign will appoints all things to His glory. I’m not speaking to my conviction as proof (not up to the task), but to what God has proposed as His perfection for His Saints. In other words, has God delivered to us something of substance to be believed;… and not simply an academic exercise, which serves little if any value to anyone.
I personally like putting these thoughts (all of us) on the table, because it helps us to determine how we see scripture and its significance with relationship to the gospel of God. You’re a smart guy,…so my intent is not so much to change your thinking.
Blessings,
Chris
Tom,
If I thought you were seriously unstudied, I would be willing to go further along the trail than this. No thanks.
There’s been more evangelical scholarship marshaled under-girding this doctrine than perhaps any other in the modern era. If nothing there is of value to you, nothing I could possibly say would edify either of us toward a greater understanding of one another.
Nor am I interested in offering the etymology of a word which, even if Porky Pig produced it, would make squat for difference whether the doctrine of inerrancy is biblical or not. Insisting on such against reason is proof indicative, at least for me, the conversation on this issue has expended itself.
With that, I am…
Peter
John Fariss,
You ask: Can you now show me where inerrancy is as solidly Biblical as the trinity without using passages that can be interpreted differently by different Christians, or has been held as an historic position by the church for a similar period?
The passages on the Trinity have been debated over the centuries. Thus, you are establishing a higher qualification for the acceptance of inerrancy than you are of the Trinity in that regard. However, the difference is that until the past few centuries, inerrancy was not an issue because of the high regard that the Scriptures were held by believers. The doctrine of the Trinity was an issue in the early church that they had to deal with, inerrancy was not.
IMHO, it was not an issue because believers did not question the inerrancy of the Scriptures. That is why you will not be able to find “inerrancy” i.e. the word, in the early centuries like you will Trinity. But that is because it was a moot point. The questions of the early church councils dealt not with inerrancy of Scripture, but affirmation of those books that were to be part of the canon of Scripture.
Therefore it is precisely as John Mann pointed out above:…it is a necessary and proper doctrine for the 21st Century in order to have a common ground for pursuit of theological enquiry as well as missional and evangelistic activity.
If you have an expectation that inerrancy can only be a legitimate doctrine if it has been discussed and decided by the early church fathers, then I submit you have an unrealistic expectation of our early church fathers to see into the future nearly 20 centuries. I do however believe that God, through the Scriptures, did answer this question within the canon of Scripture itself.
We would not be having this discussion within any church body or denomination, if we had the same high view of Scripture that the early Christians did.
Ron P.
This conversation reminds me of what I often tell my beginning English majors. I say that studying literature requires a high tolerance for ambiguity; if they need everything to be right-or-wrong, cut-and-dried, this might not be the field for them.
I feel much the same way about debates like this. I’m not dogmatic about Genesis 1, for example. You may insist that the 6 days of creation were 24-hour period; you may insist that they were not; or the precise meaning of the word “day” might not matter all that much to you. As long as we agree that God did it, that’s good enough for me; I can fellowship with you, serve alongside you, send you my missions offerings, or what have you.
The same is true with the “inerrancy” debate. Ron P. wrote, “We would not be having this discussion…if we had the same high view of Scripture that the early Christians did.” I suspect that everyone who has posted here has a “high view” of scripture, so why are we spending so much time insisting upon–or resisting–the use of one particular word? I believe the Bible is inspired and that Jesus is the only way to Heaven. If you do too, what’s the problem?
My church recently served as a shelter for Gustav evacuees; we’re on standby to take in people fleeing Ike as well. I didn’t ask for the other volunteers for the details of their doctrines. I know they’re serious, committed believers, and they know the same of me. So we just got busy giving out cold water in Jesus’ name. Isn’t that the way it ought to be?
I would concur that when we’re working together on some sort of humanitarian mission project like shelter or food for needy folks quibbling over particulars of bible doctrine is pretty silly. I don’t speak for anyone else but for me the issue is regarding Southern Baptists and whether I will support an organization or institution. For instance, if a missions organization supports charismatic interpretations and teaches that the gift of speaking in tounges is still in operation I don’t want any of my money that I donate going to that organization. If a seminary allows openly homosexual persons to enroll or its faculty to hold to the view that homosexuality is compatible with Christianity (Mercer) I don’t want money that I donate supporting that seminary. Ditto to organizations that claim the Bible is not wholly inspired and completely without error in the original autographs. If the SBC ever moved to a more moderate position I would leave the SBC so quick it wouldn’t even be funny. That’s just me.
Dear LitProf,
I share your desire to allow for dissent. I also share the vision to do mission. What I do not share is the odd dichotomy between mission and theological meaning. You seem to divorce the two: “I didn’t ask for the other volunteers for the details of their doctrines. I know they’re serious, committed believers, and they know the same of me. So we just got busy giving out cold water in Jesus’ name.” That’s fine. I could do the same, given the motive of the service.
Suppose, however, the question pertained to the extent and/or nature of the Great Commission and whether or not the contemporary church is obligated to go into all the world, including the areas where the Gustav evacuees are?
Or suppose the question pertained to the focus of the GC with a split house: some believed only the gospel should be taken while others believed our obligation was limited to basic necessities. Doctrinal matters would be very important, it seems to me.
More specifically, you also allow a “high tolerance for ambiguity” for the single word “day” but later seem puzzled that since “everyone who has posted here has a “high view” of scripture, so why are we spending so much time insisting upon–or resisting–the use of one particular word?” Aside from the complications raised by comparing the interpretation of a single Hebrew word with a sophisticated biblical doctrine, the ambiguity of “high view” of Scripture reveals nicely what’s at stake.
For those of us who embrace what’s reluctantly come to be called Inerrancy, a “high view” of Scripture definitively does not include a view of inspiration that produces a product that is merely equal to the best in human literary accomplishments; which, in essence, is what one has if inerrancy is not true.
With that, I am…
Peter
Brother Joe,
That is what is so effective about the SBC structure. You can pull your support at any second. I guess everyone has their pet litmus list.
Blessings,
Chris
That’s a fair distinction, Joe. I also wanted to reply to a post that seems to have vanished somehow. The author seemed to be saying something like “if you don’t use the word ‘inerrancy,’ you’ve reduced the Bible to a merely human document.” Could that be a false dichotomy?
Let’s say that I’d prefer not to use the term. Maybe it’s because I see no point in making claims about “original autographs” that no longer exist. Or maybe I think that it’s now essentially a “secret handshake,” a word that’s become more political than theological. Whatever my reasons, let’s say that I want to claim for Scripture only what it claims for itself: that it’s “inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness” (2 Tim 3:16). That should be enough, shouldn’t it?
Litprof (and others)
Your argument asssumes that inerrancy is an extra-biblical definition, hoever you offer no warrant for your accusations. The burden is upon you to read and I teract with Chicago Statement on Inerrancy and then prove why it is an unbiblical or extra-biblical statement. As my dear brother Peter pointed out, the statement only defines that which had formerly been the norm. The BGCT, having studied the document, rejected it as theologically erroneous. It is incumbent upon the responsible debater to examine the document itself and point out the fallacies within it’s own text. Please read the document and then your objections will be much more sustainable.
Sorry for the type-o’s. It’s not easy typing on an iphone.
LitProf,
I’m quite sure I’m your little huckleberry. I wrote: “a “high view” of Scripture definitively does not include a view of inspiration that produces a product that is merely equal to the best in human literary accomplishments; which, in essence, is what one has if inerrancy is not true.”
If I am correct, then your implication of a false dichotomy is directed toward Georgia: “The author seemed to be saying something like “if you don’t use the word ‘inerrancy,’ you’ve reduced the Bible to a merely human document.” Could that be a false dichotomy?”
In rejoinder, I most certainly did not say “if you don’t use the word ‘inerrancy,’” nor did I imply such. The *word* “inerrancy” is being milked by the dissenters here, not those arguing for biblical inspiration. They seem to oddly insist “inerrancy” is an inadequate theological word to describe our view. Even more odd is our brother Tom’s insistence against sober reasoning that “inerrancy” must be illegitimate because it lacks the proper bloodline.
What I was implying and will now explicitly state is this: if the concept of biblical inerrancy is not presumed, then the Bible is reduced to one among many great writings–albeit the greatest of all writings–among men. For without biblical inerrancy, the book we possess is more or less an errant document filled with some truth and some error.
That it possesses mostly truth–even overwhelmingly mostly truth–stands as no consolation whatsoever. The same could be said of any number of other books we could mention. Hence, the Bible’s uniqueness vanishes.
So, I would say yes: “you’ve reduced the Bible to a merely human document”.
With that, I am…
Peter
Modern American atheists seem to believe they have defeated Christianity if they prove one error in the biblical text. But the existential questions and precepts of rationality run much deeper than that. Christianity doesn’t stand or fall on such an arbitrary test.
Inerrancy is a theological position constructed to solve a perceived epistemological problem. But it doesn’t solve it. At the end of the day, the question is whether biblical theology is correct, not whether inerrancy of original manuscripts is true. The biblical message of God’s redemption of man is accepted by faith, something not organically tied to inerrancy per se.
The problem with inerrancy is not that the original manuscripts don’t exist today. The problem is they never existed. Let me explain.
The Pentateuch was written with the help of source material, the book of Jasher for example is mentioned in 2 Samuel. Is the source material or the edited compilation the original manuscript? At the beginning and ends of certain OT books we find anachronistic commentary. Are these to be considered part of the original manuscript? The OT shows evidence of being edited over a long period of time. Some think Ezra made a fairly complete redaction. Was Ezra’s compilation inerrant, or only the passages lifted directly from the Book of Jasher?
The conservative scholar R.E. Harrison in his Introduction to the Old Testament (p. 219) says the Qumran discovery shows “there were at least three distinct types of biblical text in circulation among the Jews of the Second Commonwealth (530 to 70 AD).” Read his material carefully, and I don’t think you will be able to define exactly what the original manuscripts even are.
R. Granneman,
“At the end of the day, the question is whether biblical theology is correct, not whether inerrancy of original manuscripts is true.”
How can we know if biblical theology is correct if the the original manuscripts are erroneous? If the word of God is not inerrant, then our understanding of redemption is nothing more than a “best guess.”
Thanks, Peter, for the clarification. You’re right: you didn’t present a false dichotomy, so will you permit me to take that statement back?
I do wonder, though, about your charge that I’ve “reduced the Bible to a merely human document.” Most of my second paragraph was hypothetical. The exception is the second-to-last sentence, where I quote 2 Timothy. If I say I embrace what’s taught in that verse, how can I be guilty of watering down the Bible?
John, I went back and read the Chicago Statement. I don’t want to get into a lengthy discussion about it, so let’s just say that I see no major red flags in it. Here’s the big issue for me: there are many words that used to be perfectly good, but have now been “ruined” and carry so much baggage that using them can create more problems than it solves. “Rhetoric,” for example, strictly means “the art of persuasion,” but in the popular mind it connotes nothing more than a lot of hot air. “Fundamentalist” used to mean “someone who subscribes to the ‘five fundamentals’,” but now it mostly conjures up images of the far right or even the “lunatic fringe” of the faith.
I suspect the same thing is happening with “inerrancy.” Yes, it’s a theological position, but it seems to me that it’s also becoming a kind of “party badge”: the word “inerrantist” now seems to describe not just someone who affirms the historical definition of the word, but also someone who belongs to a certain group (the Conservative Resurgence, for example), someone who subscribes to certain interpretations of the texts, and so on. Could it be, then, that some who hesitate to use the word do so not out of some doctrinal shortcoming, but out of a reluctance to present themselves as (or to be viewed as) someone who’s everything the label now implies?
Incidentally, if the inerrancy of the originals is such “a hill on which to die,” why isn’t it in the BFM2000? The role of women in ministry was evidently such a pressing issue that it needed to be addressed in the new version, but nothing about autographs made the cut. Can we expect to see it included in the next revision?
Litprof,
The question is not whether or not the term has been hi-jacked. The question is, “within its defined parameters, should a Christian affirm the doctrine?” Pragmatics is not a gage for the sustainability of a particular doctrine. At the heart of the matter, one must decide whether or not the language of the Chicago Statement should be affirmed by the people of faith. I think it should.
Brother John Mann,
The Chicago Statement does seem to provide a view of transmission which is widely accepted….
“Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appear to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.
Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autographa. Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach. Indeed, in view of the frequent repetition in Scripture of the main matters with which it deals and also of the Holy Spirit’s constant witness to and through the Word, no serious translation of Holy Scripture will so destroy its meaning as to render it unable to make its reader “wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim. 3:15).”
The last sentence of the transmission view does help to point us back to the purpose of the scripture.
Blessings,
Chris
Peter:
In your discourse with participants on this Blog, why do you feel the need to use words in such an attacking way and condescending way?. It certainly does not lend itself to much of a discussion with others.
With that, I am,
Tom Parker
Peter:
In your discourse with participants on this Blog, why do you feel the need to use words in such an attacking way and condescending way?. It certainly does not lend itself to much of a discussion with others.
With that, I am,
Tom Parker
Peter:
In your discourse with participants on this Blog, why do you feel the need to use words in such an attacking way and condescending way?. It certainly does not lend itself to much of a discussion with others.
With that, I am,
Tom Parker
John Mann, ref. #59
Can you believe a history text is an accurate picure of history and not believe it is inerrant? Could you get a true picture of history from it?
My point was that inerrancy is not an adequate theory of biblical revelation. The more you try to define what you mean with precision, the more trouble you run into, mainly because you can’t identify exactly what was inerrant. The biblical text we have evolved through a number of redactions. Which snapshot do you propose to be the inerrant copy?
R. Grannemann:
I agree with what you are saying. A lot of effort has gone into defining inerrant, but it still takes so many words to define what it is. Also what exactly are we saying is inerrant? It ought to be simpler than that.
R. Grannemann:
I agree with what you are saying. A lot of effort has gone into defining inerrant, but it still takes so many words to define what it is. Also what exactly are we saying is inerrant? It ought to be simpler than that.
R. Grannemann:
I agree with what you are saying. A lot of effort has gone into defining inerrant, but it still takes so many words to define what it is. Also what exactly are we saying is inerrant? It ought to be simpler than that.
A question has been asked as to why “inerrancy” is not in the Baptist Faith & Message 2000, the doctrinal statement of the Southern Baptist Convention.
Inerrancy is indeed in that statement. Not the word, but the concept. Inerrancy is stated in at least three ways. It defines the Bible as a “perfect treasure of divine instruction,” as “truth without any mixture of error” and that the Bible is “totally true and trustworthy.” Those are definitions / explanations of inerrancy.
David R. Brumbelow
LitProf, et. al
Thanks. And, of course, you can take it back :^)
As for accepting what Paul states to Timothy, I could not agree more. The difficulty I have with what you now seem to say is assuming the aforementioned ambiguity of other terms (e.g. ‘day’) and simply asserting “I believe Scripture is ‘inspired by God and profitable…’” Unfortunately, that does not settle the matter; rather it stalls the discussion at precisely what the Bible means by “inspired” by God.
We believe, after considering all the evidences the Bible says of itself, “inerrant”–though obviously a double negative descriptor–is not at all an illegitimate qualifier to what the apostolic authors produced. Moreover, the historic Christian position is on this side of the equation, not to mention the historic Baptist position.
Once again, if one insists on defining inscripturation with terms suggesting a written product less than the Bible as “a perfect treasure of truth without any mixture of error”, the essential result is a flawed collection of writings.
The flawed nature of it is precisely that to which I earlier referred–virtually any writing fits that description. The Koran is truth mixed with error. The Pearl of Great Price is truth mixed with error. The Purpose-Driven Life is truth mixed with error. The only contingent is the degree of either.
Hence, a non-inerrant document can possess many fine qualities among literature–truth, inspiration, encouragement, warning, correct information, etc. etc. What it cannot possess is uniqueness among literature. Nor can it possess exclusivity among literature. Nor can it possess divinity among literature.
And, while we’re at it, and since another has already mentioned this, I think it can be shown that neither can an errant Bible possess authority–at least authority in any ultimate sense. Let me show you why.
Authority must be distinguished from either inerrancy or infallibility. A document can be authoritative without being inerrant. That’s what R. Granneman seems to mean by querying “Can you believe a history text is an accurate picure [sic] of history and not believe it is inerrant? Could you get a true picture of history from it?” The answer, of course, is yes…*relatively* speaking.
The problem is, we’re now only speaking of *relative* authority. There are many *relative* authorities on history as there are an abundance of *relative* authorities on science, etc. To which one of these *relative* authorities should we turn for the most accurate view? How do we know?
Indeed, R. Granneman vocalizes the identical argument I’ve heard perhaps more times than any other from skeptical inquirers: “So which Holy Book should we trust to ‘find God’ since all claim ‘authority’?” They as well assume a *relative* authority with “Holy Books” just as they assume a *relative* authority with history, etc., the same *relative* authority R. Granneman appears to suggest with Scripture.
Yet, while the Bible can possess *relative* authority without being inerrant, the Bible cannot possess *ultimate* authority unless it is inerrant. Or, another way to say this is, an ultimate authority must be an infallible authority. Note these four options:
A) We can have a relative authority based on an infallible Bible
B) We can have a relative authority based on a fallible Bible.
C) We can have an ultimate authority based on a fallible Bible
D) We can have an ultimate authority based on an infallible Bible
So far as I know, there are no other options than here stated. If there are, I’d certainly entertain them.
As for “A”, I know of no one who hold such. From what I hear those on this thread who are arguing against inerrancy saying, they vacillate between “B” and “C”. All inerrantists, so far as I am aware, always argue “D”. The chief objection with non-innerrantists is the unjustifiable maneuver from “B” to “C”. From my standpoint, at least at this juncture, the vacillation cannot–or at least, has not been to date–be reasonably justified.
With that, I am…
Peter
Tom,
If you are interested in dialog, I’d be more than happy to oblige. If your interest limits itself to getting personal, consider this my final comment to you, my brother.
With that, I am…
Peter
Well done, Dr. Logic….with that you are Peter.
:)
Blessings,
Chris
Concerning comment 66: You’re right, of course, David, but that wasn’t quite the question I asked. Several contributors to this thread have insisted that we affirm the inerrancy of “the original autographs,” a phrase that’s not in the BFM. I guess only those who actually did the revision can answer that question, right? (And I’ll admit I was more asking out of idle curiosity than trying to make a substantive point!) Now back to the *real* discussion…
Peter:
You totally ignore my comment. Does my comment ring true or not? You write to me and others like you are talking to a bunch of third graders. If you find that a personal comment, it is intended to be. You come across as very arrogant. I simply believe you can do better. How do you expect me or others to dialog with you when you come across in such a personal attack on us.
With that, I am,
Tom Parker
Peter:
You totally ignore my comment. Does my comment ring true or not? You write to me and others like you are talking to a bunch of third graders. If you find that a personal comment, it is intended to be. You come across as very arrogant. I simply believe you can do better. How do you expect me or others to dialog with you when you come across in such a personal attack on us.
With that, I am,
Tom Parker
Peter:
You totally ignore my comment. Does my comment ring true or not? You write to me and others like you are talking to a bunch of third graders. If you find that a personal comment, it is intended to be. You come across as very arrogant. I simply believe you can do better. How do you expect me or others to dialog with you when you come across in such a personal attack on us.
With that, I am,
Tom Parker
an ultimate authority must be an infallible authority PL
Awkwardly, nobody reading this blog doubts that since half-way through the last millennium it was right to interpret scriptures portraying the sun going round the earth as observationally rather than scientifically correct.
The ultimate authority for this interpretation is not the Bible, but scientific investigation. If the ultimate authority were the Bible the science would have to be revised by believers on that basis.
I have no comment. I just wanted to say,
With that I am
Robert
So the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 affirms the inerrancy of the Bible (comments #66 & 70). And I believe they were obviously referring to the original manuscripts and by extension to the English translations that faithfully convey that Scripture (KJV, NKJV, NASB, NIV, HCSB, etc.).
I will not take the time to dig up all the explanations. But I think it could easily be demonstrated that the authors of the Baptist Faith & Message, 1925, 1963, and 2000 were not referring to a particular translation but to the original inspired manuscripts of the Bible. I think it can also be demonstrated that this has been the historic view of the overwhelming majority of Christianity for about 2,000 years. The value of a translation is how closely and accurately it presents the Word of God from the original languages. And it is the translators’ and textual critics’ job to study the many manuscripts to get back, as close as possible, to the originals.
I know we don’t have the original manuscripts, but divinely inspired inerrant manuscripts sure make a difference. Would you rather have numerous copies of a divinely inspired perfect manuscript, or numerous copies of a manuscript that had errors in the first place?
The writers of the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 were well aware of all this, but I’m sure did not desire to go into an extensive explanation of each theological point and detail. Most easily understand what they were saying.
And, by the way John Mann, good post.
David R. Brumbelow
Alex,
The plum you place into our peach pie is tasty no doubt but totally irrelevant. We are speaking here of of inspiration and subsequently inscriptuation.
Better to save your example for a potential discussion on hermeneutics. Not an inerrantist here, I’d wager, argues for an inerrant interpreter. If they do, I certainly like them to speak up.
With that, I am…
Peter
Peter,
My comment was about your idea linking infallible and ultimate authority.
Think again.
Alex,
I do understand my quote you offered, Alex, linked “ultimate authority” with “an infallible authority”. The problem as I see it is, your commentary focused on neither.
Rather, your focus was on *interpretation*—”…nobody…doubts…it was right to *interpret* scriptures…observationally rather than scientifically…” And again, “The ultimate authority for this *interpretation*…”
Presently, we are not in dialog concerning interpretation proper of the Bible. Nor whether or not there exists an “ultimate authority” for so doing. Instead, the question of inerrancy focuses distinctly on what Scripture *is* and how it got that way.
With that, I am…
Peter
“Unfortunately, that does not settle the matter; rather it stalls the discussion at precisely what the Bible means by ‘inspired’ by God.”
Peter, I think this statements sums the whole issue up! My students often accuse me of trying to “over-analyze” a story or a poem (and sometimes they may be right. After all, if we took all the texts at face value, I’d be out of a job, right?).
That’s the crux of the matter here, isn’t it: how precise do we want/need to be in defining just what “inspiration” means? With that in mind, let me take up John Mann’s invitation/challenge to state where I stand on the Chicago Statement (#55):
There’s much in the document that I can affirm without reservation. The excerpt Chris Johnson quotes in #62 is one example, along with Articles 1-5, 7-12, 14-15, and 17-18 (if it matters, I used the version at http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html).
The 3 remaining Articles are (as Obama said to Warren’s question about when life begins) “above my pay grade.” To wit:
Article 6 affirms that inspiration was a word-for-word affair. I’ve read and heard good arguments on both sides of this, and I’ve not done much study on my own about it. All I can say at the moment is that it’s less of a dealbreaker for me than for others who have posted here.
Article 13 affirms “the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term.” That may have worked back in 1978, but, as I said above, I think it’s been redefined to connote a good deal more.
Article 16 affirms that “the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church’s faith throughout its history.” I’m not enough of a church historian to have a firm opinion on this question.
If I were to either affirm or deny those statements, I’d need to be able to defend my position if challenged. I can do that with inspiration broadly defined, but I can’t do it with these specific statements. Therefore, it seems to me that the most intellectually and spiritually honest thing to do is leave them open questions.
Do you see where I’m coming from? It’s as if you and I were walking down a path and I wanted to stop my journey before you did. It’s not that I’m going *against* you; it’s just that I’m either not prepared to go further or don’t see a pressing need to do so. I’m comfortable with the level of precision I’ve reached in my understanding of inspiration, but I’m open to digging deeper if new circumstances or new conviction from the Spirit call for it.
LitProf,
Your response is refreshingly candid. I do so appreciate such. Nor do I see, as you have explained it, your stated position as contrary to me, albeit our positions are obviously not identical.
The Lord continue to bless us all as we seek to better understand the engrafted word of God which is able to save our souls.
With that, I am…
Peter
Another analogy has just occurred to me. Let’s say I taught math instead of English. I’d know that Pi has been computed to something like a gazillion decimal places, but I might tell my undergrads that they could use just 3.1416 in all their homework. I don’t have an erroneous view of Pi (I didn’t tell them to use 17, -6, or even 3.2); I just asked for a level of precision appropriate to the course. If I were doing a PhD seminar, I might ask the students to take it out a few more places. That’s more or less how I see myself here. I don’t think I’ve misconstrued or undervalued scripture; I’m just comfortable with not having to spell out every detail of what “inspiration” means.
Thanks so much, Peter. Grace and peace to you, my brother!
The fact that so many comments have been raised about the nature of Scripture is refreshing. With a high view of Scripture, regardless of the term used (I am very comfortable with “inerrant”), our discussions can be on what the text means. We do not have the freedom to say, “Paul misrepresented God.” We do not have the freedom to say that the Bible menas something today that it did not mean to its original readers. Because we hold the Biblical text as inspired, we must wrestle with what the Bible says, and not just “what it means to me.”
Our task is not a “quest for the historical Jesus” because the Bible presents the historical Jesus.
Steve