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.