Thanks to David Mobley for some good comments on my prior inerrancy post. Having done a bit more reading today, I think I might amend my definition a bit to something more precise, as stated in Millard Erickson’s Christian Theology. Erickson defines inerrancy as follows:
“The Bible, when correctly interpreted in light of the level to which culture and the means of communication had developed at the time it was written, and in view of the purposes for which it was given, is fully truthful in all that it affirms.”
Erickson fleshes out this definition with some important principles, among them that the text’s cultural setting, the purposes for which the text was written, and the pervasive use of phenomenological language to report scientific matters and historical events means that we should not impose modern expectations of precision on the text. Without these caveats, I’m not so comfortable saying the Bible is without error in all that it “affirms”; with them, I am.
2 replies on “Defining Inerrancy Revisited”
I think I agree with that definition. Thanks for clarifying. Caveats often make me nervous, because (of course) it’s always possible to misunderstand them. Particularly, the word “culture” makes me nervous. For example, I can see someone saying, “Well, the CULTURE of Biblical times looked on homosexuality as wrong; the Bible’s PURPOSE is not to teach that homosexuality is wrong; it just adopted the attitudes of the culture.” I think that in view of Scripture it’s obviously wrong, but you can probably see why the words “purpose” and “culture” make me slightly nervous.
Another thought, though: From a practical point of view, we may sometimes realize that Scripture doesn’t affirm something we thought it did when new evidence comes into play. For example, people assumed the sun goes around the earth for centuries, because (a) that’s how it appears, and (b) the Bible talks about the sun rising and setting. It’s possible there may have been a cautious few who said that the Bible doesn’t necessarily teach that; but as far as I know, it was really only when science showed that the earth goes around the sun that people went, basically, “Hey, you know, the Bible doesn’t really say that the sun goes around the earth…”
This is, of course, not to say that science can override Scripture — I really believe a correct understanding of both is in harmony — but that sometimes we tend to be mistaken on some things we think Scripture is affirming.
Anyway, that was really an aside. Honestly, I’m very thankful that Scripture is “a firm nail” (Ecclesiastes); I can rely on what it says to be true. In fact, I can rely on it much more than anything else I know. If it states something explicitly, I can be certain that’s true. Inerrancy is really something to be thankful for, because there isn’t much else we can truly be certain of aside from what God tells us in the Bible.
Thanks for your posts. If I’ve gone on too long, feel free to delete my comment or anything; I don’t mean to use your blog to spout my views.
David, thanks for the comments. I appreciate your views and welcome your thoughts here.