Editor’s note: One of the blessings of engaging with a variety of young theologians as writers for BNG is allowing room for differing opinions. Despite the perception of some, our contributors are not all cut from the same cloth. And while we are not in the habit of publishing “he said/he said” commentaries, the issue of biblical inerrancy merits a robust debate. Thus, this public conversation between two of our most prolific contributors.
From whence comes authority?
This, I believe, is the question my BNG colleague Rick Pidcock posed in his recent analysis of the infamous Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.
His piece drew a gaggle of reactions. It even provoked the normally mild-mannered president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Danny Akin, who called it “one of the poorest articles” he’d read “in a long time.”
This, I believe, is an overreaction to some (but not all) of Rick’s critiques of the Chicago Statement. I am compelled, though, to agree with Rick on two items: First, the unfortunate lack of diversity in the document’s signatories; second, the tragic ways in which some theologians, especially in recent days, have used the statement — or even the concept of inerrancy more broadly — as both a bludgeon against others and an overarching epistemic criterion through which varying (but valid) interpretations of sacred Scripture may be dismissed.
Yet, I believe Rick has either misunderstood, or perhaps unintentionally misrepresented, the claims that are being made by most evangelicals when they speak of Scripture’s “inerrancy.”
If I could summarize Rick’s argument, I believe it would resemble this:
- The Chicago Statement was written from a place of privilege. Therefore, its conclusions are suspect.
- The Chicago Statement dies the death of a thousand qualifications. Therefore, it fails to communicate anything meaningful.
- The Chicago Summits included additional statements on hermeneutics and biblical applications. Therefore, to adopt it is to adopt a wholesale theological system.
Debating the finer points of the Chicago Statement is beyond my scope here. I have my own personal qualms with the finer points of the document. But “inerrancy,” properly defined, is an important doctrine I believe must be cherished and defended. It also must be guarded against misuse.
“’Inerrancy,’ properly defined, is an important doctrine I believe must be cherished and defended. It also must be guarded against misuse.”
In short, and in friendly reply, I believe Rick’s first and third premises contain non-sequiturs, and the second does not take the qualifications of inerrancy seriously. I want to demonstrate these replies by analyzing the four classical qualifications of inerrancy.
Paul Feinberg, one of the signatories of the Chicago Statement, famously and helpfully defined the contentious doctrine of inerrancy this way: “When all the facts are known, the Scriptures in their original autographs and properly interpreted will be shown to be wholly true in everything they affirm, whether that has to do with doctrine or morality or with the social, physical, or life sciences.”
For this article, this is my operative definition of inerrancy.
There are four key qualifications here of the utmost importance. Misunderstanding these will inevitably yield to misunderstanding and abusing the doctrine of inerrancy.
-
“When all the facts are known”
The first qualification relates to the biblical interpreter’s knowledge of the text and the milieu of facts that surround it. These could include historical, textual, linguistic, cultural, theological and scientific considerations.
While one might object that it will never be possible to have working knowledge of “all” the facts that surround a scriptural pericope, it’s important to emphasize that this qualification is intended to guard the interpreter from arrogance. Since no one can claim to know all the facts, no one can claim to have an inerrant interpretation.
But if it ever were the case that someone could know all the facts, Scripture’s veracity would remain untouched, no matter its claim.
Studying, interpreting and applying the Scriptures is as much an art as it is a science. Yet, in both science and art, there are operative rules, guidelines and boundaries that aid in communicating truth and beauty. In this sense, “knowing all the facts” entails engaging in the task of biblical interpretation with integrity and aware of one’s existing presuppositions.
-
“In their original autographs”
This is perhaps the most controversial of Feinberg’s four qualifications, and the one for which my friend Rick pulled out his strongest rhetoric against the Chicago Statement:
“Article X affirms that inspiration applies only to the original text of Scripture, while denying that the fact these texts no longer exist is problematic. What the authors consider to be ‘inerrant,’ according to their own words, are documents they’ve never seen. Additionally, the authors’ view of there being an original autograph of each book fails to consider how the Bible was pieced together and designed over time.”
“Inerrantists affirm that no one textual tradition or copy of the Bible has the claim to inerrancy.”
While there are several things I could say about this line of argumentation, I believe the most helpful I could do is clarify what exactly is being claimed by inerrantists.
In short, inerrantists affirm that no one textual tradition or copy of the Bible has the claim to inerrancy. What does have that claim, however, are the Scriptures as they were written. One term used by theologians to describe the locus of inerrancy is the autographa, which are the words of the original autographs.
Rick is correct in asserting that inerrantists have never seen the original autographs. He is incorrect in asserting that inerrancy applies to the documents themselves — the physical codices, papyrus and all — as if the autographs were a species of evangelical relics a la the bones of saints in Roman Catholic cathedrals during the Middle Ages.
While we do not have the original autographs, there are very good reasons to affirm that the words of those originals have been adequately preserved. Therefore, any given Bible is inerrant insofar as it accurately corresponds to the autographa.
-
“And properly interpreted”
This qualification is perhaps the most important. If we improperly interpret Scripture, or claim an authority we do not possess, we run the risk of making the Scriptures say what they do not, and then divinizing our error with blanket appeals to “inerrancy.”
This criticism by my friend Rick is something I believe too few inerrantists have adequately addressed.
But two things must be said here. First, the abuse of a thing does not ipso facto render it false. I’m sure Rick would happily concede this.
“This criticism by my friend Rick is something I believe too few inerrantists have adequately addressed.”
Second, it is the case that the doctrine of inerrancy categorically excludes certain interpretations of Scripture. Here, Rick could reply that this is precisely the problem. But must it be?
If anyone were to claim that we could interpret Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount as endorsing unjustified, unprovoked and unilateral violence, we would justifiably reject it outright. But interpretive and logical consistency demand that we do the same with other passages that have been erroneously interpreted by conservatives and progressives, the privileged and the oppressed, high churchmen and low churchmen alike.
This interpretive move is not unique to inerrancy, however. For that matter, any claim about the text of Scripture does this. If one’s operative framework of Scripture is that it is a human document written by flawed human beings that contains error, bigotry and bias, then, let’s say, an interpretation of Romans 1 that maintains that homosexuality is sinful would likely be rejected outright by the one espousing such a theory of Scripture.
I also wonder if Rick has failed to consider not only his own privilege, but the privilege many non-inerrantists exhibit when they dismiss, downplay or critique inerrancy, especially given that many Christians in the majority world hold to theologies that lean in a more conservative direction.
Again, inerrantists must concede that some interpretations of Scripture are outside the bounds of the framework of the definition — but this applies to every other framework as well.
The key, then, is establishing bounds of “proper” interpretation. While establishing those criteria are outside the scope of my reply here, I believe most Christians in Protestant evangelical circles, regardless of their ecclesiastical affiliation, would affirm that a valid interpretation of Scripture would be one that respects the text on its own terms, is sensitive to historical and exegetical insights, sees Jesus Christ as the hermeneutical key who unlocks Scripture’s meaning, is reliant upon the Holy Spirit for illumination, and is undergone in community.
There is a final word about proper interpretation as a qualifier for inerrancy that must be spoken. This qualification calls us to humility and forces us to realize that Spirit-indwelled Christians will sometimes disagree over non-essential matters of faith and practice.
“I lament that many self-appointed arbiters of orthodoxy who claim to be inerrantists have used Chicago as a bludgeon against dissenters from the evangelical status quo.”
I lament that many self-appointed arbiters of orthodoxy who claim to be inerrantists have used Chicago as a bludgeon against dissenters from the evangelical status quo. Complementarianism would likely be the best example here. But I’d like to remind our readers that Roger Nicole, the famed egalitarian Baptist, played a crucial role in the Chicago Statement’s drafting.
So, I would strongly disagree with Rick’s assertion that holding to inerrancy would automatically lead one to any kind of specific framework. This also means I would take issue with Chicago III on biblical application which claims, “Anyone who allows Scripture to deliver its own message on these matters will end up approximately where we stand ourselves.” This is an arrogant, unhelpful and unspecified claim that contradicts its own denial in Article IV: “We deny that the church can bind the conscience apart from the Word of God.” But this is not an issue of inerrancy, properly speaking. It is an issue of misusing inerrancy.
-
“In everything they affirm”
The last qualification pertains to Scripture’s “affirmation” of a thing in each text.
A clarifying way to word this qualification could be this: “The Scriptures are true in everything they actually affirm.”
It is the case that Scripture contains things that are false. This primarily pertains to the claims of biblical characters in narrative, like Satan or Job’s friends. But Scripture recording these false statements is not an affirmation of them.
The most infamous and commonly used example here is a selection out of Psalm 96:10, which reads: “The world is firmly established. It shall never be moved.” This, of course, is not an affirmation that the earth is a flat, immobile circle around which the sun revolves. It is, however, an affirmation of God’s universal and immovable reign and rule.
After establishing whether Scripture affirms something, we must be faced with whether we believe it to be true. Herein, I believe, lies the issue. Without meaning to sound polemical or hyperbolic, I believe it must be mentioned that inerrancy is, primarily, an issue of faith.
“Inerrancy is, primarily, an issue of faith.”
If it can be established that Scripture affirms the splitting of seas, angelic interventions, virgin births, resurrections from the dead and the sinfulness of certain human activities that press against our cultural sensibilities, we must decide whether we trust that Scripture is true and trustworthy in affirming such things.
Inerrancy, in my analysis, is not primarily a byproduct of self-proclaimed authority and personal privilege. It is instead the result of the childlike faith of which Jesus spoke.
If God is true, then what God affirms is true. Jesus, the God-Man, affirmed Scripture was true. The Holy Spirit, the divine “breather” of Scripture, speaks the truth. And this true word ushering out from the true Triune God is that which we are both beckoned and obligated to trust.
David Bumgardner
David Bumgardner currently serves as a Clemons Fellow with BNG. He is a senior at Texas Baptist College, the undergraduate arm of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary and is a member at Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas. Follow him on Twitter @david_bumg.
Related articles:
How the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy became a litmus test | Analysis by Rick Pidcock
History shows ‘integrity’ and ‘inerrancy’ don’t go together | Opinion by Michael Chancellor
If pickles had souls, would the SBC Executive Committee still ignore the will of SBC messengers? | Opinion by David Bumgardner
Just because you believe the Bible ‘says it’ doesn’t ‘settle it’ | Opinion by Patrick Wilson