Is there really such a thing as a doctrine of inerrancy? I suppose if we open a dictionary and provide the definition of “inerrancy” we could state that there is a teaching as such. However, if we take that dictionary definition and build a teaching that requires us to qualify the term to allow varying circumstances that excuse empirical falsification, we are shifting the proverbial goalposts. Sometimes that shift is mere inches. Other times it is half the field. Regardless of the motive for the qualification, Christians are usurping terminology. We are redefining a term that disallows meaningful and rational discussion with skeptics and unbelievers. Determining something to be an error is the result of verifiable observation and/or measurement. Inversely, stating something to be inerrant demands that it not be falsified. From a scientific perspective and the realm in which the term inerrant originates, the claim must be empirically testable. The question asked is “Can this statement or evidence be falsified”? Inerrancy cannot logically rest upon a foundation of faith and have credibility with those you are disputing with. Of course one could dismiss the objection without care for what the skeptic considers and if that is the case then the discussion need not occur at all. However, if we are going to insist on using “inerrancy” then we by association are acknowledging an intellectual discussion with those who challenge such.
One of the difficulties I believe theological inerrantists have to come to terms with is the understanding that a statement must be true in every aspect, that it cannot be falsified in whole or in part. Every sentence must be empirically true unless it is accompanied with a qualifier in context. If a skeptic demonstrates with empirical evidence that a sentence or part of a sentence is not factually true and there is no qualifier accompanying that sentence in the context of that instruction, that sentence has failed its falsification test. It is not inerrant regardless of how much dust is tossed in the air and how many clothes are torn. Inerrancy demands reliance on a TRUE/FALSE test remedied only by an accompanying qualifier (itself being verifiable). This is the price of playing with terminology that has no place in matters of faith and philosophy.
Perhaps a distinction should be made between error and mistake. Error indicates a deviation from accuracy whereas a mistake indicates faultiness. With this in mind, an observable error could represent either a mistake or be incorporated within a true doctrine. Claiming inerrancy as a philosophical ground “hard codes” the former while promoting the doctrine of infallibility allows the “error” to fit within the auspices of the latter. Given that inerrancy was not used as a theological device until the early 19th century and only then in response to the growth of rational scientific and humanist thought, I think it is more than appropriate to stay focused on a faith based doctrine of infallibility rather than the empirical measure of inerrancy.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
AMM,
While I'm probably going to be pretty firm in my responses, I don't want you to think that I'm insulting you or demeaning you. I will challenge your position, however, in hopes that iron can sharpen iron.
To start with, you stack the deck and insist we use your definition of inerrancy, which is odd and not well defined even in this post. You don't seem too clear on what you think it means. You end up building a straw man to tear down while not really seeming to understand the context of the debate. It seems like you haven't listened to anything I've said about the issue.
Inerrancy in ANYTHING is about what that anything teaches. To say a science textbook is inerrant would be to say that it does not err in what it teaches. A modern science textbook would be filled with mainly categorized and specific truth claims about different things. The purpose of the authors is to give technical precision in the different items they address. That is the genre of literature we're dealing with.
Sometimes a story is told to teach a certain lesson. Sometimes the story may be fictional. If one were to say that every sentence, even every part of a sentence, in that story had to be factually correct, then they'd be importing a foreign notion into the story. A notion the storyteller never intended to come across as his teaching. IE Jesus telling the parable of the good Samaritan. It could be that that story never happened in reality, but Jesus told it to make a point. That would mean that it isn't true in reality that a man was beaten and left for dead and then all of the further occurrences. Has Jesus made a factual error? I can only conclude someone is obtuse to think so. Jesus wasn't teaching an historical account of something that happened, He was teaching about being selfless, helping people in need, and loving people regardless of their background. To import your strange standard of truth is something I don't think anyone would do to any book out there, and is extremely anachronistic and frankly ungracious.
Frankly, this post says very little and hides it in some rhetorical fluff.
If a skeptic demonstrates with empirical evidence that a sentence or part of a sentence is not factually true and there is no qualifier accompanying that sentence in the context of that instruction, that sentence has failed its falsification test.
That's all fine and good, but you've yet to show that the Bible teaches something that is an error.
Perhaps a distinction should be made between error and mistake.
A ridiculous and fruitless distinction, as these words have synonymous definitions.
Your strange proclivity to play semantic games with this issue baffles me.
Error indicates a deviation from accuracy whereas a mistake indicates faultiness
Which is a distinction without a difference if I've ever seen one.
With this in mind, an observable error could represent either a mistake or be incorporated within a true doctrine
So a doctrine can have factual error in it? Then why the heck worry if God actually created the universe?
Claiming inerrancy as a philosophical ground “hard codes” the former while promoting the doctrine of infallibility allows the “error” to fit within the auspices of the latter.
This makes almost no sense, unless you are importing your "every sentence...every part of sentence" nonsense. The context as a whole must be examined to see what is being taught. Otherwise, you're doing what the Calvinist does and ripping something out of context.
Honestly, if this is your position, then I don't see why, when challenged by a Calvinist with a piece of scripture, you don't just say it's an error.
Given that inerrancy was not used as a theological device until the early 19th century
Well this is just false. Up until the 19th century, it was just assumed that the Bible was perfect revelation from God. Not only that, but the Ante and Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers did write about the inerrancy in scripture, down to those "who extend the accuracy of the Spirit to the merest stroke and tittle" (Gregory Nazianzen) and they were not, "so ignorant as to suppose that any of the Lord's words is either in need of correction or is not divinely inspired" (Saint Jerome).
It is the humanistic thought that tried to import the weird standard that you seem to insist inerrancy must mean.
While you're wrong, whether it be because of semantic confusion or something else, God bless us in our continuing dialog.
There is nothing false about inerrancy first coming into play as a theological concept in the early 19th century. If you think you can demonstrate it earlier please do. However, in doing so, do not equate empirical inerrancy with theological infallibility.
It is my license to define these terms as I have and they are reasonable distinctions. I will revert back to the tired dispute, the mustard seed. It is a scientific, irrefutable error to state that it is the smallest of seed sown in the earth. There is no way under the sun that you can argue it is not an empirical error, that the sentence is not distanced from absolute accuracy. That is what "error" means. Error does not mean "mistake" in this contrast between empirical measures and the expression of revealed divine truth. It means there is a deviation from absolute correctness. On the other hand, that deviation does not mean that the teaching is wrong. This is why infallibility is a preferable term to inerrancy.
This may be foolishness to you and so be it. It is very clear cut philosophical distinction to me and I marvel that you cannot see it.
There is nothing false about inerrancy first coming into play as a theological concept in the early 19th century.
There absolutely is. All orthodox theologians took scripture as God's perfect revelation. To insist that they use the actual word is obtuse. It's derived logically from who the source of scripture is. God cannot err, God is the source of scripture, therefore scripture cannot err.
Augustine: "For it cannot be remotely possible that the authority of the Scriptures should be fallacious at any point."
Gregory of Nazianzen: "I remembered the days of old, and, recurring to one of the ancient histories, drew counsel for myself therefrom as to my present conduct; for let us not suppose these events to have been recorded without a purpose, nor that they are a mere assemblage of words and deeds gathered together for the pastime of those who listen to them, as a kind of bait for the ears, for the sole purpose of giving pleasure. Let us leave such jesting to the legends and the Greeks, who think but little of the truth, and enchant ear and mind by the charm of their fictions and the daintiness of their style.
We however, who extend the accuracy of the Spirit to the merest stroke and tittle, will never admit the impious assertion that even the smallest matters were dealt with haphazard by those who have recorded them, and have thus been borne in mind down to the present day: on the contrary, their purpose has been to supply memorials and instructions for our consideration under similar circumstances, should such befall us, and that the examples of the past might serve as rules and models, for our warning and imitation."
Justin Martyr: "And I answered, 'If you spoke these words, Trypho, and then kept silence in simplicity and with no ill intent, neither repeating what goes before nor adding what comes after, you must be forgiven; but if[you have done so] because you imagined that you could throw doubt on the passage, in order that I might say the Scriptures contradicted each other, you have erred. But I shall not venture to suppose or to say such a thing; and if a Scripture which appears to be of such a kind be brought forward, and if there be a pretext[for saying] that it is contrary[to some other], since I am entirely convinced that no Scripture contradicts another, I shall admit rather that I do not understand what is recorded, and shall strive to persuade those who imagine that the Scriptures are contradictory, to be rather of the same opinion as myself."
I could go on.
Here is a simple challenge for those who feel compelled to call into question the commitment of the infallabilists.
Please identify the scriptural teaching that you think I might reject and how would your inerrancy doctrine change that view?
It is my license to define these terms as I have and they are reasonable distinctions.
Not if you want to have a reasonable discussion with an inerrantist. You're building a straw man to tear down, and therefore aren't dealing with my position at all.
I will revert back to the tired dispute, the mustard seed.
Which I find disappointing, since you've been corrected on it.
It is a scientific, irrefutable error to state that it is the smallest of seed sown in the earth.
Of course we don't see Jesus teaching such a thing. Ergo, no error was spoken.
Now here's the strange thing that you can't get away from. Even if the Bible isn't inerrant, Jesus more than likely did teach this parable based on what we know from our historical sources, and probably said what is recorded in the Bible. If that's the case, then you're saying the Son of God made an error. Did He, AMM?
Or do you buck what most historians would think and say Jesus never did teach this?
This may be foolishness to you and so be it. It is very clear cut philosophical distinction to me and I marvel that you cannot see it.
It is, because no such thing is being taught about the mustard seed. Rather the mustard seed is being referenced to teach something else to a culture that knew very well what a mustard seed is, as you were told several times.
If Jesus truly were teaching botany here and truly did mean that the mustard seed literally is the smallest ever, then we can't hold the Bible to be infallible either, because we'd have been led astray about the size of seeds. You can't have infallibility sans inerrancy. Sorry.
Brennon, in your quotes, there isn't anything that deals directly with inerrancy. I agree with each of them with regard to infallibility.
If you believe otherwise, please affirm for myself that the mustard seed IS the smallest of seed sown in the earth. Do not qualify it with anything not stated directly in the text. Once you have done that, we will move to the topic of flat earth.
Please identify the scriptural teaching that you think I might reject and how would your inerrancy doctrine change that view?
Uh, the scriptural teaching that God is perfect, and that scripture is from God.
Brennon, in your quotes, there isn't anything that deals directly with inerrancy. I agree with each of them with regard to infallibility.
That's bull hockey and you know it. You've set up a straw man and refuse to budge. I am surprised and disappointed.
Please identify the scriptural teaching that you think I might reject and how would your inerrancy doctrine change that view?
Uh, the scriptural teaching that God is perfect, and that scripture is from God.
You make yourself look foolish with statements like that. I reject neither of the two.
You make yourself look foolish with statements like that. I reject neither of the two.
And you look like you don't understand simple English and logic, for if the Bible has an error, it can't be from God.
Augustine: "On my own part I confess to your charity that it is only to those books of Scripture which are now called canonical that I have learned to pay such honor and reverence as to believe most firmly that none of their writers has fallen into any error."
Brennon, in your quotes, there isn't anything that deals directly with inerrancy. I agree with each of them with regard to infallibility.
That's bull hockey and you know it. You've set up a straw man and refuse to budge. I am surprised and disappointed.
That is not at all accurate. I simply reject your understanding and equating of inerrancy with infallibility. An error is any deviation from absolute correctness. If one can demonstrate that deviation i.e. falsify it, then it is not inerrant. The teaching of revealed truth remains infallible because as you have noted, the teaching is not necessarily specific to the absolute statement e.g. the mustard seed example etc.
The strawman construction is yours, Brennon, not mine. If I do not hold to your incorrect empirical observation that I can prove to be wrong, I am somehow not believing the Word of God to be true?
Is the mustard seed the smallest of seed sown in the earth? If the Bible is inerrant, this is true. Is it? Deal only with what the text states, not what you think and believe it is stating. Keep in mind, I likely agree with you regarding what it is teaching. But to help you grasp this, stick only to the text. True or false?
I simply reject your understanding and equating of inerrancy with infallibility.
I've never equated them. I've said you can't have one without the other.
An error is any deviation from absolute correctness. If one can demonstrate that deviation i.e. falsify it, then it is not inerrant.
And if the Bible has errors, then it's not from God.
If I do not hold to your incorrect empirical observation that I can prove to be wrong, I am somehow not believing the Word of God to be true?
An error, by definition, cannot be true.
Is the mustard seed the smallest of seed sown in the earth? If the Bible is inerrant, this is true.
You're either being dishonest, or you missed where we corrected you on this.
Deal only with what the text states, not what you think and believe it is stating.
I am dealing with what the text is teaching, which is not botany. Look at what I said about the parable of the good Samaritan. If Jesus isn't teaching what you're claiming, then there's no error.
Joel showed how you were wrong in the SEA group, and all you did was wave your hand at his argument. Why? To maintain your stance that God's Son made a mistake? I can't understand your vendetta or motivation, but you're way off here, AMM.
As Archer states, "No one yet has proved that ancient Palestinians planted anything that bore a smaller seed than that of the black mustard, and that was the framework
within which Jesus was speaking. There is no record of the orchid ever being cultivated in Palestine."
Augustine: "On my own part I confess to your charity that it is only to those books of Scripture which are now called canonical that I have learned to pay such honor and reverence as to believe most firmly that none of their writers has fallen into any error."
Now, reconcile the Latin noun "error" (a wandering from truth) with the adjective "infallibilis" to avoid the empirical error (deviation from absolute correctness)that is provable in the text.
Brennon,
Here it is again .... Deal specifically with this. Don't dance around it and tell me how you corrected me here or there. Address the issue here.
Is the mustard seed the smallest of seed sown in the earth? If the Bible is inerrant, this is true. Is it? Deal only with what the text states, not what you think and believe it is stating. Keep in mind, I likely agree with you regarding what it is teaching. But to help you grasp this, stick only to the text. True or false?
To maintain your stance that God's Son made a mistake?
You have not seen me make or infer any such thing. In fact I have distinguished between something being empirically inerrant and being a mistake.
Now address the True/False inquiry as requested.
No, we are not going to play that game. The inquiry is appropriately answered with a true or false. If you cannot affirm one way or the other that the verse regarding the mustard seed is free of any empirical error, then you are wasting your time and mine. If you want to use the term inerrant regarding the text of the Bible, then apply it in this case as well. I don't know why you think there is wiggle room here or why you think you have the right to impugn my character as you did.
See, now you're just going to erase my posts. I'm done here. You have fun with your silliness. You've lost all my respect.
Brennon,
You demonstrated a lack of maturity by impugning my character as you did. My inquiry was simple yet apparently too threatening to your position. It would have been easy to state "false. The mustard seed is not the smallest of the seed sown in the earth". We could have gone from there.
Look at the first paragraph of your first post here and ask yourself who disappointed whom with their replies?
Course no one will know what I said, cause you deleted it. You seem to have to throw around insults of my character (immature) to defend your position. Plainly, I will not defend your straw man of my position. You're dishonest to continue painting it as such, and you've lost my respect in your entire demeanor in the debate. As I've said, have fun in this weird malaise of a position.
What you stated was a long character assassination and an avoiding of a simple and easy inquiry. If anybody wants to guess at its content, they merely need to read your previous posts and add a good dose of accusation.
What is quite clear is your inability to address the empirical issues and understand that inerrancy is not a take it or leave it proposition at par with the Trinity and Deity of Christ doctrines. I'll deal with this fundamentalist reaction in a separate post.
I agree that in order for "inerrancy" to work it has to contain a lot of qualifiers. I can ascribe to a form of "purposive" inerrancy, or inerrancy in matters of faith and practice; but for me, the term "infallibility" simply conveys this perspective better, and is less open to the misunderstandings that you've identified (re: inerrancy as an "empirical" concept). I also think non-Christians hear the term "inerrancy" and will immediately go to nit-picking details of the text, rather than focusing on the primary themes of scripture.
I know some people are committed to using term inerrancy and making qualifiers so that it is not misunderstood, and a reasonable case can be made for it on those grounds. But I just don't think the term is particularly helpful, precisely because it is often misunderstood.
Brennan, you seem to think that AMM's denial of the empirical perfection of scripture is a denial of the perfection of God. I would counter that by simply saying that scripture is not God. It is God's Word written. And because it is written in human language it is subject to some limitations. Divine revelation has been communicated to us through the fragile vessel of human language and culture, and this means that there may indeed be "factual" or "empirical" errors in scripture. This doesn't impugn God's perfection, because it is a reflection of the limited nature of human language and knowledge at any given time. God accommodates us by speaking in a way that we can understand, and in a way that communicates truthfully to us, but we must recognize that even the most sophisticated human language is baby-talk to God, and can't be expected to bear the complete weight of divine perfection. Nevertheless, by the inspiration of the Spirit, and by the continuing work of the Spirit guiding the church in our reading of scripture today, God's Word written does not fail to faithfully mediate divine revelation to us in matters of Christian doctrine and practice.
There's no danger of denying orthodox Christian doctrine here. Lots of orthodox Christians prefer to speak of Scripture's infallibility rather than its inerrancy. They are both orthodox options.
James,
I agree wholeheartedly with your post here. What I have tried to convey with this issue is the unnecessary burden that empirical language places upon Christian apologetics. Our language and cultures change considerably over time and what is conveyed by the Latin noun “error” in the first few centuries after Christ is more closely related to the adjective “infallibilis”. Likewise, error, from the perspective of rational scientific and humanist inquiry, is an empirical measure that identifies a deviation from absolute correctness. It is this relatively modern distinction that is not being addressed by the inerrantists.
The charge against the infallibilists seems to center on accusing us of instructing that God made mistakes if there is an “error” in any text of scripture. I believe this fails to take into account the very real distinctions between an empirical error or deviation and an unknowing mistake. God is all knowing and as such cannot err in the sense of making an unknowing mistake. However the LORD can certainly take license with His teaching to reveal God’s truth. I am beyond certain that Jesus knew the orchid seed was considerably smaller than the mustard so it is also certain He did not unknowingly “err” or make a mistake. Instead He allowed an empirical error in His teaching to make a greater point. Whether the circumstances were hyperbole or that the Hebrews would not have known of the smallness of the orchid is speculation. In any event the teaching is infallible in that it does not err in teaching revealed Divine truth. On the other hand, it contains a falsifiable error from the vantage point of the rational scientific skeptic.
Thanks for your comments.
Good post AM.
The problem is that word inerrancy has become a contested term. We waste a lot of time defining it. It's like the word "gay". I can tell you that I’m feeling gay, and then properly define what gay means. Or I can tell you that I’m feeling happy. Either works, but the latter approach is less confusing and saves time.
Inerrancy (perhaps unfairly) has become associated with a dogmatically and woodenly literalistic approach to interpreting the Bible, where one (without the guiding and direction of the Holy Spirit) looks for a list of facts to prove
Kevin,
I agree. The term has an excessive load of baggage attached to it and its meaning is not at all as clear cut as many of its advocates claim. I strongly advocate we revert back to infallibility even if that means taking the term back from the liberal seminaries who have watered its purpose.
Post a Comment