Arguments for Biblical Inerrancy

[Mr. Sluagh]

Sort of an offshoot of this thread...

I can understand thinking the Bible has some historical truth in it (it most certainly does), but how does one defend the position that it is utterly inerrant?

[ex_pastor_ex_christian]

Blind faith.

[Tim-the-Hermit]

Super elastic intellectual gymnastics

[Rian]

I don't think it is, so I wouldn't defend that position.

[Matt]

Inerrancy is a reaction to the liberalism of the early 20th century. Since it is a reactionary position, it should not be surprising that it goes to extremes.

Inerrantists wrestle with the question of how God reveals himself. The old natural theologians argued that everything we know about God could be proven from nature. Barth showed that this is not so--that an infinite God can only be known when He reveals himself. Barth argued that this revelation occurs only through Jesus Christ so that God can only be known through Jesus.

Inerrantists responded by saying that God reveals himself through his word--the Bible. Second Timothy 3:16–17 is their "proof text"--"Every scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the person dedicated to God may be capable and equipped for every good work" (NET). The word translated "inspired" by the NET is literally "God-breathed." Inerrantists believe that this means the Scriptures (in the original Greek manuscripts) are the very words of God--breathed out by the Holy Spirit himself. Since God does not lie, nor does He make mistakes, the Scriptures are necessarily inerrant.

That is typically how the position is defended.

[whoosanightowl]

I would most closely agree with the old natural theologians here. Although I don't necessarily believe God "reveals" himself, I think what we can know of the Creator we can only learn through creation itself.

[JustJim]

Martin Luther spoke of three ways to know God: (1) From the creation (natural knowledge of God), (2) From one's conscience (also natural knowledge of God), and (3) Especially from the Bible (revealed knowledge of God). These three are also sometimes summarized as natural, personal, and revealed knowledges of God.

For me, it is possible to use what we can observe, measure, test, and verify in nature to make inferences about God. But I find the other two to be suspect. There is no way to know if a "personal" revelation from God is real, let alone from God. And there is no way to know if the Bible is a revelation from God except that Paul says "all scripture" is, in a letter to Timothy. (I think it's important to remember that, to Paul, "all scripture" certainly did not include the New Testament, which had not yet been written or compiled, including the very letter in which Paul makes that claim.)

It just makes more sense to me to base my ideas of what God is on things I can actually observe. Anything more than that has to be pure speculation.

As to the inerrancy of the Bible itself, I think there is only one way to determine if it is. If you find an error in the Bible - just one - then it's not inerrant. Because people have found thousands of errors in the Bible, apologists then go on to claim that the original manuscripts, which are lost somewhere in antiquity, contained no errors, but the subsequent copies and translations could contain some. Except for the diehard "King James Version Only" fundies, most biblical scholars today readily admit to literally thousands (one Evangelical Christian source claims over 300,000 in the New Testament alone) of "copyist" and "translator" errors in various versions of the Bible, while maintaining those errors do not affect the meaning of the what the Bible says in any appreciable ways.

For example, what does it matter if a certain king of ancient Israel was twenty-two or forty-two years old (a contradiction caused by a translator or copyist error in the KJV)? Or what difference in meaning does it make if a translator wrote "Jesus Christ" instead of "Christ Jesus" (which happened many times)? Clearly, it makes no difference in meaning. It only matters if you claim that the modern versions of the Bible we have are inerrant. However....

If you say the original manuscripts, which we no longer have, were inerrant, but the modern versions we do have may contain some errors, then you're saying the only Bible we have is not an inerrant Bible. Hmmmm....

Jim

[Matt]

Jim,

I would say that (1) is speculative as well. If postmodernism has taught us anything it is that neutral observation is a chimaera.

Please don't discount Barth's points. If God is "wholly other," how can finite people possibly begin to know Him unless He chooses to make himself known?

You're right, Paul was referring to the OT Scriptures, not the NT. But Inerrantists would respond by saying that the church was very quick to place the NT on par with the OT, so the verse would apply to the NT as well.

Your point about the manuscripts is a serious weakness of the inerrancy position. What does it matter if the originals were inerrant if we don't have them? Further, even if the text is inerrant, interpretation of the text is not. The goal of inerrancy was to obtain objective knowledge of God. Since postmodernism has shown that goal to be impossible, what is the value of the doctrine? I think it has been reduced to a shibboleth.

That being said, I think inerrancy is an internally sound position. Evangelicals address attempts to disprove inerrancy far more often than they should, and they've successfully refuted all attacks. Either you're convinced or you're not.

The problem that I have with inerrancy is in the presuppositions necessary to hold the view. Why are the Scriptures inerrant? Because they say they are. So, what do you do with all the other Jewish and early Christian documents that claim inerrancy? On what basis do you pick and choose which ones inerrancy applies to and which ones it doesn't? RCs respond by saying, "The Church decided." The Orthodox respond by saying "The Councils decided." Protestants respond by saying, "The true inerrant texts were always inerrant and need no validation." The Protestant argument is circular. Again, you either believe it or you don't.

I was raised believing in inerrancy. I attended an undergraduate Bible College that taught inerrancy. I attended a seminary that taught inerrancy. I work at a church that believes in inerrancy. All of the people who invested in me, mentored me, loved me, and raised me believed in this doctrine. To me, it is a value that is part of who I am. Like I said, it is a shibboleth. Even if I admit its weaknesses, it would take a lot for me to deny it.

[JustJim]

Please don't discount Barth's points. If God is "wholly other," how can finite people possibly begin to know Him unless He chooses to make himself known?

That's the point of my "God is not a horse" signature line. God is so "wholly other" that there's no way we can know God without being God ourselves, any more than a horse can "know" us without becoming human. And neither of those things is possible. The gap is even more huge than that, I believe. And it is a mistake, I think, to try to fit God into any 'human' descriptions or to assign God human-like attributes and personality traits. Believers claim we are made in God's image, but I'm confident that for them the reverse is much more readily obvious and supportable. They define and describe God in human terms; they don't describe humans in Godly terms. I believe God's true nature is only "revealed" to us in the universe itself, at every level - from the smallest quarks in the nuclei of every atom to the most distant giant galaxies beyond our detection, and all the laws and processes and interactions among them all - as the full manifestation of God. And the more we learn about the universe and how it works, which is solely within the realm of science, the better we'll be able to understand about God. Or at least the better our guesses will be.

Jim

[Matt]

Okay, I understand the horse tag now, thanks for that.

I think the Deist god is impossible to know in the way you describe. First, there is the assumption that the world is as it ought to be. This is a huge assumption. Take the Holocaust, for example. What does this teach us about God? Or entropy--what does that teach us about God? Is there an appropriate method for discerning what our observations teach us about God? I might look at a flower and say, "God is a god of beauty." Someone else might look at cancer and say, 'God is a god of destruction." How do we discern what nature teaches us about God?

I think your form of Deism would reduce you to Manichaeism or Gnosticism. There would have to be both an evil and good god, a beautiful and ugly god, a true and false god, etc. Either that, or you would have to pick and choose what you want to believe about God, arbitrarily judging this to be "of God" and that to be "not of God." Essentially, you would be creating God in your own image, like you said.

Christians have a tool for discerning God from creation--the Incarnation. God is not a horse, but He is Jesus. Christians also believe that the world is not as it ought to be. Thus cancer doesn't teach us what God is, it teaches us about creation in rebellion to its Creator.

[Rian]

That's the point of my "God is not a horse" signature line. God is so "wholly other" that there's no way we can know God without being God ourselves, any more than a horse can "know" us without becoming human. And neither of those things is possible.

Having owned a horse, I disagree. My horse knew me on a level meaningful to him. He recognized me and responded to me in a way that he didn't with other people.

I don't buy the idea that we can't relate on any meaningful level with God. It makes God out as a bit of a chump in the creation department. I mean, sling out an entire universe and then flub making humans so much that they can't know him at all?

[Mr. Sluagh]

Okay, I understand the horse tag now, thanks for that.

I think the Deist god is impossible to know in the way you describe. First, there is the assumption that the world is as it ought to be. This is a huge assumption. Take the Holocaust, for example. What does this teach us about God? Or entropy--what does that teach us about God? Is there an appropriate method for discerning what our observations teach us about God? I might look at a flower and say, "God is a god of beauty." Someone else might look at cancer and say, 'God is a god of destruction." How do we discern what nature teaches us about God?

I think your form of Deism would reduce you to Manichaeism or Gnosticism. There would have to be both an evil and good god, a beautiful and ugly god, a true and false god, etc. Either that, or you would have to pick and choose what you want to believe about God, arbitrarily judging this to be "of God" and that to be "not of God." Essentially, you would be creating God in your own image, like you said.

Christians have a tool for discerning God from creation--the Incarnation. God is not a horse, but He is Jesus. Christians also believe that the world is not as it ought to be. Thus cancer doesn't teach us what God is, it teaches us about creation in rebellion to its Creator.

You could come up with any number of internally consistent speculations by drawing on any number of sources. If it's possible to interpret the universe in the way that you do, and especially if that interpretation made some sense, then it would just as possible for someone to invent it whole cloth as for them to come up with Manichaeism or Gnosticism (or polytheism or pantheism or misotheism or Scientology or what have you). Thus, since divinity is entirely in the realm of speculation, the concept is broad to the point of uselessness. It means so many things that it means nothing.

[Matt]

You could come up with any number of internally consistent speculations by drawing on any number of sources. If it's possible to interpret the universe in the way that you do, and especially if that interpretation made some sense, then it would just as possible for someone to invent it whole cloth as for them to come up with Manichaeism or Gnosticism (or polytheism or pantheism or misotheism or Scientology or what have you). Thus, since divinity is entirely in the realm of speculation, the concept is broad to the point of uselessness. It means so many things that it means nothing.

Spot on, Mr. Sluagh.

This is why the litmus test for the "truth" of any religion is not internal consistency, but coherence to reality.

People can and do invent religions. There are thousands to choose from, and many of them are consistent. How do we know which one (if any) are right?

Like you said, in order for a religion to be meaningful, that religion's god has to at least occasionally intervene in history. Otherwise the religion is speculative and meaningless. The religions' deities are validated or invalidated as their gods act or fail to act in history. The extent to which a religion coheres to reality is the extent to which that religion is "true." This is what was going on when the ancients set their deities up in competition to each other. (Think Elijah and the prophets of Baal. Whichever god could bring down fire was the "true" god.) Marduk, the god of Babylon swore to protect Babylon. When the Persians conquered Babylon and wiped the Babylonians off of the map, it pretty much proved that Marduk is not the "true" god--He wasn't able to live up to his claims.

When it comes to Christianity, how do we know whether or not YHWH is the true God? We know by whether or not He is able to do what He says He can do in history. He made a good case for himself by raising Jesus from the dead, but it will not be until He brings history to consummation that we will know for sure that YHWH is God.

(This is the case for God presented by Wolfhart Pannenberg in Systematic Theology. I highly recommend it.)

[Mr. Sluagh]

You could come up with any number of internally consistent speculations by drawing on any number of sources. If it's possible to interpret the universe in the way that you do, and especially if that interpretation made some sense, then it would just as possible for someone to invent it whole cloth as for them to come up with Manichaeism or Gnosticism (or polytheism or pantheism or misotheism or Scientology or what have you). Thus, since divinity is entirely in the realm of speculation, the concept is broad to the point of uselessness. It means so many things that it means nothing.

Spot on, Mr. Sluagh.

This is why the litmus test for the "truth" of any religion is not internal consistency, but coherence to reality.

People can and do invent religions. There are thousands to choose from, and many of them are consistent. How do we know which one (if any) are right?

Like you said, in order for a religion to be meaningful, that religion's god has to at least occasionally intervene in history. Otherwise the religion is speculative and meaningless. The religions' deities are validated or invalidated as their gods act or fail to act in history. The extent to which a religion coheres to reality is the extent to which that religion is "true." This is what was going on when the ancients set their deities up in competition to each other. (Think Elijah and the prophets of Baal. Whichever god could bring down fire was the "true" god.) Marduk, the god of Babylon swore to protect Babylon. When the Persians conquered Babylon and wiped the Babylonians off of the map, it pretty much proved that Marduk is not the "true" god--He wasn't able to live up to his claims.

When it comes to Christianity, how do we know whether or not YHWH is the true God? We know by whether or not He is able to do what He says He can do in history. He made a good case for himself by raising Jesus from the dead, but it will not be until He brings history to consummation that we will know for sure that YHWH is God.

(This is the case for God presented by Wolfhart Pannenberg in Systematic Theology. I highly recommend it.)

Are you referring to any "history" outside of the Bible? Because some would make similar arguments about divine providence in history using the explosive early expansion and prosperity of the Muslim caliphate, which is much better documented than any of the Bible stories you mentioned. (See also: "Manifest Destiny".) The problem with this reasoning is that you have to determine what God wants before you go looking for His hand in history because the criteria "the hand of God in history" is essentially "an inexplicable event that conforms to God's will". And even if you could find significant historical validity in the miracles you mentioned (which I don't think you can, but that's a slightly different argument), you'd still have to determine that God was telling the truth. What if YHVH is simply an ambitious tribal deity who subdued and conquered the other gods, rallying his mortal troops by succeeding where his enemies failed?

[Matt]

Are you referring to any "history" outside of the Bible? Because some would make similar arguments about divine providence in history using the explosive early expansion and prosperity of the Muslim caliphate, which is much better documented than any of the Bible stories you mentioned.

Absolutely, I am referring to history outside of the Bible. If the Muslims are able to subdue the world and eradicate Christianity, would that not suggest Allah is the true god? it might not prove it but it would suggest it. I am not absolutely certain about Muslim eschatology and where Muhammad said history was going, but if his claims come to pass, wouldn't that validate him as the prophet of Allah? I think it would.

(See also: "Manifest Destiny".)

I know that this was justified with the Bible, but I think we can both agree it was not what Jesus had in mind.

The problem with this reasoning is that you have to determine what God wants before you go looking for His hand in history because the criteria "the hand of God in history" is essentially "an inexplicable event that conforms to God's will". And even if you could find significant historical validity in the miracles you mentioned (which I don't think you can, but that's a slightly different argument), you'd still have to determine that God was telling the truth.

Absolutely. The religions make claims about what their gods can do, and the religions are evaluated by whether or not their gods can do those things. For instance, if Jesus prophesied the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple beforehand, and it was actually destroyed in 70 CE, that gives Jesus some credibility. If he claimed he would raise from the dead, and he didn't raise from the dead, it would ruin his credibility.

As for historical validation of miracles, I suggest N.T. Wright's The Resurrection of the Son of God. He approaches the resurrection from a historian's perspective and concludes that the Resurrection is "good history." It is the most significant New Testament book to come out this century so far.

What if YHVH is simply an ambitious tribal deity who subdued and conquered the other gods, rallying his mortal troops by succeeding where his enemies failed?

YHWH was viewed as a tribal deity by the other nations surrounding Israel. What set YHWH apart from the other gods was His claim to be the only true god. Later in history, YHWH made claims to be the god not only of Israel, but also of the whole world. So how do we know if YHWH is merely a tribal deity or the true God of the world? We know by whether or not He is able to accomplish what He said He could accomplish. Phase one of these accomplishments was the resurrection of Jesus. Phase 2 will be the return of Jesus, the resurrection of the righteous, and the consummation of the kingdom of God. When YHWH does those things in the future, he will be "proven" as the true god.