Saturday, September 19, 2015

A Word on Biblical Inerrancy



The linkage of inerrancy to the ultimate textual biblical autographs, which are currently lost to history, is a significant claim in certain schools evangelical biblical theology.  A common view is presented in this short article https://carm.org/inerrancy-and-inspiration-bible.

The writer argues that "inerrancy means that all that is written in the inspired documents is without error."  More to the point, it is not the text as we have it that is inerrant, but the originally written texts of the books that ultimately were canonized into the Old and New Testaments rather than the copies of those books.

The argument is complex, which I will not draw out here, except to make the case that the assumption that the autographs are without error is an article of faith that is based on a set of presuppositions rather than an empirical reality.  My purpose at this time is not to challenge that article of faith, but to point it out that the claim is an axiomatic belief that, in itself, cannot prove the validity of its claim.  The underlying hermeneutical issue is that of determining what drives this claim.

The argument is complex, which I will not draw out here, except to make the case that the assumption that the autographs are without error is an article of faith that is based on a set of presuppositions rather than an empirical reality.  My purpose at this time is not to challenge that article of faith, but to point it out that the claim is an axiomatic belief that, in itself, cannot prove the validity of its claim.  The underlying hermeneutical issue is that of determining what drives this claim.

From the other end of the historical continuum, the writers of the particular books of the Bible were not aware that their writings would be formed into a coherent canon, which would be interpreted, ultimately, at least by a certain segment of the evangelical community as the inerrant word of God.  To accept inerrancy as derived ultimately from the autographs is to assume that those who ultimately established the canon in its NT form were themselves divinely inspired in selecting precisely those texts that initially moved through the writers to communicate to us [precisely] the words which God wanted us to hear.”  I do not argue that the bishops did not draw on specific theological criteria in making the selection, but only to make the point that any assumption that they were particularly inspired by the Spirit of God to select precisely those texts in the creation of an inerrantly inspired canon is also an act of faith rather than a position; one based on a certain set of hermeneutical and theological presuppositions.


As an article of faith, I accept the literary convention that the Bible is the divinely inspired word of God, which I perpetually find edifying.  I make this claim not only on the basis of personal reception but through the evidence of the mighty cloud of witnesses through an almost 2000 year tradition. I accept the presupposition that the collective canon includes the inscripturated word of God revealed to the individual writers through the Holy Spirit.  I also view the canon as the primary witness to the revelation of God that has the capacity to communicate its message through the ages as reflective in the mighty cloud of readers and interpreters throughout the past 2000 years. 

In short, I accept (in part by literary convention) that the biblical canon, like no other text, is a primary source of Christian revelation from which I, along with millions of other readers have experienced much edification. I am not persuaded on the need for a doctrine of inerrancy—at least one that connects an errorless text to an unavailable set of autograph—that seeks to provide a level of certainty that is not available through the revelation of the mystery of God in Christ reconciling the world. 

Saturday, September 5, 2015

Further Discussion on the Role of Theology in Clarifying Points of Encounter between Liberal Theology and Biblically Based Evangelicalism


 George (original)  In my view the issue is how seriously is the Christian faith to be taken in the contemporary world by mature adults.

Mark: That is indeed a serious concern. But theological clarity is not really a good general predictor of effectual faith. See for example The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience: Why Don’t Christians Live What They Preach? by Ron Sider.  

George (new): Mark, your point is well taken and Ron Sider’s article is cogent.  It is also in agreement with the Gordon-Cornwell theologians, Richard Lints 
 and David Wells who make the point that one of the reasons that popular evangelical culture is so prey to contemporary cultural fads, especially the self realization ethic, is because the evangelical movement as a whole lacks a well thought-out and cogent biblically-based theology grounded essentially in reformist principles. While I take issue with some of the implications of both Lints and Wells (I cannot accept the level of certainty that their claims of an exclusive Christianity are based on) I applaud them for laying out a solid framework for a contemporary evangelical theology.  By doing so, they establish a structure through which meaningful dialogue with the more liberal theological branches of contemporary Protestantism can take place. On that, see especially Gabriel Fackre’s Ecumenical Faith in Evangelical Perspective (Eerdmans, 1993)

As I had brought out in my last response to Dave, I am making the case that one of the critical dialogue partners of denominations like the UCC is (or needs to be!) with articulate evangelicals like Lints, Wells, and Fackre, authors, I may add, whose books I have never seen in the Hartford Seminary bookstore.  There might have been a course or two that has provided a solid study of contemporary evangelical thought at HS, but other than a recent summer course taught by Tony Compollo, I’m not aware of much of an emphasis at HS on the intricacies and depth of evangelical theology.  By contrast, I know that Lints, in particular, while remaining firmly rooted in the precepts of evangelical theology (see his The Fabric of Faith, 1993), brings into his seminars texts from both the postliberal and liberal Christian perspectives).

With you, I agree that theology is not everything, and for many people perhaps not important at all.  Effective preaching, inspiring music, informed Bible study, the formation of a meaningful community, the opportunity for service, etc., all these are crucial for the formation and sustaining of a mature adult-grounded faith.  As stated previously, theology is a late work, but an essential one if there is any value in connecting faith to reason and the critical issues and questions people bring to their faith journeys.  Even as the former has the primary status, the quest still involves faith seeking knowledge, as the mode of encounter, for many, in conjunction with the perplexities and temptations of the secular city.  Moreover, the matter depends on how one defines theology, which I don’t view as an exclusively academic pursuit, but coming out of the questions and thoughts of any and all in their seeking and their doubting about what this life of faith means in the context of a life pursuit.


Lints, Wells, and Fackre have something of substance to say about an evangelical-based Christian faith as grounded in the contemporary setting.  One may or may not agree with all, or even much of their commentary.  Well and good.  At least they clearly articulate what it is they believe and the supportive reasoning at the level of accessible theological discourse.  If denominations like the UCC are to have serious discourse with the evangelical sector, their theologians are going to have to be at least as comparably articulate.  While any viewpoint expressed by a theologian is not to be taken as the gospel, interpretations can be authoritative in the sense of the cogency of their arguments and the comprehensiveness of their vision.  One can take issue with what any theologian (or anyone else says), but I believe denominations like the UCC are well served to take with much seriousness the challenge of writing cogent theological discourse, which speaks to those in the pews with as much passion as does the call to social justice, or more appropriately, “social witness” (Fackre, 1998, Restoring the Center).  Mature adult Christian identity hangs in the balance. Theology is not everything, but the quest to link faith to the life of the mind and the perplexing questions with which people are grappling, is one of the core challenges that denominations like the UCC need to face.