Phosphorus wrote:For the most complete and widely-accepted statement on the meaning of inerrancy, try the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.htmlThis statement offers numerous caveats and distinctions which allow inerrantists in agreement to avoid common pitfalls, by stating, for instance, that only the original manuscripts are inerrant, accepting the use of hyperbole and metaphor, and denying that the Holy Spirit dictated to or overrode the human authors.
Thank you very much for the link! Reading that statement was tremendously helpful. I feel like I have a much better grasp on what inerrantists generally believe now.
A few comments on the statement itself...
Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy: Article III wrote: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.
Maybe I'm reading this wrong (which is probable, considering that I'm writing this at two o'clock in the morning
), but how can something be a revelation if there isn't someone to perceive it? It kind of reminds me of the "if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" debate.
Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy: Article XIX wrote:WE AFFIRM that a confession of the 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.
This is one of the things that's bothered me about inerrancy over the years. It's one thing to say, "I have studied the Bible and I believe that Christ believed in Biblical inerrancy, so I do as well" and another to say "If you don't believe this, then there will be grave consequences to the soundness of your faith."
I think it puts a lot of strain and pressure on young and/or new Christians who are reading the Bible for the first time. Instead of just reading with an open mind and an open heart, and letting the Spirit come to you, you're focused on "making sense" of everything and being able to defend it to the skeptics. You can end up feeling guilty if you find anything in the Bible difficult to believe, as though your faith in Jesus is lesser because you have doubts about the interpretation of something in the Old Testament.
While I think it's completely okay to believe in Biblical inerrancy (maybe someday I'll surprise myself and adopt the doctrine; who knows), it seems to me that it's better not to scare new Christians with the you're-not-going-to-have-the-right-relationship-with-God-unless-you-believe-this thing. Just keeping encouraging them to read and study the Bible, explore all the different viewpoints, and learn a lot and pray a lot. They'll turn out all right.
Thank you for pointing out 2 Peter 1:16-21,
aileth! I'll have to take a closer look at that one. I've been trying to gather verses that relate to this discussion.
aileth wrote:Take "Jonah and the Whale," a common one for people to attack and claim that it is a parable, or the like. Leaving aside the quibble about "the whale" (which it doesn't actually say--it says "great fish") there was an episode in the 1800s of a man being swallowed by a large fish, a tuna or halibut, and being found four days later, much the worse for wear, but still alive when the fish was cut open. The happening was documented in the papers. That's just one example of what critics say couldn't possibly happen and therefore must be a myth.
Ooh, that's interesting! If you find a link that talks about that particular example, I'd be really interested to read it. I was able to find, via Google, a mention about a
man who had allegedly been swallowed by a whale, but the details don't match up with what you described. Regardless, though, stories like Jonah aren't really something I have a huge problem with, because miracles are usually supposed to seem pretty impossible anyway.
Even so, though, I did run across an interesting theory a couple of weeks ago that suggested Jonah had actually
died when he was in the belly of the fish, and then resurrected when the fish threw him onto the beach. The reason they suggested this was because Jonah actually says he's in
Sheol—the realm of the dead—in
Jonah 2:2. In some ways, this makes even more sense when you consider that
Jesus compared the three days he lay dead to the three days Jonah was in the belly of the fish. Anyway, I don't know for sure what's the correct interpretation of exactly what happened to Jonah, but it's interesting to think about it.
Ithilwen wrote:To illustrate what I mean, here's a hypothetical story. Let's say that the Holy Spirit came to a young man and gave him a perfect message from God. The young man was told to deliver the message to a family in a remote part of the woods. God said that the Holy Spirit would guide his paths, so that he could safely deliver this perfect message to the family. Now, since the Holy Spirit is guiding his paths, does this mean that the young man will never once get lost in the woods during his process of searching for the family? Does it mean that he will never once trip over a rock and mildly scratch his knee? Because the Holy Spirit gave him a perfect message, does that mean he will never once stutter while repeating the message to the family? Does it mean he will never once pronounce something wrong, or jumble up his words when he speaks, because the original message given to him by the Holy Spirit was perfect?
That's a very good analogy.
Sometimes I feel like even the original message isn't perfect, though. As in, it's not what God would say in completely ideal circumstances.
Imagine that you're an omnipotent being and someone comes up to you and asks what the quickest route is for going from one mountain to another. Since you're omnipotent, you know that the person who needs directions is deathly afraid of heights and will never use the bridge. So, you tell them the quickest route via the valley, and they go on their way. Someone who overhears this exchange accuses you of not actually knowing the best route, or of deliberately misleading the person asking for directions, but in reality, you're just trying to do the best you can for them while taking into account their current limitations.
I feel like this is somewhat analogous to
the law for divorce in Deuteronomy and
Jesus's explanation for it, and possibly other aspects of the Old Testament that seem to contradict Jesus's teachings as well. While something may be a Word from God, it may not be the exact word He would choose if He had His druthers and His children were in a state where they were ready to receive it and use it properly.