Over the years I have not been a big fan of the term "inerrancy" regarding scripture preferring the use of "infallibility" as a better representative of the truth of scripture. The various arguments for and against inerrancy have not swayed my ground with regard to a full expression of the truths of scripture however the battle of the term and it's advocates and opponents has been on-going since Warfield first elevated the matter to church attention. Fundamentalism, as a political movement among various church groups, latched onto the inerrancy debate in the 19th century and has spawned several associated movements, in particular the King James Version Only adherents. The more extreme advocates of inerrancy tend to favor this latter group of believers while the polar opposites tend toward open theism and liberal excess.
I stumbled across this link on another site. It presents an interesting discussion and is a good reference for understanding some of the arguments and responses of both sides. In addition, the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy offers the modern background of this issue.
4 comments:
Yes, the term "inerrancy" presents a lot of problems. It projects a lot of assumptions onto the nature and content of scripture.
In particular it is usually said that scripture is "innerant" in the original manuscripts - but since no one in almost 2000 years has seen an original manuscript of scripture, that view is not very helpful except to the believer who already accepts the authority of scripture by faith.
The idea of the "inerrancy" of scripture is easily refuted by the unbeliever when (for example)they can easily point to areas of difference between accounts of the same events in the various gospels.
To me it is enough to recognise that scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit and cotnains the full authority of His revelation.
As a strong supporter of inerrancy, I thank you for this post. It is good to see these links that defend inerrancy.
As a strong supporter of inerrancy, I thank you for this post. It is good to see these links that defend inerrancy.
LOL well, I enjoy being fair minded. I can understand the position of those who hold to the inerrancy label. I rather prefer infallibility.
Onesimus,
My own objections with inerrancy are basically the same as you have presented here. I can defend the infallible truths of scripture to the unbeliever but I cannot defend inerrancy as the unbeliever understands it. As such, I think the term weakens or at least puts an unnecessary burden upon our great commission.
Post a Comment