Inerrancy Defined
REX...@linac.fnal.gov
OF THE SCRIPTURES
Definitions:
Maybe we are going around this simply because we don't understand each
others definitions of the words that we are using. Therefore, if I may, let me
put forth what I have been taught to believe the definitions are.
Q. What do we mean by *plenary* and *verbal* inspiration?
A. We believe that in the composition of the original manuscripts, the Holy
Spirit guided the authors even in their choice of expressions- and this
throughout all the pages of the Scriptures-still without effacing the
personalities of the different men.
Frank E. Gaebelein states:
"The Church has held from the beginning that the Bible is the Word of God
in such a sense that its words, though written by men and bearing indelibly
impressed upon them the marks of their human origin, were written,
nevertheless, under such an influence of the Holy Ghost as to be also the words
of God, the adequate expression of His mind and will. It has always recognized
that this conception of co-authorship implies that the Spirit's superintendence
extends to the choice of the words by the human authors [verbal inspiration,
but not a mechanical dictation!] and preserves its product from everything
inconsistent with a divine authorship-thus securing, among other things, that
entire truthfulness which is everywhere presupposed in and asserted for
Scripture by the biblical writers' [inerrancy].l
The doctrine of plenary inspiration holds that the original documents of
the Bible were written by men, who, though permitted the exercise of their own
personalities and literary talents, yet wrote under the control and guidance of
the Spirit of God, the result being in every word of the original documents a
perfect and errorless recording of the exact message which God desired to give
to man."
According to Louis Gaussen, in "The Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures,"
the theopneustia (2 Tim 3:16, "breathed by God") is the mysterious power which
the divine Spirit put forth n the authrs of the Scriptures of the OT & NT, to
enable them to compose them as they have been received by the church of God at
their hands, a guidance extending to the very words employed and preserving the
writings in this way without error.
Of course when we speak of plenary inspiration, it of necessity extends to the
words (Latin, "verbum," word). Words are inseparable from the message. The
sense of the divine revelation is inextricably tied in with the language of the
Scriptures. i.e. their content cannot be expressed apart from words. So what
do we have? If we cannot say that the words of Scripture are given by God, we
cannot affirm that the Scripture is inspired either, for it consists of words.
(Is this what you were referring to M.M.?) If you press this to be true, then
the conclusion is that we shall never feel certain of what the Spirit of God
means in the Scriptures unless we can be sure that the words of the text were
expressly given by God Himself.
Hammond comments:
"The only method of communication of ideas which we c; understand as rational
beings is that which achieves its purpc by the awakening of similar ideas in
the object to whom t communication is made. The most universal form of such co
munication is by means of language. While language in primitive form does not
exclude other signs, it has gradually confined itself to sounds and their
visual symbolic expression written characters. If the story of the Incarnation
and the voice of the prophet convey any true message from God, then God has
employed the media of spoken and written words, the universal characteristic of
language, to reveal His will to man.... The success of any communication,
moreover, depends upon adequacy of the expression. Where the mode of expression
is defective, the apprehension of the original idea or though imperfect." (
T.C. Hammond, "Inspiration and Authority.")
Regarding the expression "verbal inspiration," Hodge says that for many
theologians this implies the idea of a mechanical dictatition. He declares:
"This view we repudiate as earnestly as any of those who object to the language
in question. At the present time the advocates of the strictest doctrine of
inspiration, in insisting that it is ve~ do not mean that, in any way, the
thoughts were inspired by means of the words, but simply that the divine
superintendence which we call inspiration extended to the verbal expression of
the thoughts of the sacred writers, as well as to the thoughts themselves, and
that, hence, the Bible considered as a record, an utterance in words of a
divine revelation, is the Word of God to us." (cited in E Young's "Thy Word Is
Truth")
Let us summarize the opinion of Erich Sauer:
"We believe in full inspriation because of the inner connection of thought and
word. For the unmistakable expressing of thought there is necessary a careful
choice of corresponding words . . . The thinking of man arises from indistinct
notions, sensations, and conceptions. But this does not contradict the fact
that everything spiritual, if it is to attain to *clear* unfolding of a real
thought or "idea," reveals itself in *words.* A thought only becomes properly
a conscious thought if out of the subconscious realm of sensation and the
indeterminate impression of will and feeling a word is born . . . The word may
be regarded as the body of the thought, giving the spirit "visibility" and
form. Therefore if the word is blurred, the thought is blurred; and all becomes
foggy and indistinct." ("From Eternity to Eternity")
If then the thoughts are inspired, the words must also be so. Luther
justly said: "Christ did not say of His thoughts, but of His words, that they
are spirit and life." (Cf. John 6:63.) J.A. Bengel declares, speaking of the
prophets: "With the ideas God at the same time gave them the words."
Spurgeon, that prince of preachers, said: "We contend for every word of the
Bible and believe in the verbal, literal inspiration of Holy Scripture.
Indeed, we believe there can be no other kind of inspiration. If the words are
taken from us, the exact meaning is of itself lost."
In the case of the men in Bible days-for example, Jeremiah-none of these
matters aroused the slightest doubt. Had not God declared: "Whatsoever I shall
command thee thou shalt speak. Behold, I have put my words in thy mouth. Thou
shalt be as my mouth. Speak . . . all the words that I command thee to speak
unto them; *diminish not a word.* Take thee a roll of a book, and write
therein all the words that I have spoken . . ., even unto this day" (Jer. 1:7,
9; 15:19; 26:2; 36:2).
The Lord had Ezekiel eat, symbolically, the scroll of His revelation. Then
He said to him: "When I speak with thee, I will open thy mouth [not merely "thy
thought" or "thy mind"], and thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the Lord
Jehovah" (Ezek. 2:9-3:3, 27) .
According to Paul, the Holy Spirit taught God's spokesmen a spiritual
language, the words of which (Greek, logoi: discourse, words in their proper
sequence in quick succession in the sentences) corresponded to the supenatural
message to be transmitted, the very thought of Christ (I Cor. 2:13, 16).
"Thus we constantly see some revelation burst forth from a particular
expression, or we find some author pasing his whole argument on a single word.
. . We may say in resume that very often the meaning of a whole passage rests
entirely on one word, a singular or a plural number, the tense of a verb, the
details of a prophecy, the precision of a promise and the silence of the text
on a certain point.." (Rene Pache, "Inspiration & Authority of Scripture")
Lets take a look at I Jn 5:13 again. On what does our assurance of
salvation rest? John [the Lord's beloved disciple] said: "These things have I
*written* [not just said] . . . that ye might *know* [not hope, feel, suppose]
that ye *have* [now, not later, or in heaven] *eternal life* [the only reason
for our existence], even unto you that *believe *[the only condition for
receiving grace] on the name of *the Son of God* [the only name given among
men]." What assurance, what certitude could we have if every time we read such
marvelous texts we had to wonder:
1) Was the author exaggerating here?
2) Wasn't he going beyond the divine thought?
3) Wouldn't it be better to substitute another wording for the
one given?
If the biblical text were actually uncertain, would we not have to cry out with
Jeremiah: "Wilt thou indeed be unto me as a deceitful brook, as waters that
fail?" ( 15 :18) .
What despair, then, would creep into our hearts before a revelation which
claims to be divine, since we have no other light to guide us on the way
everlasting! To doubt the Word of God-what a tragedy! Not to know where it is
to be found, to have nothing of it available except little hints from the pens
of authors wholly open to error- this would certainly keep us mourning in the
dark.
As Erich Sauer again says, "Full inspiration is necessary because of the
fall of man. Were the Bible a mixture of truth and error, we would have to try
to decide by ourselves what should be acknowledged as of divine origin or
rejected as containing the alloy of human error. If man has not received from
on high an exact standard, how can he distinguish between what is divine and
what is human? How could we have the audacity to analyze, or even to dissect,
God's Book, for the most part simply on the basis of impressions, subjective
feelings or insufficient historical knowledge?" What fallen man thinks about
God is largely erroneous and generally untrustworthy; it is only "religion."
Man must, on the contrary, find out what the Most High thinks about him and
what He testifies concerning Himself and His plan of redemption. This essential
objective really is a Person, not a book. Jesus Christ incarnate, crucified
and raised again is THE truth, THE light, and THE source of all knowledge. The
revelation of Him to men, and this through the intermediary of men of darkened
intellect (Eph. 4:18; I Cor. 2:14), required a supernatural inspiration fully
adequate and worthy of confidence. Even as we need grace because of our moral
incapacity, we need inspiration because of our intellectual and spiritual
incapacity.
Tony Zamora
REX...@linac.fnal.gov writes:
[definition of inerrancy deleted]
I've really enjoyed the articles about the doctrine of inerrancy and have
gotten a lot out of thinking about them. I encourage Rex and others to
continue to present the fundamentalist/conservative view. I, for one, am
interested in hearing the different views on issues discussed here.
I do still have a few questions about inerrancy.
1. What is the role of translation in the doctrine of inerrancy? I guess this
question amounts to "What is an inerrant Bible?" Do we have one today? You
argue that the original manuscripts were inerrant. Are the manuscripts that we
have found so far (Masoretic Text, Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.) as reliable as the
original? What should we make of the fact the Septuagint differs in many
places from the Masoretic Text? Is the KJV inerrant? RSV? NIV? TEB? Bibles
translated into languages like French or Spanish? How about paraphrases like
The Living Bible? Are all of these inerrant? If so, how do we deal with
differences in translation? If not, what is the proper use of these different
translations? Is it proper to make different translations like this? Is it
better for us to read versions in Hebrew and Greek? What about children's
Bibles? Can an explanation of the Scriptures for children be inerrant? What
is "the right" way for a children's Bible to explain Scripture to children?
2. What is an error? A lot of the last question really boils down to the
question of what is an error? When Paul and the Gospel writers quote the Law
and the Prophets, the Scripture they quote doesn't always exactly match the
text from the version of the Law and the Prophets that we have. Is this an
error or merely a difference or maybe the result of literary style? When does
a difference become an error?
3. What is the role of literary device in Scripture? Jesus often taught in
parables, and it can sometimes be hard to know whether something Jesus said is
a parable or something that actually happened. (Luke 16:19-31 is a common
example of such a passage.) Clearly if we recognize that a passage is using a
special literary technique to make a point, we can interpret it accordingly,
but it is not always easy to recognize such passages. How can we tell whether
a particular writer is using a parable, hyperbole, satire, irony, symbolism,
prophetic imagery, etc.? Must we assume that unless we recognize a passage as
something special that it is not using any particular literary technique. How
does this affect our reading of the Scripture? Is the literary technique used
part of the inspired nature of the words used in Scripture? (e.g. does the
fact that the Psalms are poetry and songs say something special to us?)
Tony
[Quoting from the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy:
1. translation:
We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the
autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be
ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further
affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to
the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is
affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this
absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or
irrelevant.
2 and 3. Error and grammatical devices
We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term
with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.
We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to
standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We
further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a
lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or
spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of
falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical
arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel
accounts, or the use of free citations.
----
I believe conservative scholars generally understand that when the
Gospels quote Jesus, we're not seeing a transcript typed from a tape
recording, so that differences in phrasing are not an issue.
Clearly one needs to be sensitive to genre and literary devices.
There seems to be some range among conservatives. At one end, we have
people who believe that things must be taken literally unless it can
be proven that a literal reading of the passage is impossible. Note
also the emphasis of a number of conservative scholars on the
"propositional truth" of the Bible. (The Chicago Statement includes a
section on this.) However for another approach I refer you to Kevin
Vanhoozer's chapter in "Hermenuetics, Authority, and Canon", Carson
and Woodbridge ed, (Zondervan, 1986). He considers in great detail
what it means to say that the Bible is true. They point out the
importance of literary devices. He ends up using speech act theory,
and adopting a definition that says roughly that none of the
illucutionary acts of the Biblical authors misfires. On the question
of whether we are to draw conclusions from the occurence of literary
devices, they comment: "In light of these first steps in applying
speech act theory to literature, we would like to propose (moving
beyond Searle) that *there is a correlation between a text's genre, or
literary form, and a text's illocutionary point and force.* If this
principle is correct, then insensitivity to literary form entails a
diminished appreciation of a text's peculiar force. While proponents
of propositional revelation have cherished the (p) of the speech act
F(p), we have been arguing that the F's have largely been overlooked,
at least in forulations of a doctrine about Scripture." The current
generation of conservative scholars is quite sophisticated about
literature, history, and science.
--clh]