c l a s s i c a l
I always expect non-believers to launch unwarranted attacks on the infallibility, integrity, and inerrancy of God's word; such only seems natural. What I find very unnatural is when professing believers in and followers of Christ Jesus advocate the same unwarranted criticisms on the Bible as do those who disdain Scripture.
For example, Peter Enns' clever, post-postmodern complaint against the inerrancy of Scripture is laid out in his post, "Theological Growth: Extreme Makeover Home Edition," in the form of a discovery that one's foundation, upon which one's house is constructed, has cracks and faults. From Enns' perspective, those who hold to the doctrine of inerrancy cannot see the cracks in the foundation because our "structures are already in place." If we would but open our eyes to the fact -- a word used far too loosely -- that the Bible contains legends and myths then we would understand better how inviable is a concept such as inerrancy.
Moreover, he suggests, in his post, "Reading Genesis: Let's Be Adults about This, Shall We," that inerrantists who deny that the Bible contains legends and myths read books such as Genesis as do children -- wide-eyed and mystified, gullible and ignorant adolescents. His higher- and source-critical enlightened views have taught him how to belittle and shame his critics into considering or adopting his liberal views via the avenue of intellectual intimidation, to say nothing of fear.
For you see, no one wants to be viewed as an intentionally-ignorant and vastly unenlightened thinker. When such a suspicious shadow is cast upon inerrantists, then many others will think twice before considering such intellectual suicide as adopting a view that Scripture actually is breathed out by God (2 Tim. 3:16 ESV), a more sure word of prophecy superintended by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:19-21), or absolute truth in all respects from beginning to end, as the immanently unenlightened Jesus confessed (John 17:17).
I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture because Jesus believes in the inerrancy of Scripture: "Sanctify them," He prayed to His Father, "in the truth; your word is truth" (John 17:17 NRSV). "Your word is truth," admits Jesus, the Son of God. Jesus, would you settle for, "Your word is part truth, part legend and myth"? Or how about, "Your word is three-fourths truth, one-fourth legend and myth"? One cannot read Jesus' absolute statement and draw any other conclusion than that He believes God's word to be absolute truth.
God's word, lógos, from légō (lit. "speaking to a conclusion"), refers to "a word, being the expression of a thought; a saying," and is used preeminently of Christ Himself at John 1:1, in "expressing the thoughts of the Father through the Spirit." (link) The reason why each and every word in the original manuscripts can be trusted as inerrant, as absolute truth, is because the origin and author of every word is inerrant: God Himself. Jesus is Truth incarnate (John 14:6). The Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of truth (John 16:13). If Truth incarnate insists that God's word is absolute truth, then to question the inerrancy of Scripture is to question the wisdom and authority of Christ.
Of course, what I just wrote concerning Jesus being Truth incarnate will be dismissed by certain post-Christian thinkers, such as Randal Rauser, who confesses that "Jesus had all sorts of false beliefs in the kenosis of the incarnation." He further asks, "Why not just admit that Jesus was a product of his time and thus could have non-culpably held to some false beliefs, including false beliefs about science, politics, history, and human origins?" (link) When Christ Himself is thought to be in error, then the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture can maintain no hope whatsoever!
To add insult to injury, we are always obligated, I think, to confront people like Arminian scholar Roger Olson, who insists that the Bible is infallible but not without error. "How," you ask, "can the Bible present us with infallible words when those words may contain error?" By insisting so, I imagine. Even when considering his strained efforts at defining what makes for error (link), he still insists that inerrancy, a doctrine cherished by "neo-fundamentalists" (his favorite designation of his conservative critics) is
Suspicions regarding inerrancy arise when considering myths and legends, as found among the Mesopotamians, that correspond with certain aspects found in the book of Genesis. Source critics think that the author(s) of Genesis incorporated these legends into the account in order to tell a story. Hence inerrancy is itself imagined by such critics as a myth.
First, inerrancy assures us that what the original author wrote was what the Spirit of God wanted recorded. For example, when the apostle Paul quoted a Cretan prophet, "It was one of them, their very own prophet, who said, 'Cretans are always liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons'" (Titus 1:12 NRSV), we are not suggesting that the Cretan prophet's words were inspired of God but that what Paul wrote was recorded exactly as God Himself intended. Thus the events recorded in Scripture are not inspired, but the recorded words of Scripture are just what God intended to be present therein.
Second, critics like Enns fail, in my opinion, to discern their own particular prejudices. He concludes, "I would like to see evangelical leaders do a better of job of training adult readers of the Bible. But, I also know that is asking a lot. Structures are in place, with deep cement footers and reinforced steel, that prevent this sort of rethinking." (link) He fails to see that his own structures are in place, with deep cement footers and reinforced steel, that perpetuate his rejection of the doctrine of inerrancy.
Such critics envisage their failure to answer their own critics -- the critics of the Bible -- as a viable excuse, if not tangible proof, for rejecting the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture. This tragic happenstance, however, testifies far more to human fallibility than to any perceived fallibility of God's word.
Still, what startles me most is the arrogance of fallible human beings either implying or explicitly stating that, regarding the doctrine of inerrancy, Jesus, according to our higher- and source-critical methods, was just plain wrong.
For example, Peter Enns' clever, post-postmodern complaint against the inerrancy of Scripture is laid out in his post, "Theological Growth: Extreme Makeover Home Edition," in the form of a discovery that one's foundation, upon which one's house is constructed, has cracks and faults. From Enns' perspective, those who hold to the doctrine of inerrancy cannot see the cracks in the foundation because our "structures are already in place." If we would but open our eyes to the fact -- a word used far too loosely -- that the Bible contains legends and myths then we would understand better how inviable is a concept such as inerrancy.
Moreover, he suggests, in his post, "Reading Genesis: Let's Be Adults about This, Shall We," that inerrantists who deny that the Bible contains legends and myths read books such as Genesis as do children -- wide-eyed and mystified, gullible and ignorant adolescents. His higher- and source-critical enlightened views have taught him how to belittle and shame his critics into considering or adopting his liberal views via the avenue of intellectual intimidation, to say nothing of fear.
For you see, no one wants to be viewed as an intentionally-ignorant and vastly unenlightened thinker. When such a suspicious shadow is cast upon inerrantists, then many others will think twice before considering such intellectual suicide as adopting a view that Scripture actually is breathed out by God (2 Tim. 3:16 ESV), a more sure word of prophecy superintended by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:19-21), or absolute truth in all respects from beginning to end, as the immanently unenlightened Jesus confessed (John 17:17).
I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture because Jesus believes in the inerrancy of Scripture: "Sanctify them," He prayed to His Father, "in the truth; your word is truth" (John 17:17 NRSV). "Your word is truth," admits Jesus, the Son of God. Jesus, would you settle for, "Your word is part truth, part legend and myth"? Or how about, "Your word is three-fourths truth, one-fourth legend and myth"? One cannot read Jesus' absolute statement and draw any other conclusion than that He believes God's word to be absolute truth.
God's word, lógos, from légō (lit. "speaking to a conclusion"), refers to "a word, being the expression of a thought; a saying," and is used preeminently of Christ Himself at John 1:1, in "expressing the thoughts of the Father through the Spirit." (link) The reason why each and every word in the original manuscripts can be trusted as inerrant, as absolute truth, is because the origin and author of every word is inerrant: God Himself. Jesus is Truth incarnate (John 14:6). The Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of truth (John 16:13). If Truth incarnate insists that God's word is absolute truth, then to question the inerrancy of Scripture is to question the wisdom and authority of Christ.
Of course, what I just wrote concerning Jesus being Truth incarnate will be dismissed by certain post-Christian thinkers, such as Randal Rauser, who confesses that "Jesus had all sorts of false beliefs in the kenosis of the incarnation." He further asks, "Why not just admit that Jesus was a product of his time and thus could have non-culpably held to some false beliefs, including false beliefs about science, politics, history, and human origins?" (link) When Christ Himself is thought to be in error, then the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture can maintain no hope whatsoever!
To add insult to injury, we are always obligated, I think, to confront people like Arminian scholar Roger Olson, who insists that the Bible is infallible but not without error. "How," you ask, "can the Bible present us with infallible words when those words may contain error?" By insisting so, I imagine. Even when considering his strained efforts at defining what makes for error (link), he still insists that inerrancy, a doctrine cherished by "neo-fundamentalists" (his favorite designation of his conservative critics) is
a meaningless concept until it is explained clearly. And once someone does begin to explain it clearly one of two things happens. Either the explanation does not fit the actual phenomena of Scripture or necessary qualifications (to make it fit the phenomena of Scripture) kill it so that it becomes a special use of "inerrancy" that fits no other context. (link)Fortunate enough for Olson, he affords himself the task of accurately defining inerrancy. (He was "appalled and shocked" by the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy//link.) When his conservative critics disagree with his nuanced definition, he brands them as "neo-fundamentalists" who are "too conservative for [their] own good." (link) Olson's views are far removed from that of Jacob Arminius. (link)
Suspicions regarding inerrancy arise when considering myths and legends, as found among the Mesopotamians, that correspond with certain aspects found in the book of Genesis. Source critics think that the author(s) of Genesis incorporated these legends into the account in order to tell a story. Hence inerrancy is itself imagined by such critics as a myth.
First, inerrancy assures us that what the original author wrote was what the Spirit of God wanted recorded. For example, when the apostle Paul quoted a Cretan prophet, "It was one of them, their very own prophet, who said, 'Cretans are always liars, vicious brutes, lazy gluttons'" (Titus 1:12 NRSV), we are not suggesting that the Cretan prophet's words were inspired of God but that what Paul wrote was recorded exactly as God Himself intended. Thus the events recorded in Scripture are not inspired, but the recorded words of Scripture are just what God intended to be present therein.
Second, critics like Enns fail, in my opinion, to discern their own particular prejudices. He concludes, "I would like to see evangelical leaders do a better of job of training adult readers of the Bible. But, I also know that is asking a lot. Structures are in place, with deep cement footers and reinforced steel, that prevent this sort of rethinking." (link) He fails to see that his own structures are in place, with deep cement footers and reinforced steel, that perpetuate his rejection of the doctrine of inerrancy.
Such critics envisage their failure to answer their own critics -- the critics of the Bible -- as a viable excuse, if not tangible proof, for rejecting the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture. This tragic happenstance, however, testifies far more to human fallibility than to any perceived fallibility of God's word.
Still, what startles me most is the arrogance of fallible human beings either implying or explicitly stating that, regarding the doctrine of inerrancy, Jesus, according to our higher- and source-critical methods, was just plain wrong.
