5
“innerancy is sooo overrated.”
inerrancy is the view that when all the facts become known, they will demonstrate that the Bible in its original autographs and correctly interpreted is entirely true and never false in all it affirms whether that relates to doctrines or ethics or the social, physical, or life sciences. (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, p. 142)
for the first time in my search, i can finally agree with the notion of inerrancy; however only based on the definition above. inerrancy in this definition suggests that it is only the original autographs that are entirely true, and only when interpreted correctly. even though i can agree with this definition of inerrancy it is entirely based upon presuppositions that cannot be proven until somewhere in the future; neither can it be located within the pages of Scripture.*
i find inerrancy to be a moot point, something that only causes division and divisiveness in the body of Christ and see this “salvific”** doctrine displayed nowhere in scripture. i much rather desire to define scripture by how scripture defines itself, and we can find that no more clearly than in Paul’s words to Timothy:
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness, so that the man [or woman] of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3.16-17)
we have often decided and portrayed inerrancy as the source of our authority and have vehemently defended it as the proof that the Bible is God’s Word. instead of holding this fallible doctrine up so high, why have we not allowed the Bible to speak for itself? why have we allowed inerrancy to be our source of authority rather than the one who has all authority (Jesus in Matthew 28.18-20)?Â
i believe that some of this has to do with the modern mindset, that everything must be completely provable, so systematic theologies started with Scripture in order to prove everything else to be true… and therefore they needed the inerrancy of Scripture from which to stand upon in order to make their case.Â
i wonder, now that we’re firmly entrenched in the postmodern age (some have suggested we’ve left that and are in a post-postmodern age) how necessary the doctrine of inerrancy is–especially considering a formalized evangelical statement on inerrancy (see Article X-XVI) wasn’t created until 1978? (it almost seems as if the doctrine of inerrancy was a reaction against the birth-pangs of postmodernism itself. in a sense its as if they were using this as a means to hold onto the past, uncertain about what culture was moving towards.)
so that’s my question i suppose… is inerrancy really all that necessary if you use Scripture to define Scripture?
*if you can show me, please do.
**by salvific i mean that often time we as the church place the weight of someone’s salvation on their belief in inerrancy of scripture.
---
5 Responses to ““innerancy is sooo overrated.””
Leave a Reply
“by salvific i mean that often time we as the church place the weight of someone’s salvation on their belief in inerrancy of scripture.”
To an extent, you have to. If you’re going to put your eternal salvation in the hands of Jesus, who you can only read about, you have to believe that the word is inerrant. Otherwise, you’re not really acquiescing to relying on Jesus for salvation and justification.
i’m not quite sure i understand what you’re saying…
there are people all over the world that do not have the Scriptures translated into their language, however they are becoming followers of Christ…
the claim i’m making is that you cannot tie a belief in the inerrancy of scripture in yoru belief in Jesus. scriptures do not have to be inerrant for you to put your faith in Him… i’m not able to make the connection otherwise.
But if the Scripture is not true(i’m not going to screw around with the whole “capital T truth vs. small t truth), it has no value. It becomes a nice set of platitudes and parables, nothing more. If I can’t believe that when Scripture quotes Jesus as saying “I am the way, the Truth, and the Life. No man can come to the Father except through me,” that is what he said, than I have no reason to believe in Him. No one jumps out of a plane if there might be a parachute in their pack, they do it with the knowledge that there is for sure, 100% verifyably, a parachute in there.
Unless Scripture is inspired by God and innerant through His protection and defense of the Word He inspired(I’m getting tired of capitalizing every other word right about now, and see why you don’t capitalize any), we have no steadfast assurance that any of it is worth sacrificing and dying for.
And while there are people who don’t have a written translation of the Scriptures in their own language(or might not have a written language), they are told the spoken form of that original written word. I’ve never been to seminary, so maybe there’s some point you’ve been exposed to that gives you more insight and wisdom into the whole debate, but I can’t see where it would profit the Work of Jesus to leave a work of dubious authenticity that might or might not have that actual events and saying correctly recorded.
this is serious debate, one i am wrestling with, and i appreciate your dialogue. i won’t go into great detail on my thinking, but thought i’d just mention that even when jumping out of an airplane, there is not a 100% chance that your parachute will open. that doesn’t mean you don’t jump (but way down inside, if you are completely honest with yourself, you admit it might not be a 100% fool proof thing. however, and this is an important thing to remember, you never focus on that). you jump because there is enough evidence that it will work. it is not a 50-50 thing, but more like a 99% or even a 99.9999…% thing. there is enough evidence, truth, history, and real life practical guidance that allows you to put your complete faith in it. that is how i think about the bible.
For me the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy is very problematic, especially in genesis. Science has proven certain things that show us we can not take evrything about the creation story as fact, yet most christians stubbornly cling to the idea that the earth was created in a literal 7 days. That the earth is only 6000
years old. That God literally punished the human race for picking a fruit off of a tree. Yes i believe that the human race is in rebellion against God and that God made a way for us to have relatioship with Him through his Son Jesus Christ, but God also created the order of the universe and has made us in his likeness and gave us a mind to discover incredible things in al the sciences which only glorify Him all the more, The only thing that keeps most christians chained to th doctrine of innereancy is fear. An irrational fear that somehow God will punish them for using all their mental capacitys.