|
| Christian news worldwide |
 Home |
 Archives |
 Subscriptions |
 Adverts |
 Find a church |
 About us |
 Contact us |
 Site Map |
 PrintableVersion The semantics of inerrancyThe debate surrounding the trustworthiness of the Bible has flared up again with something of a vengeance. It has been triggered by the recent publication of two books by professors in well-known theological institutions with Reformed credentials. Each in their own way has raised questions about the doctrine of inerrancy. Not surprisingly, the said institutions have been caught up in the fallout from views that have been stated on this subject. It is all too easy to rush into taking sides in a debate like this for the wrong reasons. For some, the words themselves have become a kind of shibboleth: ‘Do you believe in a Bible that is “inerrant”, or just “infallible”?’ Before you answer that question for yourself, maybe there is merit in stepping back for a moment and asking just what they mean. All too often the debate over this issue (as often in theological arguments) has been muddied by semantics — not simply the meaning of words in themselves, but also the way they are used by particular individuals in different situations. The terminologyIn current usage, the term ‘infallible’ conveys the sense of the Bible’s being free from error in matters pertaining to faith and practice; but on other issues (such as geography, history or science) it may be less than accurate. It is a definition that has sometimes been expressed as ‘limited inerrancy’. Inerrancy, by contrast, is taken to mean quite simply ‘free from error’. The increasingly sharp divide between those who favour one of these words over the other is in some ways curious, because the term ‘infallible’ has an older pedigree in Reformed literature. However, it is now viewed with suspicion and used only with qualification by those who are theologically conservative. No less a document than the Westminster Confession of Faith in its opening chapter, ‘Of Holy Scripture’, speaks of its ‘infallible truth’ and ‘divine authority’ (1.5). Yet those who wholeheartedly espouse the theology of the Confession, now prefer to use the word ‘inerrant’ in its place. That is where the question of semantics comes into view. In order to understand the shift in vocabulary we need to understand the meaning and intention that lies behind it. The problemThe issue that lies behind this controversy is what we are to make of the Bible’s pronouncements — direct or indirect — on matters that relate to geography, history, science and anything else that cannot be classified as matters of ‘faith and practice’. There are many instances in which there appears to be a conflict. The classic example is, of course, the Bible’s account of origins. The explanation given in the opening chapters of Genesis as to how the world, universe and human race came into being appears to be vastly different from the received wisdom of science over the past 150 years. The biblical view has become very much the minority position. Does that mean we cannot believe what it says? Some well-meaning Christians have made this and other examples of perceived contradiction into black and white choices. So, in relation to the question of origins, the Bible becomes the sole authority on this matter. But they fail to see that the opening chapters of the Bible were never intended to be seen as a science textbook telling us the ‘what’ of how the world and universe began; but, rather, as a theological description of origins setting out the ‘why’. That does not mean that the Genesis record is scientifically flawed, but simply that it is not scientifically comprehensive. The science of origins must be worked out in a way that is in keeping with the deeper truths that are beyond the scope of science. There are cultural issues at stake as well. We have become used to reporting techniques in our technological age that allow the verbatim quotation of what people have actually said. But that is a relatively recent luxury in the history of communication and was unknown in the days when the Bible was being given. So, to use another example, the reported sayings of Jesus in the gospels are not the verbatim transcription of sermons, discourses, or conversations, but summaries and paraphrases provided by those who heard them. Does that mean the recorded sayings of Jesus are inaccurate? Not at all! They fit perfectly within the standards of accuracy that were the accepted norm of that time — the same standards that still stand even in relation to legal testimony in courtrooms today. The concept of the Bible’s being free from error does not demand some kind of mechanical and artificial handling of the Bible as God-given literature. The theologyThere is a sense in which one might have a degree of sympathy with those who have walked away from the concept of a Bible that is error-free. There are many places in the Bible where serious study raises major questions and the pressure to provide rational explanations to resolve those difficulties is great. The intellectual climate of our post-Enlightenment world is such that everything must be compatible with the human mind. But that is to give more credit to the mind than it deserves. It is not merely that our intellect is finite and therefore incapable of grasping everything the infinite God chooses to reveal, but it is also fallen and therefore predisposed to misunderstand and misrepresent his revelation. So all attempts to rationalise Bible difficulties through faith in human reason end up being nothing more than just that: faith in human reason. To paraphrase John Calvin: ‘There is a point beyond which impious curiosity must not go!’ But that does not mean that faith becomes a blind leap in the dark. Quite the opposite: it is a leap into the arms of the God who has revealed so much about himself — even though his ‘thoughts are not our thoughts, or his ways our ways’ and are proportionately even higher than the mountains are to the earth — that we have every reason to trust him. The theological bottom-line in all this is that the God of the Bible is the God who has declared that it is impossible for him to lie, therefore he cannot have given us a book that contains error. Had he done so, we would be left exactly where the old liberals were left a century ago: with a book we cannot trust because we cannot be sure what is true and what is false in what it says. As one reads the books that have been written on this subject both in the recent exchanges and in those that have stretched back for many years, one cannot help but feel that those who wish to move away from belief in an error-free Bible are more interested in worshipping at the altar of the academy than before the throne of God. Theology does need academic rigour and integrity; but it can never be reduced to an academic exercise. There must be, by definition, a point at which reason fails and faith alone can carry us, or else our religion is merely human. There is nothing sacrosanct about the words ‘infallible’ or ‘inerrant’; but there are issues of theological immensity bound up with them. If we can wade our way through the semantics of the debate, we will surely find more clarity in what we need to guard. Mark Johnston,
|
|
