Is Innerrancy a Neccessary Attribute of Inspired Writ?

[Psander]

Hello all,

Steven pointed out an assumption that I was making in our discussion about the proposed Catholicity of the TR. He noted that I was conflating the issues of innerrancy and inspiration. Though I know that these are separate issues, in the context of KJVO I assumed that they went hand-in-hand, and I still think they do. I would like, though, to pose the following question:

Is innerrancy a necessary attribute of inspired writ?

This question segues into the following questions:

Can a writing be inspired and contain errors? Does inspiration accommodate human understanding allowing for the use of a prophet's pre-scientific cosmological and/or cultural frameworks?

I am interested in your all's reflections on the above.

kol tuv,
Peter

 

[Steven Avery]

inerrancy and infallibility

Hi Folks,

Hello all, Steven pointed out an assumption that I was making in our discussion about the proposed Catholicity of the TR. He noted that I was conflating the issues of inerrancy and inspiration.

Actually I think I pointed out that inerrancy was not the historic Reformation Bible term, which was infallibility, A concept that includes what is today called inerrancy yet is much deeper.

.... Is innerrancy a necessary attribute of inspired writ? ... the use of a prophet's pre-scientific cosmological and/or cultural frameworks?

It might be easier if you gave a couple of examples of your concern. Clearly the term inerrancy can be stretched even on varying ideas of metaphorical and allegorical language. If one person only recognizes the words as literal, he can accuse the words of being errant, even if the Bible interpreter sees them as non-literal. eg. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood ... (Joel 2:31, Acts 2:20).

Plus it should be noted that today's popular pseudo-evangelical "inerrrancy" from the late 1800s is not a sensible concept at all, since it is not imputed to any tangible Bible in any language. Inerrancy in an unknown and unknowable Bible text is a non-functional theory. This is true even if it has some mileage among a group of "Christian apologists" today.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

 

[Psander]

...should be noted that today's popular pseudo-evangelical "inerrrancy" from the late 1800s is not a sensible concept at all, since it is not imputed to any tangible Bible in any language. Inerrancy in an unknown and unknowable Bible text is a non-functional theory. This is true even if it has some mileage among a group of "Christian apologists" today.

Hello Steven,

I appreciate you pointing out this distinction. I always knew something was amiss or fishy with "inerrancy" as my computers have never been able to recognize the correct spelling in Spellcheck. Thank you for clearing this up.

On a more serious note, I agree with you. Though the concept of inerrancy is nearly inherent to Evangelical identity, it is a concept born out of reaction to social and scientific developments. The trustworthiness of Scripture is a perennial doctrine of Christianity, and this concept is different than inerrancy. How, though, is infallibility different than inerrancy?

You posit that inerrancy is non-functional without a knowable biblical text. There is merit to what you say. I think similarly that inerrancy is a non-functional without an inerrant and omniscient ("God's' eye") reader/interpreter. Hence, it is an entirely sub-functional idea.

kol tuv,
Peter

 

[Steven Avery]

infallibility and inerrancy

Hi Folks,

Though the concept of inerrancy is nearly inherent to Evangelical identity

Only since 1880 and Benjamin Warfield. Before that what is called l inerrancy was a sub-unit of infallibility.

it is a concept born out of reaction to social and scientific developments.

One of those developments was the usage of corrupt texts with obvious and blatant errors. So a new concept, inerrancy in the original autographs, was the response.

The trustworthiness of Scripture is a perennial doctrine of Christianity, and this concept is different than inerrancy. How, though, is infallibility different than inerrancy?

The late Theodore Letis wrote about this a lot. I will see if I can find one of his articles. On the short form, infallibility means the repositor of truth, faith and morals, reflecting God's infallibility. While a math textbook may be inerrant, its usage does not go much further.

You posit that inerrancy is non-functional without a knowable biblical text. There is merit to what you say.

Thanks. This is fundamental to our position. Christians without a pure Bible feign cluelessness about something so clear and simple.

I think similarly that inerrancy is a non-functional without an inerrant and omniscient ("God's' eye") reader/interpreter. Hence, it is an entirely sub-functional idea.

And I will reverse your construct. The infallibility of the Scriptures will never be accepted by those whose view is modernist. Such as believing that, given some years, a rock turns into an amoeba and some micro-cell organinsm becomes a man. The idea of Bible infallibility will, from their perspective, be sub-functional.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

 

[Psander]

And I will reverse your construct. The infallibility of the Scriptures will never be accepted by those whose view is modernist. Such as believing that, given some years, a rock turns into an amoeba and some micro-cell organinsm becomes a man. The idea of Bible infallibility will, from their perspective, be sub-functional.

I would be careful about affixing your reading of the Bible to any particular scientific construct. There are indeed ways to understand the opening chapters of Genesis (e.g., user-base construct, divine accommodation, etc.) that would yet allow for the trustworthiness and possibly the infallibility of Scripture while allowing for dysteleological, materialistic evolution. This probably is not the time to discuss such though.

I would like to mention more about the user-base paradigm offered recently by Campbell and O'Brien in Rethinking the Pentateuch: Prolegomena to the Theology of Ancient Israel. However one takes the data, Campbell and O'Brien build off of the information used to propose the existence of multiple written or unwritten voices behind the Pentateuch (DH). Yet, instead of trying to assert that the intentions of the redactor/redactors was to smooth out the text harmoniously, they propose that the intention was to preserve divergent readings. Hence, we find doublets in early Genesis from which the DH finds divergent sources.

Campbell and O'Brien posit that the didactic role of the Levites was hinged on the use of the Pentateuch as a source of narrative and legal notes. In this paradigm, the Pentateuch was not indented to be read but to be used (hence the term user-base) as a sort of lesson plan. They thus explain the occurrence of narrative and legal detail as the result of an attempt to codify and hence preserve multiple options for the Levitical user. Against this backdrop, the text of the Pentateuch is not meant to give a harmonious pictures; it is meant to be disharmonious. I find this idea intriguing and a possible solution to some of the findings of DH along with contradictions in legal codes.

kol tuv,
Peter