Packer on Inerrancy

When evangelicals call the Bible "inerrant," part at least of their meaning is this: that, in exegesis and exposition of Scripture and in building up our biblical theology from the fruits of our Bible study, we may not (1) deny, disregard, or arbitrarily relativize, anything that the biblical writers teach, nor (2) discount any of the practical implications for worship and service that their teaching carries, nor (3) cut the knot of any problem of Bible harmony, factual or theological, by allowing ourselves to assume that the inspired writers were not necessarily consistent either with themselves or with each other. It is because the word "inerrant" makes these methodological points about handling the Bible, ruling out in advance the use of mental procedures that can only lead to reduced and distorted versions of Christianity, that it is so valuable and, I think, so much valued by those who embrace it.
James I. Packer

(hat tip to CQOD)

Helpful quote, but I disagree. The word "inerrant" does not make those methodological points. The theological baggage attached by some to that word leads to those (correct) conclusions though.

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy - Summary

Intro | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6

link to full text of statement

Overall, it was stronger than I expected it to be. By pointing to Jesus' doctrine of Scripture and affirming that hermeneutics should be centred on Christ, they effectively secured an evangelical approach to the Old Testament.

On the other hand, it still seems to have weaknesses, particularly in the question of genre. I don't remember anything guaranteeing a belief in the essential historicity of the gospel accounts, for example, rather than the view which sees them as intentionally written to be legendary accounts pointing to a spiritual truth. There are also a few areas where the wording seems to be less than ideal. It seems to me curious but true that it puts more effort into safeguarding and emphasising the teaching of Jesus as recorded in the Bible than his historical death and resurrection, which is where the emphasis of the Bible itself seems to be more focused. Possibly that is because while the underlying doctrine has been held by the Church since the beginning, this expression of it is reacting against certain false teachers, and so faces the danger of over-reacting.

Some of my initial thoughts were wrong, because I had not realised that "inerrancy" is often used as jargon to carry a lot more meaning than the word "inerrant" on its own does. But it still does not carry quite enough weight, and the use of one word to carry meanings not entirely stemming from that word is potentially confusing.

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy 6

Intro | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5

link to full text of statement

The Statement ends with a prose "Exposition". Here are some edited highlights.

The theological reality of inspiration in the producing of Biblical documents corresponds to that of spoken prophecies: although the human writers' personalities were expressed in what they wrote, the words were divinely constituted. Thus, what Scripture says, God says; its authority is His authority, for He is its ultimate Author, having given it through the minds and words of chosen and prepared men who in freedom and faithfulness "spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (1 Pet. 1:21). Holy Scripture must be acknowledged as the Word of God by virtue of its divine origin...

Jesus Christ, the Son of God who is the Word made flesh, our Prophet, Priest, and King, is the ultimate Mediator of God's communication to man, as He is of all God's gifts of grace. The revelation He gave was more than verbal; He revealed the Father by His presence and His deeds as well. Yet His words were crucially important; for He was God, He spoke from the Father, and His words will judge all men at the last day.

As the prophesied Messiah, Jesus Christ is the central theme of Scripture. The Old Testament looked ahead to Him; the New Testament looks back to His first coming and on to His second. Canonical Scripture is the divinely inspired and therefore normative witness to Christ. No hermeneutic, therefore, of which the historical Christ is not the focal point is acceptable. Holy Scripture must be treated as what it essentially is—the witness of the Father to the Incarnate Son....

Mostly great so far. Slight irony in saying "Yet His words were crucially important" though - I thought his death was the crucially important bit of his revelation. Certainly Scripture seems to point at least as much to God as revealed particularly in Christ's death and resurrection as in his teaching. Yes, Jesus came to teach; he also came to die.

The New Testament canon is likewise now closed inasmuch as no new apostolic witness to the historical Christ can now be borne. No new revelation (as distinct from Spirit-given understanding of existing revelation) will be given until Christ comes again. The canon was created in principle by divine inspiration. The Church's part was to discern the canon which God had created, not to devise one of its own.

Logical error here. Yes, no new apostolic witness to the historical Christ can now be borne. But it does not therefore follow that no new revelation will be given until Christ comes again. No new normative, authoritative revelation - yes. But no new revelation at all - not proven.

By authenticating each other's authority, Christ and Scripture coalesce into a single fount of authority. The Biblically-interpreted Christ and the Christ-centered, Christ-proclaiming Bible are from this standpoint one. As from the fact of inspiration we infer that what Scripture says, God says, so from the revealed relation between Jesus Christ and Scripture we may equally declare that what Scripture says, Christ says.

Skirting close to, but this time just avoiding the danger of Bibliolatry (avoiding because of the phrase "from this standpoint"). But it's right that what Scripture says, Christ says.

We affirm that canonical Scripture should always be interpreted on the basis that it is infallible and inerrant. However, in determining what the God-taught writer is asserting in each passage, we must pay the most careful attention to its claims and character as a human production. In inspiration, God utilized the culture and conventions of His penman's milieu, a milieu that God controls in His sovereign providence; it is misinterpretation to imagine otherwise.

So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: since, for instance, non-chronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.

So what Scripture affirms is now "that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed". If the aim of Genesis 1-2 was not to teach about science, how does that fit with the earlier comments about creation? It still is not clear how we are meant to tell what is meant to be hyperbole and metaphor, and what isn't.

Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions.

I agree. :o)

We are conscious too that great and grave confusion results from ceasing to maintain the total truth of the Bible whose authority one professes to acknowledge. The result of taking this step is that the Bible which God gave loses its authority, and what has authority instead is a Bible reduced in content according to the demands of one's critical reasonings and in principle reducible still further once one has started. This means that at bottom independent reason now has authority, as opposed to Scriptural teaching. If this is not seen and if for the time being basic evangelical doctrines are still held, persons denying the full truth of Scripture may claim an evangelical identity while methodologically they have moved away from the evangelical principle of knowledge to an unstable subjectivism, and will find it hard not to move further.

Yes. But I think that the Statement does not quite stop that as much as it intended to.

Summary

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy 5

Intro | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

link to full text of statement

The remaining Articles 14-19 are, as far as I can see, much better.

ARTICLE 15:
WE AFFIRM that the doctrine of inerrancy is grounded in the teaching of the Bible about inspiration.
WE DENY that Jesus' teaching about Scripture may be dismissed by appeals to accommodation or to any natural limitation of His humanity.

Saying that Jesus' teaching about Scripture cannot be dismissed by those appeals solves the problem for much of the Old Testament, because it is clear that Jesus regarded it as historical rather than as collective myth or any of the other rubbish that some scholars claim.

ARTICLE 16:
WE AFFIRM that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church's faith throughout its history.
WE DENY that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism.

Need to be careful here. The doctrine underlying inerrancy - what they are trying to express about the trustworthiness of Scripture has indeed been integral to the Church's faith. Patristic writers in the early church, Reformers, Counter-Reformers all cited the Bible as true and authoritative. On the other hand, the articulation of it as "inerrancy" does seem to be invented by scholastic Protestantism in reaction to negative higher criticism, and there are some consequences of that. One example is that there does not seem to have been a move to treat 144 hour creation as a confessional point until Darwin. Indeed, many of the early Church Fathers (e.g. Augustine) argued that creation did not take place over a 144 hour period, but that the term "day" in Genesis 1 referred to longer periods. 144-hour creation as confessional probably does owe something to the newness of the specific articulation of the doctrine of inerrancy, even though the underlying doctrine goes back right to the beginning of Christianity.

ARTICLE 18:
WE AFFIRM that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.
WE DENY the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.

This is also a useful clarification. Although there is still room for a liberal view of some bits of Scripture via claiming (for example) that John's gospel is metaphorical midrash rather than history, this rules out the potential genre of pseudographia - some claim that someone who had known Peter writing later as Peter was a well-understood literary convention. This rejects that for Biblical books (and rightly so, given the second century Church's attitude to pseudographia).

Part 6 | Summary

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy 4

Intro | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3

link to full text of statement

Articles 11-13 are the heart of the document.

ARTICLE 11:
WE AFFIRM that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.
WE DENY that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.

ARTICLE 12: WE AFFIRM that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.
WE DENY that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

ARTICLE 13: WE AFFIRM the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.
WE DENY that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

This is also where I think the statement gets too fuzzy. Article 11 says that the Bible is "far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses". Scripture cannot mislead, but people can misunderstand it and so be misled. There is also the key question of how it is determined which matters it addresses.

How, for example, do these articles relate to poetry such Psalm 19:4-6?

In the heavens [God] has pitched a tent for the sun,
which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion,
like a champion rejoicing to run his course.
It rises at one end of the heavens
and makes its circuit to the other;
nothing is hidden from its heat.
Psalm 19:4b-6, NIV

Yes, I can accept that it is poetry and so we do not take God having pitched a tent for the sun literally. But how can we on the one hand say that is poetry so we don't have to take it literally and on the other say that the accounts of the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead are historical rather than pious unhistorical myth teaching a spiritual truth (as some argue)? Who is to classify the genre of literature? Yes, I believe Jesus rose bodily from the dead. But I don't think even with this statement's expanded use of the term "inerrancy", that it can do the work it is meant to do. It seems to me possible to agree with this statement and yet deny key doctrines it is meant to be defending.

Article 12 says "We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood." Quite right. What Scripture teaches is correct. The Statement does however allow scientific hypotheses about earth history to clarify the interpretation of the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood, which is quite possibly something some of the people who wrote it would also disagree with.

Article 13 says "WE AFFIRM the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture." Once again, I am uncertain what it means for a poem employing metaphor to be truthful. Or a love song, for that matter.

I rather imagine that the second half of Article 13 is meant to deal with this problem. But if it allows for hyperbole (which it should), how can we contradict those who argue that the description of Jesus walking on water was just hyperbole?

Part 5 | Part 6 | Summary

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy 3

Intro | Part 1 | Part 2

link to full text of statement

Article 5 then holds together the ideas that revelation is progressive, but that later revelation doesn't contradict earlier revelation. Articles 6-10 are about the doctrine of inspiration.

At this stage, it becomes clear that actually the authors are using "inerrancy" as a catch-all term for their doctrine of Scripture, even though many of the features they describe are not directly connected to inerrancy and although "inerrancy" is not the best term for it (IMO). Hence they're using the term in two different senses in the same document:

• as theological jargon to carry a lot of baggage about the understanding of inspiration, communication, etc.
• in it's normal English sense - i.e. "the quality of being free from all falsehood or mistake" (definition of "inerrant" from the Exposition - odd since "inerrant" is an adjective and the definition describes a noun, which should be "inerrancy")

I think this distinction is an important one. In the past, certainly, my dislike of the term "inerrancy" has been because I do not think the normal English sense does sufficient work to cover all the bases it needs to. But its use as jargon means that more can be put into the word, which gives it that potential. It's still bad communication though.

As regards comments on Articles 6-10, I'm generally in agreement. They are holding together the idea that the Bible is both fully God's words and fully human words. Article 2 of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics makes the connection with the doctrine of Christ explicit.

However, I think 6-10 do contain a few potentially misleading generalisations.

ARTICLE 7:
WE AFFIRM that inspiration was the work in which God by His Spirit, through human writers, gave us His Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us.
WE DENY that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.

ARTICLE 8:
WE AFFIRM that God in His work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared.
WE DENY that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.

I think to say that there is only one "mode of divine inspiration" is misleading. It is clear in Scripture that there are multiple modes, including visions (Revelation 1:9-11) and research by the author (Luke 1:1-4) as well as direct dictation by God (e.g. Revelation 2-3).

While there are certainly examples where it is clear God has used the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers (e.g. the differences between the gospels), there are other cases where he does seem to have overridden their personalities.

Here is Jeremiah (clearly with his personality not overridden at this point), seemingly complaining to God about God doing just that at other points.

O LORD, you deceived me, and I was deceived;
you overpowered me and prevailed.
I am ridiculed all day long;
everyone mocks me.
Whenever I speak, I cry out
proclaiming violence and destruction.
So the word of the LORD has brought me
insult and reproach all day long.
But if I say, "I will not mention him
or speak any more in his name,"
his word is in my heart like a fire,
a fire shut up in my bones.
I am weary of holding it in;
indeed, I cannot.
Jeremiah 20:7-9, NIV

So, in general, I agree. But I think that in assuming that there is only one mode for Biblical inspiration, and then generalising from some parts where it is clear (e.g. the gospels) to the whole Bible is unwise, as there are other parts where it is clearly different.

Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Summary

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy 2

Intro | Part 1

link to full text of statement

After the "short statement", come a series of 19 Articles, which draw out consequences of the statement. The first two are basic "Authority of Scripture trumps and is not derived from authority of Church, etc." statements.

In keeping with the traditions of the Church, the Articles then move into specific heresy spotting. But I'm not sure they do their job quite well enough

ARTICLE 3:
WE AFFIRM that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God.
WE DENY that the Bible is merely a witness to revelation, or only becomes revelation in encounter, or depends on the responses of men for its validity.

I can see the point of affirming that the Bible is in itself revelation rather than being a witness to revelation, as if the Bible were just a witness to revelation it would open the door to it being an imperfect witness to revelation. I also strongly agree that it does not depend on the response of men (or indeed women) for its validity.

I think I can also see the point of denying that the Bible becomes revelation in encounter, as that would make the response on the reader authoritative rather than the written word. However, I think that in doing so, the statement risks becoming internally inconsistent. If someone "reveals" that they are gay by writing it in their diary and never showing anyone, it is not revelation. Revelation needs to have an indirect object - it needs to be revealed to someone. Hence, while the Bible is truth about God when written and unread, it only becomes revelation when it is read. I think this is one area where Chicago seems vulnerable to postmodern critique - in this case the postmodern questions about the meaningfulness of communication.

Roughly speaking, the postmodern argument goes like this:

If I write someone a letter, the letter in itself is not communication. It does not have any inherent meaning. It is just a bunch of squiggles on a page. One person could pick it up and understand one thing by those squiggles; another person could understand something completely different by them.

The solution to the postmodern argument is in most situations to have predefined a meaningful and agreed system of communication - for example written English. In order to set up such a system (like to learn English), it is necessary to use spiral hermeneutics, where the meaning gradually becomes clearer, and commonly shared truth systems, such as the scientifically investigable physical universe.

The Bible can then be valid communication, because it was written in the well-understood languages of Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew, and so can have inherent meaning, given a knowledge of the languages, which can be taught (or translated, though there are difficulties with that). So it can be truth by God, about God without a reader, but I don't think it can be revelation without a reader.

ARTICLE 4:
WE AFFIRM that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation.
WE DENY that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God's work of inspiration.

Yes, it is very important to say that language can and does convey truths about God. But I do not think anyone would say that language can convey the whole truth about God. I'm pretty sure that the Bible denies it too (e.g. Hebrews 1:1-4). Jesus is God's best self-revelation. Language is adequate for partial true revelation, but full revelation requires at least a person.

Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
1 Corinthians 13:12, NIV

Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Summary

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy 1

Intro

The Chicago Statement begins with "A Short Statement", which has five points.

1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.

2. Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms: obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.

3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.

4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.

5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.

So far, so good. It's clear (in my opinion), to the point. It keeps God's revelation in Jesus central - Jesus is God's supreme self-revelation, not the Bible (Hebrews 1:1-4). I can see that there are going to be questions about how we know what it affirms and what it does not (point 2 and 4). And perhaps it's necessary to keep that area fuzzy in a document designed to promote unity - we're not aiming for a complete and exhaustive exposition of the whole of Scripture - that's impossible. The purpose of this document is to describe something of how we should view Scripture.

The "short statement" seems eminently sensible.

Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Summary

Inerrancy (again)

One area that I keep revisiting in my thinking is the question of Biblical Inerrancy. To that end, I am re-reading the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and will post some of my thoughts on it here in due course. I probably ought to say, by way of introduction, that I think I agree with what the people who wrote the Chicago Statement meant by it, and with the words they used, but I rather suspect that the words they used do not do enough work to cover what they meant by it.

Furthermore, I strongly suspect that inerrancy is a fundamentally Christian modernist point of view, and that it doesn't stand up too well to postmodern challenges. I'll also be trying to think about that, and referencing the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics as well.

I do, however, think it is a thoroughly good thing that so many evangelicals from different backgrounds got together to agree on one of the key doctrines in evangelicalism.

Interestingly, I know quite a few Christian postmodern evangelicals who don't bother much about the whole inerrancy thing. They see, for example, the gospels as consisting of true stories, even if the details in those stories aren't necessarily factually accurate. Whether or not Mark was correct in saying that David took the bread at the time of Abiathar the high priest is pretty much irrelevant to their understanding of Scripture. I disagree (but then I would).

Sola Scriptura and Richard Hooker

One of the classic doctrines of the Reformation was Sola Scriptura, but all too often it is misunderstood and misexplained. It's especially helpful to look at what it does and doesn't mean with reference to Richard Hooker and the so-called Regulative Principle.

One of the main Reformation criticisms of the pre-Reformation Catholic Church was that sometimes people in power claimed that it was essential to believe what they said in order to be saved. The Reformer's response to this was to say Sola Scriptura - Scripture alone contains what it is necessary to know for salvation.

That is what the main Reformers believed, and we see it, for example, in the Ordination of Deacons service in the Church of England:

[Question]: Do you accept the Holy Scriptures as revealing all things necessary for eternal salvation through faith in Jesus Christ?
[Answer]: I do so accept them.

But that's not the way a lot of people understand the doctrine of sola scriptura, especially the people who disagree with it. The other approach to it is represented by some of the so-called Radical Reformers such as Grebel, Hooper and Cartwright. Hooper came up with the “Regulative Principle”, which roughly put said that only what is explicitly commanded in Scripture is right to do in church. Cartwright took it further and said

Scripture is the onely rule of all things which in this life may be done by men.

Richard Hooker argued both against the Roman Catholic view that there were things that it was essential to know for salvation that weren't in the Bible and the Radical view that everything that was right was in the Bible. One example he gave was that if we rely on the Bible to tell us absolutely everything rather than just what we need to know to be saved, then we're stuck, because the Bible itself doesn't tell us which books are in the Bible.

The schooles of Rome teach scripture to be so unsufficient, as if, except traditions were added, it did not conteine all revealed and supernaturall truth, which absolutely is necessarie for the children of men in this life to know that they may in the next be saved. Others justly condemning this opinion grow likewise unto a dangerous extremity, as if Scripture did not contain all things in that kind necessary, but all things simply, and in such sort that to do any thing according to any other law were not only unnecessary but even opposite unto salvation, unlawful and sinful.
Richard Hooker, Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity 2.8.7

I tend to agree with Hooker on this. Because of their views that Scripture tells us everything, not just everything we need to know to be saved, the Radicals ended up intepreting large chunks of it out of context and failing to recognise that Jesus is the main character. As Hooker said, “their common ordinarie practice is, to quote by-speeches in some historical narration or other, and to urge them as if they were written in moste exact forme of lawe.”

So what implication does this have for churches that use the Regulative Principle today? I really don't get it. Where does Scripture command the Regulative Principle? Where does Scripture define which books are Scripture and which aren't? Where does Scripture command the hermeneutics you are required to use to understand it in the way you need to if you follow the Regulative Principle?

Interestingly, Hooker was also a fan of the perfection of Scripture, but was very clear that it was perfect for the purpose of telling us everything we need to know to be saved and to be "thoroughly equipped for every good work" rather than perfect for everything.

Discussion about inerrancy and stuff

I'm involved in an interesting (for some people) discussion with some interesting guys over here. Timothy Davis, who seems a nice and well-meaning bloke, and is a fair bit more conservative than me (yes, that is possible) seems to be asserting that infallibility and inerrancy are true and also that it's essential to believe them for salvation. He's therefore saying that Rowan Williams is apostate, etc.

I used to be strong on inerrancy and infallibility and stuff. I now think they're too weak in some ways (they don't require that the Bible is optimally worded, for example), too strong in some ways (cue some US fundamentalists taking poetry literally) and very vulnerable to postmodern criticism. I think Rowan Williams is a Christian who has swallowed a bit too much postmodernism and can't communicate clearly enough, but he says a lot of wise stuff.

Anyhow, thought I'd flag the debate up in case anyone wants to watch (or contribute).

The Sea

This is a bit of a technical post, but I know there are some technical types who read this, and I'm hoping for a bit of help.

This morning, I was reading 2 Chronicles 4, where it says this:

Then he [Solomon] made the sea of cast metal. It was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference. Under it were figures of gourds, for ten cubits, compassing the sea all around. The gourds were in two rows, cast with it when it was cast. It stood on twelve oxen, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south, and three facing east. The sea was set on them, and all their rear parts were inward. Its thickness was a handbreadth. And its brim was made like the brim of a cup, like the flower of a lily. It held 3,000 baths.
2 Chronicles 4:2-5, ESV

This passage is quite famous, because along with a parallel passage in 1 Kings, of which more later, it is the earliest evidence for an estimate of pi - in this case 30/10 = 3. I've also used this passage quite a bit as a way of spotting when people claiming to find mistakes in the Bible text are just being silly or not. If they are being silly, they tend to pick up on this as evidence that the Bible is wrong, because we know that pi isn't exactly 3. But on the other hand, both the 30 and the 10 are given to 1 significant figure (implicit, measurements can't be exact) and so the value for pi is within the expected range.

That's standard stuff and not my problem here. My difficulty here is when it comes to the capacity of the Sea. It's interesting that the parallel passage in 1 Kings has the capacity as 2000 baths. I used to think that one was a "full" figure and one was a "when in use" figure. But now I don't.

Taking the standard values of the cubit as 45cm and the bath as 22 litres gives the following figures:

• The capacity of the Sea is stated as 66 kilolitres in 2 Chron 4:5 and 44 kilolitres in 1 Kings 7:26
• If the radius is 5.0 cubits, and the Sea is hemispherical, it would have a capacity of 24000 litres
• If the radius is 5.5 cubits and it is hemispherical, it has a capacity of 32 kilolitres
• If the radius is 5.5 cubits and it is a cylinder, it has a capacity of 48 kilolitres - enough for 1 Kings 7:26, but not enough for 2 Chron 4:5 - ditto if it is a hemi-ellispoid with a mean depth of 5.5 cubits.

Neither is the error small enough to be a rounding error in the 3000.

I therefore conclude that one of the following must be true:

• 2 Chronicles 4:5 has one of the rare copying errors in Scripture - there are a couple of others, including I think another one with numbers near the beginning of 2 Chronicles. Maybe the scribe who was making an early copy had an off day (on balance, my guess).
• I've missed something here (possible, but unlikely)
• The Hebrew "3000" can mean "more than 2000, but not as many as 4000", and the actual figure was just over 2000. (possible, I guess, but I'd want another example of that use)
• This was a special, magical, Sea, and the laws of geometry don't apply to it (yeah, right)
• Biblical history isn't that accurate in general either (just plain wrong)

Any thoughts?

Infallibility, Inerrancy and Perfection of Scripture

When I was involved in the Christian Union at university, leaders in the CU had to sign a statement of belief known as the Doctrinal Basis. I happily signed it quite a few times, but I'm not sure I could any more, even though my views haven't changed...

The UCCF Doctrinal Basis includes this point:

c. The Bible, as originally given, is the inspired and infallible Word of God. It is the supreme authority in all matters of belief and behaviour.

Infallibility, and it's slightly stronger cousin inerrancy is basically the language people use to assert that the Bible means what it says - that it doesn't make mistakes in what it is trying to assert (infallible) and that it doesn't contain any errors (inerrant). You don't need to worry too much about the difference - I'll just write about "infallibility" for short, but I'm really talking about "infallibility and/or inerrancy".

Why Infallibility?

As far as I'm aware, the term "inerrancy of Scripture" started to be used around the time of the theological liberal movement of the 1800s. People within the church started publically denying that things mentioned in the Bible had happened, or that facts stated in the Bible were true. As a reaction to this, people who still believed the Bible needed a way of saying that it was true. And infallibility was what they came up with.

Where I'm coming from

Since my time involved with Christian Unions, I don't think my actual views on underlying doctrine have changed, but I think that my understanding of them has deepened and this has often led to changes in how I'd express them.

I don't know whether or not I'd be happy signing the UCCF DB now. I guess I'd want clarification as to how the person who was asking me to sign it understood it themselves. I know that as I am now, I'd be able to satisfy me as I used to be that I believe it.

Problem 1 - Infallibility uses the Wrong Categories

The Bible is not just one type of literature. If the Bible was just telling a story, for example, or just Paul writing down facts about God, then I can see what it would mean for the Bible to be infallible. It would mean that everything the story said really happened, or that all the facts about God were true facts.

But what does it mean for poetry to be infallible?

In the heavens he [God] has pitched a tent for the sun,
which is like a bridegroom coming forth from his pavilion,
like a champion rejoicing to run his course.
It rises at one end of the heavens
and makes its circuit to the other;
nothing is hidden from its heat.
Psalm 19:4b-6, NIV

I can recognise that there is poetic language here, that it doesn't literally mean that God has put a load of canvas held up with poles in the sky for the sun to live in. But what does it mean for the poem to be infallible? "Infallible" is a word used for things that assert facts. But what about things that don't? Infallibility is the wrong category to be using when we talk about poetry.

It's not just poetry though - it's also parables. Jesus illustrated his teaching by telling a lot of stories, many of which weren't actually true. Sometimes he pointed out it was a story to illustrate a point, sometimes he didn't. What does it mean for those stories to be infallible?

People tend to argue for infallibility because the Bible is essentially said to be written by God, using people to do so. But if that means that everything it says is true, what about the very words spoken by God as a man, Jesus Christ? If we try applying the category of inerrancy to the whole Bible, we end up saying that many of Jesus' parables must have really happened.

The only way out of this I have come across is to say that Scripture is infallible in what it is trying to assert. But who is to say what it is trying to assert? By that argument, why could the whole Old Testament not be a kind of long parable to tell us something? I don't think that the term "infallible" does the job it is meant to do.

Problem 2 - Nothing is Infallible

No, I don't mean it like that.

"Nothing is infallible" in the sense that if I got a blank piece of paper, and didn't write anything on it, then that would still be infallible. This suggests that the idea of infallibility is too weak - it doesn't cover the idea that the Bible contains everything we need. This is the doctrine of the Sufficiency of Scripture.

Infallibility is not a sufficient description of an evangelical understanding of Scripture.

Note that this isn't actually an argument against infallibility per se, it's simply saying that it can be improved on as way of explaining what we mean about the Bible.

Problem 3 - Infallibility is a Reaction to Liberalism

In my experience, if we need to say something clearly and well, the best way to do it is not to react against what other people say. The problem is that people are rarely entirely wrong; they get some things right. So if we take up our position in opposition to theirs, we might get some things right, but we'll also get some things wrong when we throw away what they are saying. For example, some people within the infallibility camp have essentially been forced into judgementalism and a simplistic, literalistic reading of Scripture as a result of their total rejection of liberalism.

Because of seeing this in action, I have come to be distrusting of any theology that is defined primarily in reaction to what is going on around it. It is far better simply to say, for example, what the Bible teaches about itself, and then apply that to the current situation.

It also means that it is far too easy to attack infallibility. It can look as if there is a choice to make between some kind of infallibility and some kind of "liberalism", with people who seem to be committed Christians on both sides. That means that a new Christian coming into this situation may well reject infallibility because we set ourselves up in opposition to people they trust.

A Way Forwards - Perfection of Scripture

My suggested way forwards is through recognising that Scripture is perfect.

As for God, his way is perfect;
the word of the LORD is flawless.
2 Samuel 22:31 and Psalm 18:30, NIV

The law of the LORD is perfect,
reviving the soul.
The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy,
making wise the simple.
The precepts of the LORD are right,
giving joy to the heart.
The commands of the LORD are radiant,
giving light to the eyes.
The fear of the LORD is pure,
enduring forever.
The ordinances of the LORD are sure
and altogether righteous.
They are more precious than gold,
than much pure gold;
they are sweeter than honey,
than honey from the comb.
Psalm 19:7-10, NIV

To all perfection I see a limit;
but your commands are boundless.
Psalm 119:96, NIV

This position clearly has the benefit of being much more frequently asserted in Scripture. It is also better linked to other doctrines. For example, we can see that Scripture is perfect because it is inspired by a perfect God, and that "men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21).

Understanding the Bible to be perfect has several important implications. We need to be careful when doing this, however, as our notions of what perfection means may be wrong.

Implication 1 - Perfection as Optimality

If the Bible is perfect, that means it is also optimal - we can't make it better. If we take something away from the Bible, that makes it worse. If we add something, that makes it worse. If we change how something is worded, that makes it worse.

That means that we can legitimately ask questions such as "Why did Paul write the passage like this?" and "Why is this section here?" and get answers which increase our understanding of the passage. Good students of the Bible ask those questions anyway, and assume there will be good answers. Perfection of Scripture tells us that there are good answers; infallibility doesn't, as a random list of facts is infallible.

Implication 2 - Completeness of Scripture

If Scripture is perfect, then we cannot add anything to it to make it more useful in general. Adding the Highway Code might make it more useful for motorists in the UK, but would make it less useful for everyone else. Hence it must be sufficient - it must contain everything that everyone needs to know in common in order to follow God, and it may contain much that some people need to know.

This means that it contains everything that people need to know in order to be saved. To add anything to Scripture would ultimately be to take away from Scripture.

Implication 3 - Perspicuity of Scripture

As Scripture is perfect, it must be sufficiently clear on the most important issues that people are not hindered from following God by worrying about lack of clarity.

That does not mean that it has to be clear on anything - it could certainly be argued that perfection means that it has to be perfect at many levels and to reward study, which would require it not to be perfectly clear.

Implication 4 - Perfection and Inerrancy

But does perfection do the job that infallibility and / or inerrancy were meant to do?

If a statement about God is perfect, that means it is not only true, but also the best way of putting it. If a statement about a historical event is perfect, that means it reliably tells us about that event, focusing on what it is important to know.

If, for example, the accounts of the Resurrection are perfect, then it would take a vast (and probably impossible) amount of explaining to even begin to claim that they were perfect and not true. It certainly implies that we should live as if they are true.

Perfection and Literalism

Does perfection require a literalistic approach to, for example, Genesis 1-2?

I'm not going to go into whether or not I think Genesis 1-2 are literally true and why - that's a long discussion for another time. But I think we have to be clear that they are perfect. They (along with the other passages in the Bible about creation) are the best account of creation that there could possibly be for the people who have read and will read the Bible.

Does that mean they are exhaustive - that they cover everything it is possible to cover? No, of course not. Whatever happened then, it certainly had some complex subatomic physics involved, which could be explained. But to go into the detail of the physics might well confuse too many readers, and distract from the main point - that God did it. So the passage won't say everything there is to say; it will say only what it is best to say in that context.

So perfection does not mean that the Bible has said everything - there might have been intermediate stages between, for example "God said 'Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night.'" and such lights appearing. The point is that they appeared in response to God's command.

Perfection and Purpose

This highlights a very important issue - the idea of purpose. Scripture is perfect, but perfect for what? It is perfect for at least the following:

• to point us to Jesus (Luke 24:27, John 5:39, etc)
• to teach us and give us hope (Romans 15:31)
• to highlight sin and bring us to salvation (Galatians 3:22)
• making us wise for salvation, through faith in Christ Jesus (2 Timothy 3:15)
• so that we can be equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

So the accounts in the Bible of past events are perfect accounts for those purposes. They are the details that we need to know in order that we might come to Jesus and follow him with our whole lives.

Conclusion

I think that we would be much better to speak about the perfection of Scripture that the infallibility or inerrancy of Scripture. It is better attested Scripturally, it is better linked to other doctrines, it is much harder to argue against, it promotes unity rather than controversy within the Church and it works better. The only argument I can see against it is inertia.

(slightly edited 16/1/2006)