|
Post by unkleE on Nov 21, 2008 4:55:48 GMT
I've been thinking about the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy. It's not explicitly mentioned anywhere in the Bible, so where did it come from? My guess would be that it was developed by the Reformers. Do any of you historians have any knowledge on this please?
|
|
Mike D
Master of the Arts
Posts: 204
|
Post by Mike D on Nov 21, 2008 8:41:08 GMT
Here we go - an initial response from a non-historian!
My understanding is that there are passages penned by Augustine that seem to indicate biblical inerrancy, and some would argue that this is the case. However, given Augustine's views on some matters (e.g. the literal meaning of Genesis) it could also be argued that his definition of inerrancy might be somewhat different from a modern definition.
Mike
|
|
|
Post by jim_s on Nov 21, 2008 8:51:33 GMT
The primary biblical text for this is 2 Tim 3:16: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." Jesus also states that Scripture "cannot be broken" (John 10:35), and both he and Paul make arguments based on very specific wording of the Old Testament, which suggests that they accepted God's inspiration of the text went down to the specific choice of words and conjugations.
The idea that the truth of Scripture goes down to the actual words used is fairly common in Church history. The modern formulation of inerrancy comes from B. B. Warfield (who was also a Darwinist, by the way).
|
|
|
Post by jim_s on Nov 21, 2008 22:04:36 GMT
Just to be clear: biblical inerrancy is emphatically not the same thing as biblical literalism. It doesn't commit you to (for example) young earth creationism. (Not to mention the fact that there's no such thing as a biblical literalist. No one thinks Jesus' statement that he is the gate for the sheep should be taken literally. It's just a way to degrade those who take the Bible seriously. Of course, there are plenty of people who take parts of the Bible literally where they shouldn't. But there's never been a consistent biblical literalist.)
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Nov 23, 2008 10:42:06 GMT
Thanks everyone for comments.
Jim, I'm aware of those scriptures, but they don't use the word or the concept of "without error", it has to be read into them or argued from them. Even your comments about inspiration of words and truth do not specifically infer that the Biblical text is without error.
My interest is in the concept of truth, and what it has entailed for christians down through the centuries. We would mostly say, of reporting other than the Bible (say in a historical text or a modern press report), that it was truthful even if we didn't think it was without error. Since inerrancy isn't specifically addressed in the Bible (I think) I'm wondering if christians down through the years have treated the truth in the Bible in the same way as in other documents, until the reformers cranked their view of the Bible up a notch. But I don't know.
Mike, I have seen some quotes from Augustine on Genesis, and, while I take Jim's point about literalness, I'm inclined to think you may be correct. But I don't know either.
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Nov 27, 2008 13:35:34 GMT
In response to the objection "why would God lie?", one could use the same argument as is used in the problem of evil - namely, that God did the best that could be done given the circumstances (the circumstances being a populous of finite beings that have the fredom to do good or screw things up as the wish). As long as humans are free (and, therefore, "imperfect" one might say) beings, I question whether it's possible to give us a message that will never change nor be misunderstood in any way whatsoever.
The Bible is only as inerrant as those reading its message, in a sense - but that is no reason to throw up ones arms and reject the thing out of hand. Indeed, it should encourage us that God reaches out to us despite our shortcomings!
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Nov 27, 2008 22:51:05 GMT
Thanks Jamie. I agree with you about the logic of inerrancy. What I am interested in is whether the doctrine was held by the church fathers, and therefore has been with us for a long time, or whether (as I suspect) it was formulated during the reformation - in which case christianity got by very well without it for many centuries.
|
|