|
|
| |
|
| by Erik Wait |
| |
 |
| |
Having established the orthodox doctrines of both the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible, we must now ask an additional important question. Is the Bible merely and infallible (in its truth content) or is it also inerrant (the absence of any error in anything it says), In other words, “does verbal plenary inspiration mean inerrant inspiration? That is, do the Biblical teachings on inspiration result in an inerrant Word of God, the Bible?” [47] The nature of the problem may be stated thus:
“Modern biblical criticism is generally credited with bringing down the old inerrancy view. It is said that inerrancy was a possible option in days when men and women knew very little about the biblical texts or biblical history. But modern discoveries have changed all that. Today we know that the Bible contains errors, so we are told, and therefore the overthrow of biblical inerrancy is a fait accompli.” [48]
Thus the modern church has generally accepted the position that the Bible surely contains errors, for they are now irrefutable in light of modern scientific discoveries, historical documentation, and just plain common sense. However, the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture hangs together. Thus if one pulls a single thread from either, the integrity of Scripture unravels. Thus the response of the orthodox position of the church may be stated thus:
“The Scripture, therefore, is a rule sufficient in itself, and was by men divinely inspired at once delivered to the world. If there be any mistakes in the Bible, there may well be a thousand. If there be any falsehood in that book, it did not come from the God of truth.” [49]
Thus the church has maintained the inerrant integrity of Scripture for almost 2,000 years. In fact, in spite of church disagreements throughout the centuries on matters of doctrine, church policy, and Christian practice, there was virtual unanimous agreement regarding the inerrancy and authority of Scripture. It will be our goal in this section to refute the modern denial of the inerrancy of Scripture, while seeking to develop the reasons for the orthodox position, in order that we might be better equipped to defend the absolute inerrancy of Holy Scripture.
The Definition And Descriptions of Inerrancy
There is a close relationship between inerrancy and infallibility, with the general definitions of each somewhat overlapping. However, the few definitions listed bellow seek to specifically clarify the exact meaning of inerrancy:
“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.” [50]
“The definition of the word ‘inerrant’ is clear. Errare is the Latin infinitive which means ‘to wander,’ and the concept of erring implies a departing or going astray from the truth. The prefix in has a negative force, actually somewhat privative, and is used in Latin and English just as it is used in Babylonian. Thus, the word ‘inerrant’ simply denotes the quality of freedom from error, and it is in this sense that the word is applied to the Holy Scriptures. The inerrancy of the Scriptures, then, implies their freedom from any error in doctrine, fact or ethic. To state the matter in a slightly different way, every assertion of the Bible is true, whether the Bible speaks of what to believe (doctrine), or how to live (ethics), or whether it recounts historical events. On whatever the subject the Scripture speaks, it speaks truth, and one may believe its utterances.” [51]
There have been many objections raised to discredit the idea of an inerrant Bible. We need to ask ourselves, “Why are there such objections to this doctrine?” “Why do so many evangelical Christians endorse the idea of an infallible Bible, and then reject the idea of an inerrant Bible?” And then, “What are the objections to an inerrant Bible, and what is our response to them?”
Some object to the doctrine of inerrancy and states, “The books of the Bible are basically human documents.” Thus “To err is human” is the battle cry of these critics. They state that our claim that the writers did not abandon their natural human capacities surely makes the writings fallible, and thus subject to error.
Another complaint are the variations in the text. This is the “age-old” idea of the manuscript and translation variations. The assertion that the parallel accounts of the same events all differ, and that the literary polish of material differs, and that the actual manuscripts themselves all differ, only serves to prove that the Bible is a human book. As such, it is subject to human limitation and error just as would be the case with any other book.
One assertion that is common in liberal universities is that, “Modern scientific and historical research have clearly demonstrated the fallibility and errancy of the Bible.” This is the assertion that no thinking person would still give “blind” acceptance to an infallible and inerrant Bible. This is surely an interesting position, in light of the fact that much of our scientific knowledge contradicts that of previous years. In other words, our “scientific” views are constantly undergoing revision and modification, so why does science seem to have the final word on what Scripture records as fact?
Another factor that is often brought up is the unavailability of the original autographs. Inerrancy is claimed only for the original autographs (autographa) penned by the authors of the Scriptures. Because we do not have the autographs and no one has seen them critics them claim that inerrancy cannot be verified. Therefore, since it cannot not be proven to be true, but it can be demonstrated to be suspect, inerrancy must be rejected as being a valid position for a thinking person to subscribe to. Thus the appeal to autographs which we cannot produce is deemed meaningless. In response to this argument, it would only be true if the number of variants in the various manuscripts remained constant as we traced the history of manuscripts back to the original writings. But because inerrancy is determined by the plethora of manuscripts available and not only from any one family of manuscripts we can determine the nature of the original text and the content of the autographs. For example, imagine that the following four sentences are copied from an original inerrant autograph:
(a) The read car was driven by the gray hared man to the grocery store.
(b) The red car was driven by the the gray haired man to the grocery store.
(c) The red car was driven by the gray haired man to the store.
(d) The red car was driven by the gray man to the store.
It is obvious that (a) has varied spelling of “red” which sounds the same as “read”, “haired” in which a “hare” could be a rabbit or the person copying may have forgotten the “i.” In either case it is obvious from the context we are not talking about a “gray rabbit man.” Also the context makes it clear that “red” is the color of the car and that the person copying the manuscript may have had someone reading the text to him and he was acting as a secretary. This was a common practice in monasteries in which one monk would read out loud the text as several others copied as they listened. From the context it is obvious how “red” should be spelled as well has “haired”. (b) has a repetition of “the”. This may because the copier left the table on which he was copying the manuscript to go to the bathroom, was interrupted by someone knocking at the door, he dozed off for a second, etc. But it is obvious that there should only be one “the”. (c) only varies from the other texts in that it is missing “grocery.” (d) is missing “haired” and “grocery.” It may be that the copiers of a, b, and c added these two words for they believed that the manuscript they were copying was in error on this point for it sounded strange them for a man to be described a “gray” and “grocery” was added for clarification. Thus (c) may be the text which they copied from. However, the copier of (c) may have merely made a mistake on this point in leaving “grocery” out and all four texts may have been copied from a manuscript now unavailable or completely different manuscripts. The original text at this point would be determined by additional factors such as: the age of the manuscript determined by the materials used (vellum or papyri), quotes in secondary documents (sermons, books and epistles of early church fathers), the style of writing (uncials or miniscules) as well as a consensus of the various families of texts from various regions. [52]
From all of these we can arrive at the conclusion that the original document stated: “The red car was driven by the gray haired man to the (grocery) store.” Whether or not “grocery” was in the original text does not change the meaning of the sentence. Such variations are usually foot noted in English translations and in Greek Bibles all the various manuscripts which support the various readings are noted. We will discuss this further in Chapter #10 “Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible.” [53]
Another objection which is often brought up is that the orthodox doctrine of inerrancy makes the Bible a “paper Pope.” This objection is often raised not only by liberals but also spiritists such as the Anabaptists (Munzter) and their modern counter parts the Pentecostals who insist that the Word of God cannot be bound in physical ink and paper. These groups do not want to be “bound” by the Bible but be free to claim direct revelations from God apart from the Scriptures. They consequently assert that to hold to a closed canon and bind the church to the Scripture alone (Sola Scriptura) is to make the Bible a paper pope. The result of such an assertion is to make oneself and one’s claims to direct revelation the final authority of truth. Whereas Rome makes the church (defined as the magisterium and the papacy) rule over the Scriptures and thus deny the right of individual interpretation, this view produces a radical individualism and undermines the place of Biblically ordained ecclesiastical authority.
One of the worst objections is that somehow the orthodox doctrine of inerrancy creates “bibliolatry” (worship of the Bible). This is the assertion that the orthodox view makes an idol out of the Bible and then in turn makes himself a slave to the Bible rather than being led by “the Spirit.” Thus they accuse orthodox Christians of worshiping the Bible. Again, such notions are often asserted by spiritists such as the Anabaptists and their modern counter parts the Pentecostals. However, it is not the Bible we worship but the author of it who has chosen to reveal himself empirically in His written Word. Thus the Bible is a revelation from God that enables us to know Him according to truth, and to properly worship Him.
It is hoped that a proper understanding of the true nature of Biblical inerrancy will be sufficient to refute most of the previous objections and misconceptions. In addition, it will prevent those who hold to inerrancy from making a shipwreck of their faith, and eventually following the liberal trend in the church. Therefore, the following points must be considered:
First, inerrancy does not negate the variety of human expression. Or, to put it the other way around, human expression doe not in any way nullify inerrancy. God can say the same thing, through a variety of human authors, in many different ways. For example, the confession of Peter at Caesarea Philippi:
“Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:16)
“Thou art the Christ.” (Mark 8:29)
“The Christ of God.” (Luke 9:20)
At this point some might argue that there is a contradiction between these three quotes because some include more data than others. Thus if they are authentic quotes, how can they be different? If one reads the critiques of liberals they have a “Damned if you do, damned if you don’t methodology.” In other words, where the gospel writers have the exact same quote, word for word, they accuse the authors of plagiarizing from another text and thus of not being an actual eye witness to the event. On the other hand, liberals will accuse the text of error when they do not have the exact same quote word for word. So, whether or not the quotes are exactly the same they reject the authenticity of the eyewitness account. Needless to say, it is their presupposition that the Bible is not the Word of God and it is not an honest scholarly approach to the text that drives their conclusions.
Second, the guarantee that we have from the Bible is that the authors are accurate eye witnesses to the events being depicted. NOT that the phrases being quoted are word for word. In other words, the quotation marks are from the English translation and not the original text. For example, compare the following:
(a) Mom said, “You are to go to the grocery store.”
(b) Mom said you are to go to the grocery store.
Both of the above clearly and accurately indicate the message conveyed by Mom. But was the command exactly word for word “You are to go to the grocery store” or is the phrase, you are to go to the grocery store, a summary of what was said? In the original Hebrew and Greek texts there were no punctuation or quotation marks, thus we do not know whether the author was giving an exact quote or merely a summary of what was said. In either case the message is the same and the intent of the sentence is clear. In addition, in the case of the Bible as an inspired text the message desired to be conveyed by the Holy Spirit, such as Peter’s confession, is not any less authoritative whether or not the quote is exact or is merely a summary of what was said.
Third, inerrancy does not negate the use of individuality and personality. Those who hold to inerrancy readily admit to the human authorship of the Bible - the fact that God used a variety of people, employed their full personalities, worked through unique circumstances, used their literary styles, etc. For example, Luke manifests an interest in medical phenomenon, James is intensely practical like Wisdom literature (Proverbs), Paul is highly polemical at times (Galatians 5:12, “Would that those who are troubling you would even mutilate themselves.”). The differences in personality are expressed in their writing, but this difference does not demand fallibility or error.
Fourth, inerrancy does not exclude the use of pictures and symbols. The Bible contains much material that is communicated in pictures and symbols. And it must be remembered that the symbols used were peculiar to that particular audience and setting such as cultural metaphors, idioms, etc. The wise interpreter of Scripture will study the various figures of speech in order to acquaint himself with the communication technique of each individual author. For example, Jesus frequently used parables to illustrate His point. Paul frequently uses hyperbole. There are several books written primarily in a poetic style. The context will generally assist the interpreter to determine what is symbolic and what is to be taken literally.
Fifth, inerrancy does not necessarily imply the use of technical language or scientific vocabulary. The Biblical writers wrote to their generations in the human language of the time. So many critics seem to think that the Bible should have been written in the modern scientific language of our present time. For example, the Bible speaks of the “sun setting” and cry out “error” - for science has proven that the sun does not actually set as in geocentric theory, but rather the earth revolves around the sun and is itself rotating on its axis (Heliocentricity) Nevertheless, it is not unusual to hear the weather man on the evening news speaking of the “sun rising.” This phenomenological language in which one speaks according to appearances, from the human perspective, is not technical scientific language.
Sixth, inerrancy does not negate the use of unbiblical documents. The Bible is not errant simply because an author employs a non-Biblical source or uninspired writing. Many conservative scholars state that Moses may have used genealogical records available to him; Luke’s gospel was based upon his research of the written documents of his day; Joshua used the Book of Jasher for his famous quotation about the sun standing still (Joshua 10:13); the Apostle Paul quoted a heathen poet without any hesitation (Acts 17:28); and Jude cited a noncanonical source about the prophecy of Enoch (v. 14). This free usage of sources in no way reduces Biblical inspiration, and therefore does not negate infallibility or inerrancy. For example, imagine the Apostle Jude is alive today and is writing an epistle in which he quotes the Encyclopedia Brittanica. Does a modern encyclopedia contain accurate historical information? Yes, but it is obviously not inspired and may contain some historical and factual inaccuracies. But it is conceivable that Jude could by inspiration use an accurate portion of the encyclopedia without validating the entire document. Likewise, an inspired document quoting an accurate portion of a non-inspired book neither negates the validity of the inspired document nor does it make the source quoted an inspired document or even entirely historically reliable document. Thus, just because Jude quotes the Book of Enoch does not indicate that it should be added to the canon of Scripture and neither does it mean we should remove Jude’s epistle from the New Testament.
Seventh, inerrancy does not imply omniscience on the part of Biblical authors. In other words, the Biblical authors were not acquainted with all facets of the subjects created. Thus the Bible does not claim to be a textbook on science, or an exhaustive historical record. It is also not the intent of the authors to reveal everything that they did know. The gospels, for example, were not intended to be exhaustive accounts of all that they had observed about the life and ministry of Jesus. Inerrancy simply claims that what any given author did record is actually true and accurate, for they were kept from error through the superintendence of God.
Eighth, inerrancy does not imply that everything the Bible records is true or normative for Christian practice. For example the Bible records the lies of Satan and various people. So the Bible records falsehoods in an accurate manner, and without any error whatsoever. Likewise, the Bible does not endorse everything it records (the accumulation of wives like Solomon, David’s infidelity, Peter’s denial of Christ etc.).
Ninth, inerrancy does not extend beyond the original autographs. Inerrancy does not extend to the copies of the autographs or the translations from the copies. In other words, we are not making claim to completely inerrant copies or completely inerrant translations. [54] In addition, inerrancy extends only to the original text itself, and never to the interpretations to come forth from the text.
Finally, inerrancy does extend to the entire Bible and the entire message of the Bible. We do not support any kind of “limited inerrancy” notion. The doctrine of inerrancy teaches that the Bible is inerrant in what it teaches about all matters, even down to the tenses of the verbs and the very last letters of words. In addition, the doctrine of inerrancy teaches that the entire Bible message is inerrant, and not merely those sections that have to do with “faith and practice.”
The Christological Analogy Of Inerrancy
Throughout Church history, particularly the first three centuries, there have been various theological heresies concerning the dual nature of Christ. Usually the errors have been due to an over emphasis on one nature (human or divine) to the neglect, confusion, or even denial of the other.
One of the earliest heresies to plague the church was Gnosticism. During the time of the apostles, before the canon of Scripture was even complete, false doctrines concerning the person of Christ arose. Later, by the second century, these false doctrines would be more unified in various mystery religions which we refer to as Gnostics. It was against these heresies that the apostle John's gospel and epistles probably were written as a refutation. Today the Gnostic doctrines are being taught in such cults and the Christian Scientists which was formed by Mary Baker Eddy, The Way International, and in many Pentecostal movements such as the Word of Faith Movement. Gnosticism is a term derived from a Greek word for knowledge (gnosis) and applied to a philosophical and religious movement that influenced the Mediterranean world from the 1st century BC to the 3d century AD. It expressed itself in a variety of pagan, Jewish, and Christian forms. Its name is derived from the fact that it promised salvation through a secret knowledge or understanding of reality possessed by its devotees. Previously known mostly from the writings of its Christian opponents, Gnosticism can now be studied in a collection of original documents found near the Egyptian town of Naghammadi in 1945. Despite the complex diversity of Gnostic groups and their teachings, the basic doctrines of Gnosticism formed an identifiable pattern of belief and practice. A pervasive dualism underlay much of Gnostic thought. Good and evil, light and darkness, truth and falsehood, spirit and matter were opposed to each other in human experience as being and non-being. The created universe and human experience were characterized by a radical disjunction between the spiritual, which was real, and the physical, which was illusory. This disjunction resulted from a cosmic tragedy, described in a variety of ways by Gnostic mythology, as a consequence of which sparks of deity became entrapped in the physical world. These could be freed only by saving knowledge that was revealed to a spiritual elite by a transcendent messenger from the spirit world, variously identified as Seth (one of the sons of Adam), Jesus, or some other figure. Renunciation of physical desires and strict asceticism, combined with mystical rites of initiation and purification were thought to liberate the immortal souls of believers from the prison of physical existence. Reunion with divine reality was accomplished after a journey of the soul through intricate systems of hostile powers. Associated in legend with Simon Magus, a Samaritan sorcerer mentioned in Acts 8:9-24, Gnosticism probably originated in the Near East as a synthesis of Oriental and Greek ideas before the advent of Christianity. It reached the height of its influence as a Christian sect in the middle of the 2d century AD, when it was represented by the Egyptian teachers Basilides and Valentinus. As Christian orthodoxy was defined in the period that followed, Gnosticism began to decline and gradually was pushed to the periphery of the Christian world or driven underground by the persecution of church leaders. Some Gnostic tendencies found their way into later Christian monasticism, while others survived among the Mandaeans adherents of Manichaeism. Modern scholars continue to study the Nag Hammadi documents for an understanding of Gnosticism. Some emphasize its charismatic spirituality and transcendental radicalism, and others see it as a chaotic amalgam of escapist myth and unhistorical speculation. Few would deny its direct formative influence in the life of early Christianity or its general impact on Judaism and Christianity as a part of the cultural milieu in which those religions worked out their institutional identities. Gnosticism basically took two forms: Cerinthianism and Docetism:
Cerinthianism, founded by Cerinthus (100 A.D.) was a Jewish-Christian teacher who founded a Gnostic sect. Influenced by both the Ebionistes and Alexandrine Gnosticism, he taught that the world was created either by a Demiurge (inferior deity) or by angels. He held that Jesus was merely human until his baptism, when he received a divine power that left him before the crucifixion.
Docetism is a heresy concerning the person of Jesus and comes from the Greek word “dokeo”, meaning “to seem” or "to appear.” According to Docetism, the eternal Son of God did not really become human or suffer on the cross; he only appeared to do so. The heresy arose in a Hellenistic milieu and was based on a dualism which held that the material world is either unreal or positively evil. It was against this form which the apostles John and Paul refuted in its early form. Thus we see that these two forms of Gnosticism denied either Christ’s deity (Cerinthianism) or His humanity (Docetism). These two heresies would continue to arise in various other cults.
Another early heresy that plagued the church was Arianism: Unfortunately false doctrines concerning the identity of Christ did not end with the apostolic era for a raging battle within the church continued in the following centuries. One of the most prominent heresies was that of Arianism. Arianism was a fourth century heresy named after Arius (c.250-c.336), a priest in Alexandria. According to J.N.D. Kelly, Arius and his colleague's doctrines can be summarized in four propositions. First, they denied the full deity of the preexistent Son of God who became incarnate in Jesus Christ. Second, they held that the Son, while divine and like God ("of like substance"), was created by God as the agent through whom he created the universe. Arius said of the Son, "there was a time when he was not." Third, "the Son can have no communion with, and indeed no direct knowledge of, His Father." Thus, "in himself he is, like all other creatures, 'alien from and utterly dissimilar to the Father's essence and individual being.'" Fourthly, "the son must be liable to change and even sin." However, they taught that the Father saw that he would not sin and thus bestowed upon him grace in advance. The effect on the church by Arius and his followers was no mere trifle dispute for Arianism became so widespread in the Christian church and resulted in such disunity that the emperor Constantine convoked a church council at Nicaea in 325 to settle the dispute. Led by Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, the council condemned Arianism and stated that the Son was consubstantial (of one and the same substance or being) and coeternal with the Father, a belief formulated as homoousios ("of one substance") against the Arian position of homoiousios ("of like substance"). Though the council was triumphant in defending orthodoxy the battle continued due to the conflicting politics of the empire after the death of Constantine in 337 A.D. From which, three types of Arianism emerged: radical Arianism, which asserted that the Son was "dissimilar" to the Father; homoeanism, which held that the Son was similar to the Father; and semi-Arianism, which shaded off into orthodoxy and held that the Son was similar yet distinct from the Father. After an initial victory of the homoean party in 357, the semi-Arians joined the ranks of orthodoxy, which finally triumphed except in Teutonic Christianity, where Arianism survived until after the conversion of the Franks (496). Although to some it may seem like the dispute about Arianism was a mere a battle over words, the difference between homoousios and homoiousios, a fundamental issue involving the integrity of the Gospel was at stake: whether God was really in Christ reconciling the world to himself. Though the Council of Nicaea condemned Arianism, it continued well after the beginning of the seventh century. Williston Walker in his book A History of the Christian Church states, "In Spain, the Visigoth king, Recarred, renounced Arianism in 587, an act which was confirmed at the third Council of Toledo in 589. In about 590, the gradual conversion of the Lombards to catholic Christianity was begun, though it was not completed until about 660. In this way Arianism finally disappeared." However, it would seem that Walker may have hammered the last nail into Arianism's coffin prematurely for it would later be revived in 1870 by a man named Charles Taze Russell. Russell founded a Bible class which in time would grow to become what is known today as the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, or what is commonly referred to today as the Jehovah's Witnesses.
A third heresy that infiltrated the church was Monophysitism / Eutychianism: The Eutychians (also called Monophysites) denied the two natures of Christ. Thus all of Christ was divine, including his body, and the human and divine natures of Christ were combined forming a distinct third nature which was neither God nor man. In 451 A.D. the Council of Chalcedon condemned this doctrine. However, the Eutychians then started a new heresy which taught that Christ had but one will. This teaching was condemned at the third Council of Constantinople in 681 A.D. which declared that Christ has two distinct natures, a human and a divine, and that therefore there are of necessity two intelligences and two wills.
Nestorianism was another fallacy was named after Nestorius who denied the real union of the two natures of Christ into one person and implied a twofold personality. The Logos dwelt in the man Jesus, so that the union between the two natures was similar to the indwelling of the Spirit in a Christian. This denied the true deity of Christ since he was distinguished from other men not as being God but merely having more of his will under the control of God. This teaching was condemned in 431 A.D. at the Synod of Ephesus.
Sabbellianism (modalism or dynamic monarchianism) was an early heresy held to a unity of essence but not a distinction in the persons. It taught that God, as Father, is the creator and lawgiver; as Son, is the same God incarnate who fulfills the office of redeemer; and as Holy Spirit, is the same God in the work of regeneration and sanctification. Thus, Sabellianism may be likened to a person who has three offices or roles such as being a teacher at work, a father at home, and an athlete on the field.
In contrast to the above the Nicene Creed states:
“We believe in one God, the Father almighty... And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages, God from God... true God from true God... begotten not made; of the same essence as the Father. Through Him all things were made. For us and for our salvation He came down from heaven; He became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was made human. He was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried. The third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures. He ascended to heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again with glory to judge the living and the dead. His kingdom will never end. “
And the Athanasian Creed states:
“That we worship one God in Trinity and the Trinity in unity, neither blending the persons nor dividing their essence. For the person of the Father is a distinct person, the person of the Son is another. But the divinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal.... Just as Christian truth compels us to confess each person individually as both God and Lord, so catholic religion forbids us to say that there are three gods or lords... now this is the true faith: That we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, God's son, is both God and human, equally. He is God from the essence of the Father, begotten before time; and He is human from the essence of His mother born in time; completely God, completely human... Although He is God and human, yet Christ is not two but one. He is one however, not by His divinity being turned into flesh, but by God's taking humanity to Himself.”
Having discussed the false teachings concerning the person of Jesus Christ that have arisen, what is the Biblical orthodox view of Christ? In 451 A.D. the Council of Chalcedon established what has been the official position of the historic Christian faith. There is one Jesus Christ, but he had two natures, the human and the divine. He is truly God and truly man, composed of body and rational soul. He is consubstantial with the Father in his deity and consubstantial with man in his humanity, except for sin. In his deity he was begotten of the Father before time, and in his humanity born of the Virgin Mary. The distinction between the two natures is not diminished by their union, but the specific character of each nature is preserved and they are united in one person. Jesus is not split or divided into two persons; he is one person, the Son of God.
Thus we see the Christological errors come from an over emphasis on either Christ humanity and thus err in understanding Christ’s divine nature, or over emphasize His divinity and negate his human attributes. The problem lies in our inability to be able to fully comprehend: (1) how God can become flesh and thus the finite contain the infinite; (2) how Christ could be truly tempted in all ways as we (Hebrews 4:15), yet not only not sin but not be able to sin (posse non peccare) and truly be human born under the law suffering all the human frailties of life (sleep, pain, hunger, etc.).
Likewise, the errors which have arisen concerning the inerrancy of Scripture in relation to its human and divine origin are due to an over emphasis on either human or divine aspects. In addition, the problem arises from our inability to be able to fully comprehend: (1) how God can inspire an inerrant human document (2) how humans can be involved in an inerrant divine document. But what must be affirmed is that the Scriptures, like Christ, are fully human AND fully divine in their origin. Their origin is not half human and half divine, or only divine or only human. They are both completely human and completely divine just as Christ is both human and divine without a mixture or confusion of the two aspects, yet without error or sin. To say that Christ and the Scriptures are both completely human and divine is not a contradiction, a paradox, or an antinomy but rather a mystery! There is an aspect to both which has either not be revealed to us or cannot be revealed to us because of our finitude and inability to understand (Isaiah 55).
The Chicago Statement On Biblical Inerrancy
Chicago, Illinois - October 25-28, 1978
A Short Definition of Inerrancy
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, its 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 teachings, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation and 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 the truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.
Articles of Affirmation and Denial
Article 1. We affirm that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God.
We deny that the Scriptures receive their authority from the Church, tradition, or any other human source.
Article 2. We affirm that the Scriptures are the supreme written norm by which God binds the conscience, and that the authority of the Church is subordinate to that of Scripture.
We deny that Church creeds, councils, or declarations have authority greater than or equal to the authority of the Bible.
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.
Article 4. We affirm that God who made man 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.
Article 5. We affirm that God's revelation within the Holy Scriptures was progressive.
We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it. We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings.
Article 6. We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration.
We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole.
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 He chose, overrode their personalities.
Article 9. We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.
We deny that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God's Word.
Article 10. We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.
We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.
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 uses or purposes. 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.
Article 14. We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture.
We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible.
Article 15. We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy is grounded in the teachings 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.
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.
Article 17. We affirm that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the Scriptures, assuring readers of the truthfulness of God's written Word.
We deny that this witness of the Holy Spirit operates in isolation from or against Scripture.
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.
Article 19. We affirm that a confession of full authority, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith. We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ.
We deny that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences, both to the individual and to the Church.
|
| | |
| End Notes |
| |
[47] Robert Saucy, "The Bible: The Breathed Word of God" Wheaton: Victor Books, 1960. pg. 78.
[48] James Boice, "Foundations of the Christian Faith" pg 71.
[49] James Boice, Ibid pg. 69.
[50] “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” 1978 |
| |
|
