Hi everyone I thought it would be interesting to start a conversation on peoples views on this issue?. I know a lot of collages tend to lean towards a non inerrant view of scripture these days, however Im yet to understand the rational of how they decide what information is reliable or not, which to me seems somewhat vague.
Thought this would be a good idea, in classes the conversations play a large part of driving people to deeper study, to understand their views more etc, so figured these forums are a great way for us to do this.
I've just come across this post. In my experience terms like "inerrancy" tend to be used as a test of "soundness" rather like the use of Shiboleth in Judges 12:6. It's important to define terms. Some people use the term "inerrant" to mean that the Bible can be taken as a science book (creation happened in 6 days) or as a history book, even when the literary genre of the particular part makes it clear that it is not such a text. Others take it to mean that there are no mistakes in the text, and spend a long while trying to reconcile apparent inconsistencies between different accounts of the same thing (e.g. Kings and Chronicles). Others mistakenly assume that if you believe the Bible is "inerrant" you must take the view that the Pentateuch was written by Moses (something it does not claim) or that Isaiah is all the work of one author.
I'm not sure what the prevailing mood is in theological circles these days. Talking to my son (who is studying theology at St Andrews) and to theologians I know, I think most of them are taking quite a nuanced approach to this question, preferring the word "authoritative" to "inerrant" with all its connotations. So in interpreting the Bible you have to take account of literary genre and the conventions of the time. People who take this view would be happy to say that (for example) that it was common in NT times to write letters in the name of a recognised teacher, so that even if you don't think Paul wrote the pastoral epistles you can still regard them as authoritative teaching, and the claim of Pauline authorship is not a "mistake" or "lie".
These are complex questions which we need to think about deeply. So I certainly agree with your last paragraph!
I guess then it's all relative?! The bible is relatively authoritative, or it is completely authoritative. I agree with the problem with the term inerrant. Sometimes translators have got it wrong, sometime the actual meaning of what is being said originally is not clear to us, It may have been taken down wrong by a scribe, or the author brought what he thought the Spirit of God was saying, when it was something slightly different. However besides those minor "errors" of date, times etc. The bible in it's doctrine and practice is inerrant. We might not like it, it might not fit our world view, it might not fit what we see as science, and it doesn't always fit what the theologians think. Theologians are more than capable of error in view and doctrine, the bible is not. But we end up with people telling us that Abraham didn't really exist and all this sort of stuff. Those sorts of ideas should be left to those doing theology in secular universities. We get into all sorts of debates, but really if we have faith in God, we should have faith in His word to us.
Spurgeons is a good place to study, because it's not like a secular university, or some of the other liberal colleges. They start from a place of believing in the authority and central place of scripture. I was so please that that is how they begin their course, with bible. I may not see eye to eye on all, but at least I can trust their starting premise, their trust in the bible.
I think the term ‘inerrancy’can be quite a slippery one, and I can relate to what a previous poster mentioned about it being used as something of a test of one’s orthodoxy in some instances. There are times when it is used as a short-hand way of describing a very literal view of what the Bible says, in my experience in the context of strong assertions about well known controversies. There are some useful questions we can ponder about its meaning though. For example, is the term inerrancy meant to be descriptive or prescriptive? If descriptive that implies a view or conclusion that we come to through and because of our study of the Bible. On the other hand, if it is prescriptive, it implies a pre-existing assumption that we bring to our study and interpretation. If it is the latter, then it is valid to ask, from where does that assumption derive? And what are its implications? If our study to date suggests an inerrant Bible, do we then apply that to our future study? Is that becoming a circular argument, a chicken and egg situation?! Furthermore, how do we understand inerrancy when it comes to different types of writing in the Bible? Was Jesus speaking inerrantly when he used parables for teaching? If so, does that mean there was a real man who was attacked by real robbers who left him for dead? Does it affect the punchline of the parable either way? If he wasn’t speaking inerrantly then, perhaps he was in Luke 14:33. That’s a very direct and apparently straightforward statement attributed personally to the Lord. I asked that at a housegroup once when someone had made some very strident remarks about how the Bible very clearly does not permit women to take certain roles in the church. The response began, “But what He really meant was…” Well if so in that case where it affects “us”, why not in other cases when it affects “them”? So were the words recorded in Luke 14:33 inerrant? Does that simply mean they are correctly recorded, or does it also fix their meaning? Because if it is the latter, we are all in big trouble! To go back to the original poster, I think it is a lot more complicated than taking an inerrant or a non-inerrant view, unless our understanding of the word is the more nuanced understanding. The question of reliability of course arises, but then we can reasonably ask, reliable for what? What questions are we expecting Scripture to answer? Is its primary function to answer our questions, or is it something else? If so, it may not be reliable for our questions while still being wholly reliable for the purpose God intended for it! These issues tend to bring me to a position where inerrancy probably isn’t a very useful word, particularly if it means different things to different people who all operate in the context of the church. That may be one of the reasons why the word may have fallen out of favour in academic circles to be replaced by words like “inspired” or “authoritative”, because it is rather more difficult to use those words as shorthand for “literally true” or “wholly factual”. I would suggest that if we subscribe to a literally true Bible it is probably better just to say so. And if we don’t it is probably better not to invite confusion by using words like inerrancy! One way or another, it’s questions like these that enthuse me for deeper Bible study!
I find Chris's comments very helpful. One other question which I think we must ask is "what sort of writing are we dealing with?" As Chris points out, interpreting and applying the parable of the Good Samaritan does not mean you have to accept that a man really did go down from Jerusalem to Jericho etc. In other parts of the gospels, historicity (another slippery term - ask any historian) matters rather more, i would suggest.