Retractions

Aaron summarized my previous post by identifying two main arguments against inerrancy. He may be making a fair analysis of what I have written, but I feel his restatement of my position significantly altars my argument. And so I would like to take a brief moment to respond to his assessment.

(1) Inerrancy precludes some accepted approaches to biblical interpretation in regard to some matters in Scripture.
This is not my problem with inerrancy. I think there are many “accepted approaches” to biblical interpretation that are entirely ridiculous and a waste of time. I do not think that because some people find an approach to scripture “helpful” then it is necessarily “useful”. My problem with inerrancy is that according to its definition the definition "when all the facts become known, they will demonstrate that the Bible in its original autographs and correctly interpreted is entirely true and never false in all it affirms, whether that relates to doctrine or ethics or to the social physical, or life sciences.", inerrancy becomes a position that precludes consideration of potentially truthful readings of scripture. If for example the position of Dr. Hays on the different last words of Jesus is actually correct then we should listen to it. We should not ignore it because it does not fit our definition of inerrancy. Now I realize you made an interesting caveat that you believe “thoughtful” inerrantists would not necessarily exclude Dr. Hays reading from the realm of inerrantist readings. Welcome to the moderate side! I would suggest that many of the professors at “Old Southern” were eventually dismissed for just such a use of the term inerrancy. If you follow the definition that I offered and again I am open to others, I think you are reinterpreting the word inerrancy to make such interpretations fit. More importantly I am concerned that it does not really help clear up the problem within the Convention. When people talk about inerrancy at the local church level they would not consider Dr. Hays reading of the gospels to be fitting of that term as your post-script not too subtly acknowledges. My problem is not that inerrancy precludes “some accepted approaches to Biblical interpretation.” My problem is that it potentially excludes truthful interpretations of scripture and forces people to allow untruthful readings of scripture to be substituted. This leads to the second observation that you make.

(2) Inerrancy actually deters people from the faith.
Inerrancy can actually deter people from the faith. I believe this statement true, but not for the reasons you seem to assume. It is not my concern that inerrancy is a buzz word offends people needlessly adding to the gospel. I think most people tend to have a rather simplistic approach to scripture that more often is compatible with the term inerrancy. I do not think this is necessarily a good thing. I think for many people inerrancy serves as a kind of moderately reassuring affirmation. But such a teaching can be serve to undermine faith by demanding that people misread the Bible. I think misreading the Bible can do people harm. As I am sure you would agree. I think this is why for example Bart Erhman’s understanding of the Bible was corrosively shaped by false readings of scripture that came from the teaching of inerrancy. Inerrancy may deter people from the faith because the term can be used to exclude truth.

I think you do bring us back to an important question is inerrancy right or wrong. By my previous writings in this post one might infer that I think it a great and dangerous doctrine. Let me back away from that a little. I like how you put it….inerrancy does not a hermeneutic make. My problem is not necessarily the idea of inerrancy. My problem is the next step that seems to be almost automatic….inerrancy must be right because of the testimony of scripture,
“The real issue is this: does the Bible's testimony to itself (which, keep in mind, includes Jesus' testimony to Scripture) lead us to conclude that the Bible is inerrant? I believe it does. That is the real issue.”

Where does the Bible assert the position of inerrancy as defined in the statement I offered? The Bible is a truthful witness to the acts of God in history. We need the Bible to come to saving knowledge of Jesus Christ our Lord. It is through the Bible we come to know the God of Israel who created the world and sent His Son to redeem the world. It is through the scripture that we come to know that it is God’s Spirit that leads us in our understanding of our need for salvation. What the Bible is not…The Bible should not be thought of as God’s thoughts on science, history, psychology, sociology, zoology…. I realize there are “thoughtful” inerrantists who have a careful reading of scripture. One that I might not agree with but is nevertheless serious about what is being affirmed and what is not being affirmed in a particular passage. However, I think the common usage of the term inerrancy is not useful and in fact in many cases actually harmful. I appreciate your interest in responding to my thoughts.

Luke's Response to Aaron

Aaron, I appreciate your comments. I think Baptists (and other Christians for that matter) should focus on the essentials of the faith. There is much shared ground which should provide the basis for cooperation. I believe there is enough shared ground between moderates, fundamentalists and even liberals that there could and should be more cooperation. But there are differences nonetheless and it is a benefit to the body of Christ to address them. You point to an important observation that I would like to clarify. I do not agree that I am making a false dichotomy between the agency of revelation and the content of the faith. But let me first define the term inerrancy. I understand the term to mean, "when all the facts become known, they will demonstrate that the Bible in its original autographs and correctly interpreted is entirely true and never false in all it affirms, whether that relates to doctrine or ethics or to the social physical, or life sciences." By asserting that everything affirmed in scripture is “entirely true” broadens the scope of scripture beyond its intended or necessary purposes. Let me make the caveat I am not saying that inerrancy is wrong. I am saying that it is a theological affirmation that goes beyond the central proclamation of the gospel. I think it is this going beyond the central claims that blurs what is most important and leads to squabbling and dissension about matters that while interesting are not of greatest importance. What is more it can become a stumbling block to the faith. For this reason if for no other one should willingly consider some of what one’s brothers and sisters in the faith are recognizing in this theological affirmation. Let me take two specific examples to demonstrate this the creation accounts of Genesis 1-2, and Jesus' last words on the cross.
Genesis 1:6"And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters. This verse serves as an example of the condescension we find in Divine Revelation. By condescension I mean that God meets us and reveals himself to us despite our limitations. With regards to this specific verse some argue that one finds a typical Ancient Near Eastern cosmology in this account of creation. The expanse which provides for space is surrounded by water. The fact that our cosmology has changed does not take away from the significance of the account for God speaks into existence this space in which we move and have our being. Using the definition I have provided of inerrancy, one would a priori reject such an interpretive position.

Jesus' last words on the cross as recorded in the gospel of Luke and Mark provide a second example. In Mark's account 15:34 Jesus' last words are "eloi eloi la ma sabachthani? Which is being interpreted My God My God Why hast thou forsaken me?" In Luke's account (23:46) we find" And when Jesus had cried with aloud voice, he said, Father into thy hands I commend my spirit and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." One common approach to the different descriptions of Jesus last words is to simply posit that he said both things Mark records one Luke another. It is a possibility, but it is not the only possible interpretative suggestion. In fact Barth Erhman the infamous agnostic argues that the difficulties of this account are a typical example of why he left the faith. According to Erhman Luke and Mark can not both be the last words of Jesus. I recently attended a debate between Erhman and Richard Hays. Hays agrees with Erhman that we cannot know what Jesus last words were, but he counters we can accept that both Luke and Mark are in fact faithful witnesses to who Jesus is. Mark quotes Psalm 22 as Jesus’ last words capturing the messianic motif of the lamb stricken for the sins of all. Luke simply places a different Psalm (31) on the lips of Jesus. This presents the motif of the faithful servant offering himself willingly to the Father. Both of these Psalms truthfully bear witness to Jesus’ act. Hays is not advocating that one may read anything one wants to in the texts. One cannot simply choose to either harmonize the texts or interpret them in his suggested way. He would assert there is one true correct interpretation.

Now how can we separate revelation from the content of the faith? God acts in history. Our faith is based in the historical acts of God in history. Scripture is the record of these acts. Scripture leads us to the knowledge of the Triune God. Now let me return to my central thesis and reaffirm a few important things. I am not proposing or arguing for an "errant"bible. Nor am I advocating for the interpretations I have made reference to. I use these two examples to demonstrate how according to the definition of inerrancy I have provided (some may take issue with that definition and if you do please suggest another) either of these interpretations would not be considered valid. If either of these interpretations is in fact correct (I do accept that either of these approaches could be correct) then inerrancy instead of helping one faithfully interpret the text would in fact serve as a hindrance and serve as a presupposition that leads one into error.

Luke's Response To Pete

(OR a moderate’s response to a fundamentalists assertion that the claim of inerrancy is foundational to living a faithful life)

Last week at the Baptist State Convention of North Carolina the messengers voted overwhelmingly to amend their bylaws to augment the criteria for a church to be in good standing. This amendment proposed a church to be in good standing if it sends money and does not endorse homosexuality (or anyone else who does). Now I can understand how one might feel like the bylaws were lax. I mean potentially a Unitarian congregation could be a member of the state convention (not that I think this would ever happen). But why, might one ask, would those who want to “tighten up” the criteria for churches in friendly cooperation look to the issue of homosexuality. Yesterday I was at the library at Southeastern. I struck up a conversation with a student in the copy room. He asserted that the question of homosexuality went to the heart of the struggle in the contemporary church in America i.e. the issue of inerrancy.

There are a number reasons why I disagree. First, I do not think inerrancy is the underlying cause of confusion with regards to the question of homosexuality. Those who assert the need to create space in the church for homosexual unions do so from an interpretation of the scriptures. I do not agree with their interpretation, but I do not think it accurate to simply dismiss them as people who do not believe the Bible. They are interpreting texts in light of other texts and this is something orthodox theologians always have done.

But second, I do not think it is accurate to see the question of inerrancy as the battle ground question for the faith. Pete asked how could one trust anything they know about Jesus if the Bible is not inerrant? God would potentially be a liar. Because God is not a liar. We can trust that in God’s perfect economy the word of God is without error. While I have no interest in asserting the “errancy” of scripture, I think the position Pete asserted is deeply flawed. It is not a truthful witness to the gospel.

Let me begin by asserting a few of the convictions that I hold as a person who seeks to be faithful to my Lord Jesus Christ. I believe that God is Triune. I believe that God is the creator of heavens and earth of all that is seen and unseen. I believe the Father sent his only begotten Son to restore a fallen world. I believe God the Son was born of the virgin Mary in Bethlehem. I believe that he was named Jesus. I believe that he died under Pontius Pilate. I believe that on the third day he rose from the dead. I believe that he is coming again to judge the world. I believe that his blood was shed for the forgiveness of sins. I believe in the Holy Spirit. I believe that God the Father sent God the Holy Spirit upon the church at Pentecost. I believe the Spirit leads people to their need for God and their need for redemption as well as guides them in their restoration. I believe in the church the gathering of people who are united in the recognition of their need for God who are constituted by the practices of baptism and the Lord’s Supper as continuing witnesses to the reconciling work of God in the world.

Now this basic summary is not meant to be a complete statement of all that I believe. But it certainly touches on what for me is most important. Jesus is God. He died on the cross. One comes to God through faith in Christ which one comes to have through the Holy Spirit. As one who believes these things one should gather with other believers and practice baptism and the Lord’s Supper. I believe that Bible leads us to this faith. The entire purpose of the revelation of God is to lead us to know God. And this is where I have a problem with inerrancy. The emphasis is shifted away from the content of faith to the agency of revelation. The agency becomes the issue of concern. This is often coupled with mendacious aspersions to the orthodoxy of people who disagree with the inerrantist’s view of agency. Now this does not mean that I think there is no place for the inerrantist’s view in the discussion. I simply think that the content of the faith does not depend on agency. The inerrantist might be right but the inerrantist might be wrong. What is not wrong is that God is Triune. Now let me respond to one objection that I can anticipate (there may be more that I do not anticipate…no doubt). Namely how can you say anything about God as Triune if you do not accept the inerrancy of scripture? The syllogism tends to follow a well worn path. If you do not believe in inerrancy then anything you read might be untrue. You cannot then have confidence in scripture or the confidence you have comes from your own picking and choosing what you want to believe from the scriptures. My response to such an argument runs like this. There were people at the empty tomb that did not believe Jesus was God the Roman soldiers as an example. There is no amount of certainty to the faith. If one lived on a desert island and found a Gideon’s Bible (because what other kind of Bible are you likely to find on a desert island), you would likely not come to understand the orthodox faith (I do believe in angels and the possibility that one could be taught the correct understanding even on a desert island but lets keep this for another discussion). The purpose of the illustration is simply to identify that we come to understand the scriptures through the handing on of the faith. One can turn to Luke 24:13ff, on the road to Emmaus we find disciples who know the scriptures, who know the ministry of Jesus, who know of the resurrection, who nonetheless still did not understand the word of God. It is the community of God’s people that shares and proclaims this message. This does not mean that the church can never be wrong. Nor does it mean the scripture can be whatever the church (read here leaders) want it to be. The Bible is what it is. The truth it proclaims is the truth it proclaims. It is the means by which the record of God’s revelation have been preserved for the people of God. It leads one to fellowship with the Triune God. The attention given to the issue of inerrancy focuses attention away from the content of faith to the agency of God’s self revelation. What is more the discussion with regards to agency in our context i.e. Southern Baptist life has been marked by misinformation and deceit with aspersions about people’s character and the content of the faith they proclaim. For these reasons I think the issue of inerrancy should not be the focus of our life as Baptists.