A USENET Debate on Biblical Inerrancy
This debate took place on the USENET group aus.religion.christian,
in January and February of 1998.
My posts are in bold, others are in italics
G'day Nigel(s),
"Nigel & Michelle Cunningham" <cunninghams@...> wrote:
>Nigel B. Mitchell wrote in message:
[snip]
>>Since the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy is unscriptural, you would
>>be better off sacrificing it before you start.
>
>A difficult statement to refute, since if I use scripture to argue against
>it (eg show that Jesus viewed the OT as authoritative)...
Just because Jesus viewed the OT as authoritative, it does not follow
that he regarded it as inerrant in every detail.
[snip]
>Our difficulties
>come from mistakes made in duplicating those original documents
Most Bible references regarding the inspiration and authority of
Scripture refer to Scripture AS IT EXISTED AT THE TIME,
not the original documents.
Furthermore, I think you will concede that some of the
"mistakes made in duplicating those original documents"
were already present in all the OT copies circulating in Jesus' day.
If you accept these two premises, it follows that Jesus acknowledged
the inspiration and authority of the OT DESPITE ITS ERRORS.
Which pretty well buries the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy.
But this doesn't bother me. The standard response to the existence of
copyists' errors is that God has protected the text to a large (but
not perfect) degree, so that these errors do not affect doctrine.
I don't see the problem with extending this response to cover errors
in the original documents: God inspired the authors as far as was
necessary, but not so far as to prevent every error.
When I reached this point, I found my confidence in the Bible
considerably strengthened, because it wasn't undermined every time
I found a discrepancy I couldn't explain. Ironically, this was how
I understood the Bible when I first became a Christian - before I
read evangelical literature which persuaded me that I must accept
the Bible as inerrant.
Peter Ballard
Adelaide, AUSTRALIA
pballard@...
[personal opinions only]
In article <34D14659.E0E84FD4@...>,
rowlandc@... wrote:
>
> pballard@... wrote:
> >
> > G'day Nigel(s),
> >
> > "Nigel & Michelle Cunningham" <cunninghams@...> wrote:
> >
> > >Nigel B. Mitchell wrote in message:
> > [snip]
> > >>Since the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy is unscriptural, you would
> > >>be better off sacrificing it before you start.
> <>
> > Most Bible references regarding the inspiration and authority of
> > Scripture refer to Scripture AS IT EXISTED AT THE TIME,
> > not the original documents.
> > Furthermore, I think you will concede that some of the
> > "mistakes made in duplicating those original documents"
> > were already present in all the OT copies circulating in Jesus' day.
> >
> > If you accept these two premises, it follows that Jesus acknowledged
> > the inspiration and authority of the OT DESPITE ITS ERRORS.
> > Which pretty well buries the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy.
How so? Jesus acknowledged the inspiration (inerrant autographs)and as
such it was authoratative. Acknowledging that since the inspired &
inerrant (they stand & fall together) autographs may have some copyist's
errors does not in any way destroy biblical inerrancy, indeed that our
Lord acknowledged them as authoratative destroys the liberal and
*neo-orthodox* position of arguing for errancy. If Jesus knowing that
there may have been some *minor* coypist errors could still happily
acknowledge the inerrancy & authority of Scripture then so should we. In
the end, of course, it is the Spirit of God confirming to us that this is
the *Word of God.*
> > But this doesn't bother me. The standard response to the existence of
> > copyists' errors is that God has protected the text to a large (but
> > not perfect) degree, so that these errors do not affect doctrine.
> > I don't see the problem with extending this response to cover errors
> > in the original documents: God inspired the authors as far as was
> > necessary, but not so far as to prevent every error.
If Scripture is self revelation, which it is, how can the infalliable God,
inspire a fallible revelation of himself?
Inerrancy is essential for a sound epistomological basis. BTW, Which are
errors? Who decides? What can we believe? Reason must then dicatate what
revelation is acceptable (inspired) and what is unacceptable (uninspired).
> > When I reached this point, I found my confidence in the Bible
> > considerably strengthened, because it wasn't undermined every time
> > I found a discrepancy I couldn't explain. Ironically, this was how
> > I understood the Bible when I first became a Christian - before I
> > read evangelical literature which persuaded me that I must accept
> > the Bible as inerrant.
Just because you feel that there may be a contradiction, this does not
mean there is, once again (fallen)reason victors of Scripture. You deduce
a possible contradiction and so as to alleviate any possible discomfort
you resort to errancy and that way you feel confident again. Perhaps, we
might say, simply I do not understand, but by faith, and by the witness
of the H.S I shall believe until my fallen reason understands God's
perfect Word.
Regards
Darren Middleton
G'day Darren and others,
Darren Middleton wrote:
>rowlandc@... wrote:
>>
>> pballard@... wrote:
>> >
>> > Most Bible references regarding the inspiration and authority of
>> > Scripture refer to Scripture AS IT EXISTED AT THE TIME,
>> > not the original documents.
>> > Furthermore, I think you will concede that some of the
>> > "mistakes made in duplicating those original documents"
>> > were already present in all the OT copies circulating in Jesus' day.
>> >
>> > If you accept these two premises, it follows that Jesus acknowledged
>> > the inspiration and authority of the OT DESPITE ITS ERRORS.
>> > Which pretty well buries the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy.
>
>How so? Jesus acknowledged the inspiration (inerrant autographs)and as
>such it was authoratative.
Who says "inspiration" mean "inerrant autographs"?
>Acknowledging that since the inspired &
>inerrant (they stand & fall together) autographs may have some copyist's
>errors does not in any way destroy biblical inerrancy, indeed that our
>Lord acknowledged them as authoratative destroys the liberal and
>*neo-orthodox* position of arguing for errancy. If Jesus knowing that
>there may have been some *minor* coypist errors could still happily
>acknowledge the inerrancy & authority of Scripture then so should we. In
>the end, of course, it is the Spirit of God confirming to us that this is
>the *Word of God.*
In that second last sentence you are saying both:
(a) the existing copies of scripture contained copyists' errors
(b) the existing copies of scripture were declared inerrant by Jesus?
Surely there's a contradiction there!
So back to my point: if Jesus believed the *existing* scriptures were
inspired (which I believe he did), and that the existing scriptures
contained copyists' errors (and they certainly did),
then it is conclusively proven that inspiration does not mean inerrancy.
>
>
>> > But this doesn't bother me. The standard response to the existence of
>> > copyists' errors is that God has protected the text to a large (but
>> > not perfect) degree, so that these errors do not affect doctrine.
>> > I don't see the problem with extending this response to cover errors
>> > in the original documents: God inspired the authors as far as was
>> > necessary, but not so far as to prevent every error.
>
>If Scripture is self revelation, which it is, how can the infalliable God,
>inspire a fallible revelation of himself?
Easy. He relays it through fallible human beings.
>Inerrancy is essential for a sound epistomological basis. BTW, Which are
>errors? Who decides? What can we believe? Reason must then dicatate what
>revelation is acceptable (inspired) and what is unacceptable (uninspired).
Sorry, but we're stuck with having to use fallible reason in any case.
Haven't you noticed how even evangelicals can interpret the same
scripture differently?
>Just because you feel that there may be a contradiction, this does not
>mean there is, once again (fallen)reason victors of Scripture. You deduce
>a possible contradiction and so as to alleviate any possible discomfort
>you resort to errancy and that way you feel confident again. Perhaps, we
>might say, simply I do not understand, but by faith, and by the witness
>of the H.S I shall believe until my fallen reason understands God's
>perfect Word.
Let's turn your argument around:
How can you be sure that your fallible human reason has correctly
deduced the doctrine of "inerrancy of the original autographs"?
Peter Ballard
Adelaide, AUSTRALIA
pballard@...
[personal opinions only]
In article <6au9b3$inc$1@nargun.cc.uq.edu.au>,
kgs@... (Ken Smith) wrote:
>
> Just one question I would like answered:
>
> darrenm@... writes:
>
> >In article <34D14659.E0E84FD4@...>,
> > rowlandc@... wrote:
> >>
>
> [deletions]
>
> >How so? Jesus acknowledged the inspiration (inerrant autographs)and as
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >such it was authoratative. Acknowledging that since the inspired &
>
> Can we have a reference for this claim, please?
Hello Ken,
I assume by your term reference, you mean a proof text? As you well know
there are no proof texts(sound like a fundamentalist;-)), however, Jesus
acknowledged the authority of Scripture as binding and as the Word of His
Father, time & time again. Jesus submitted himself to the Scriptures,
even unto death, again manifesting the binding & authoritative nature of
Scripture. By word & deed, our Lord obeys & fulfills Scripture, not a bad
reference to our Lord's understanding.
Some texts relating to our Lord's view of Scripture: Matt 5:18; no part
of the Law will pass away... introduced with the term *I say* unto
you..also Lk 16:16-17 easier for heaven & earth to pass away than God's
Word... Matt 13:31; he treats the arguments of Scripture as having a
binding authority. Jn 10:34; It is written.... therefore it is
authoritative.. Jn 10:35; the Scripture cannot be broken... That seems
fairly authoratative... Matt 22:29-32; Jesus equates the Scriptures as
what God said to you... Matt 22:43-45; David speaking by the Spirit
(inspired) calls Him Lord... Notice the whole argument rests on one word
*my* Lord...
Not to mention Paul's understanding of the Inspiration of Scripture (as
taught by His Lord) 1 Tim 3:16 .. God breated.. Inspired..
P.S Inspired Scripture is the Word of God (Ex 24:3-4 & Deut 31 :19-22,
Jer 36:1- 4, 32, 2 pt 3:15, rev 1:10-11).
Regards
Darren Middleton
In article <886385508.985923598@dejanews.com>,
pballard@... wrote:
>
> G'day Darren and others,
>
> Darren Middleton wrote:
>
> >rowlandc@... wrote:
> >>
> >> pballard@... wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Most Bible references regarding the inspiration and authority of
> >> > Scripture refer to Scripture AS IT EXISTED AT THE TIME,
> >> > not the original documents.
> >> > Furthermore, I think you will concede that some of the
> >> > "mistakes made in duplicating those original documents"
> >> > were already present in all the OT copies circulating in Jesus' day.
> >> >
> >> > If you accept these two premises, it follows that Jesus acknowledged
> >> > the inspiration and authority of the OT DESPITE ITS ERRORS.
> >> > Which pretty well buries the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy.
> >
> >How so? Jesus acknowledged the inspiration (inerrant autographs)and as
> >such it was authoratative.
>
> Who says "inspiration" mean "inerrant autographs"?
Hello Peter,
Err.. me (sheepish smile) Since Jesus (see my other posts) gave such
authority to the Scriptures, even to the point of arguing his deity on a
single word of David (Matt 22:41ff.
In the end, of course, there is no reason to believe that inspiration &
inerrancy are different, could you show for example where Jesus shed any
doubt upon the binding nature of God's Word. Where any of the writers
give any impression that the Scripture is anything less than the Word of
God.
> >Acknowledging that since the inspired &
> >inerrant (they stand & fall together) autographs may have some copyist's
> >errors does not in any way destroy biblical inerrancy, indeed that our
> >Lord acknowledged them as authoratative destroys the liberal and
> >*neo-orthodox* position of arguing for errancy. If Jesus knowing that
> >there may have been some *minor* coypist errors could still happily
> >acknowledge the inerrancy & authority of Scripture then so should we. In
> >the end, of course, it is the Spirit of God confirming to us that this is
> >the *Word of God.*
>
> In that second last sentence you are saying both:
> (a) the existing copies of scripture contained copyists' errors
> (b) the existing copies of scripture were declared inerrant by Jesus?
> Surely there's a contradiction there!
>
> So back to my point: if Jesus believed the *existing* scriptures were
> inspired (which I believe he did), and that the existing scriptures
> contained copyists' errors (and they certainly did),
> then it is conclusively proven that inspiration does not mean inerrancy.
We know that 99% of all the words in Scripture are without doubt then
words of the autograph. In the case of human errors in the form of
variants(which have no real effectand are often easy to see how thety
came about)this in no way detracts for inerrancy in the autographs.
Take your email, let us say that it is inspired (inerrant) and I copy it
and make a mistake does that mean that your autograph is now no longer
inerrant? Of course not, you were inspired, I was not...
Inerrancy claims this for the *autographs* not the copies. So then can we
say the Bible is inerrant, I believe so, as I have already said we know
99% of the words are the originals and the variants are often quite easy
to resolve. Therefore, it is fair to say that the Bible is the WORD of
God and as such carries the claim to inerrancy and authority.
> >
> >> > But this doesn't bother me. The standard response to the existence of
> >> > copyists' errors is that God has protected the text to a large (but
> >> > not perfect) degree, so that these errors do not affect doctrine.
> >> > I don't see the problem with extending this response to cover errors
> >> > in the original documents: God inspired the authors as far as was
> >> > necessary, but not so far as to prevent every error.
> >
> >If Scripture is self revelation, which it is, how can the infalliable God,
> >inspire a fallible revelation of himself?
>
> Easy. He relays it through fallible human beings.
But then how do I know? Epistomology is the problem.The Bible gives us
many propisitional truths, God is light, is Love, Christ became sin for
us, imperatives, therefore brethren... repent & believe.. etc etc
Our Epistomological basis is fallible and that's not a good start, that
is the bible could be wrong.. maybe God is not light, is not love...
If God told you that his name was Steve... and in your fallibility you
made an error in wrioting (a good example..writing)it down God's name is
Reve then we have an epistomological nightmare on our hands. However, if
the autograph is inspired by God and as the writer you are carried along
by the Holy Spirit then the Word of God will indeed be the Word of God.
> >Inerrancy is essential for a sound epistomological basis. BTW, Which are
> >errors? Who decides? What can we believe? Reason must then dicatate what
> >revelation is acceptable (inspired) and what is unacceptable (uninspired).
>
> Sorry, but we're stuck with having to use fallible reason in any case.
> Haven't you noticed how even evangelicals can interpret the same
> scripture differently?
No, you have missed my point, If we agree that God's Word is infallible
and therefore binding and we read "I do not permit a woman to teach..."
then the plain meaning is obvious and therefore binding... The
differences amongst evangelicals comes in how we should understand that
today, ie we all agree in its original meaning but what is its
application today.
Peter, if the Bible is fallible, and you tell me to repent of sin, where
is your authority, you don't even know if this is God's Word & will? What
if I say God loves homosexuals and has no problem with Christian
homosexuals, if you apply God's Word to the situation I may reply I don't
believe this is God's Word because God is love and He could never do
anything other than love! etc etc etc
My question to you is this, how do we decide what is binding (God's Word)
and what is error or human thought? (I'm been very serious, I would like
to know how you would deal with these situations, please ;-))
> >Just because you feel that there may be a contradiction, this does not
> >mean there is, once again (fallen)reason victors of Scripture. You deduce
> >a possible contradiction and so as to alleviate any possible discomfort
> >you resort to errancy and that way you feel confident again. Perhaps, we
> >might say, simply I do not understand, but by faith, and by the witness
> >of the H.S I shall believe until my fallen reason understands God's
> >perfect Word.
>
> Let's turn your argument around:
> How can you be sure that your fallible human reason has correctly
> deduced the doctrine of "inerrancy of the original autographs"?
O.K I'll answer, but this answering questions with questions sounds a
little like Rowland to me...;-)
1. There is nothing to contradict this view (in Scripture). 2. It is
certainly implied by the Scripture itself and by the authors, and by
those who all received it as authoritative. 3. The Holy Ghost testifies
to my soul that this is so (Most important-it is the inward witness of
God, the same who testifies to the Living Word)
Now its your turn.
Regards
Darren Middleton
Hi Darren,
I will rearrange things to try to shorten this reply.
(You should've seen it before :-)
But first, I would like to define some terms, as I see them:
AUTHORITY of the Bible: simply put, this states that anything
taught in the Bible carries God's authority.
INSPIRATION of the Bible: the doctrine that the Bible is
inspired by God. It is clear enough that the Bible says it
is inspired by God. It is less clear what "inspired by God"
actually means.
INERRANCY of the Bible: the doctrine that, because the Bible
is inspired, it must therefore also be free from error.
Now I, and many other evangelicals, believe that the Bible
is authoritative, and inspired by God, but not inerrant.
I believe that the nature of inspiration is such that factual
errors remain in the Bible. But I believe that inspiration
did ensure that all that the Bible *means to teach* is
correct.
So that is why I believe it can contain errors, but still
carry God's authority. So to answer your question...
>Peter, if the Bible is fallible, and you tell me to repent of sin, where
>is your authority, you don't even know if this is God's Word & will?
[snip]
>My question to you is this, how do we decide what is binding (God's Word)
>and what is error or human thought? (I'm been very serious, I would like
>to know how you would deal with these situations, please ;-))
I rely on the Bible as my supreme authority. I believe that God has
protected the Bible - both in the autographs AND the copies - so
that I can trust it as his word... *in the things that it
intends to teach*.
So where it says to repent, I have no hesitation in believing
that as God's word.
Where it says that David took 7000 horses, I'm not so sure.
Next, to your Biblical proof of inerrancy of the autographs
(i.e. your reply to Ken Smith). Let me first dismiss those
verses which do not address inerrancy at all IMHO:
- Several of the verses you give speak of authority rather than
inerrancy [Matt 13:31; John 10:34-35];
- others speak of inspiration rather than inerrancy
[2 Tim 3:16].
- Others refer only to the parts dictated by God
[Ex 24:3-4 & Deut 31 :19-22, Jer 36:1- 4, 32]
and not the linking text and narrative. Indeed, one could
argue that the implication is that the linking text is
(in contrast) *not* God's word.
- Two have nothing to do with inspiration even: 2 Pet 3:15
refers to Paul's God-given wisdom; while Rev 1:10-11
says John wrote what he saw - i.e. it was John's own words.
- Matt 22:29 "Jesus replied, 'You are in error because you
do not know the Scriptures or the power of God.'"
.... does not equate Scripture to God's word, despite what
you say.
That leaves:
>Some texts relating to our Lord's view of Scripture: Matt 5:18; no part
>of the Law will pass away... introduced with the term *I say* unto
>you..also Lk 16:16-17 easier for heaven & earth to pass away than God's
>Word...
Two responses. First, the Sermon on the Mount has a lot of hyperbole
(i.e. deliberate and obvious exaggeration to make a point). Are these
sayings hyperbole? I don't know, but at least we should be cautious.
Second, these quotes obviously refer to the copies of God's word in
existence at that time. These copies contained copyists' errors. And
yet somehow Jesus regarded them as God's word despite the presence of
these errors.
>Matt 22:43-45; David speaking by the Spirit
>(inspired) calls Him Lord...
>Notice the whole argument rests on one word *my* Lord...
So the exact words in that passage are important.
But can we extrapolate that to every word in scripture?
Again, I also point out that Jesus is referring to
the text at that time. Does it then follow that Jesus
regarded every word (in the copies in that day) to be
inerrant?
So:
- the argument for inerrancy is not so strong
- the verses which do support inerrancy, in fact support
the inerrancy of the copies, not the autographs.
>In the end, of course, there is no reason to believe that inspiration &
>inerrancy are different, could you show for example where Jesus shed any
>doubt upon the binding nature of God's Word. Where any of the writers
>give any impression that the Scripture is anything less than the Word of
>God.
But my point is that the same can be said for the existing copies
of scripture which they had. By that reasoning, you must say that the
existing copies of scripture are also inerrant.
Besides, when we come to the minor historical details,
there is little or no comment, so we don't really know what Jesus
and the apostles thought of the inerrancy or otherwise
of such things.
>Take your email, let us say that it is inspired (inerrant) and I copy it
>and make a mistake does that mean that your autograph is now no longer
>inerrant? Of course not, you were inspired, I was not...
Sure. But if it is claimed that your (errant) copy is inspired,
doesn't that say something about the nature of inspiration?
Like inspiration does not mean inerrancy?
>Inerrancy claims this for the *autographs* not the copies. So then can we
>say the Bible is inerrant, I believe so, as I have already said we know
>99% of the words are the originals and the variants are often quite easy
>to resolve. Therefore, it is fair to say that the Bible is the WORD of
>God and as such carries the claim to inerrancy and authority.
I don't follow. Are you saying that the copies are inerrant after
all, despite the fact that they contain errors?
(I don't think so, because that would contradict your first
sentence).
>> >Inerrancy is essential for a sound epistomological basis. BTW, Which are
>> >errors? Who decides? What can we believe? Reason must then dicatate what
>> >revelation is acceptable (inspired) and what is unacceptable (uninspired).
>>
>> Sorry, but we're stuck with having to use fallible reason in any case.
>> Haven't you noticed how even evangelicals can interpret the same
>> scripture differently?
>
>No, you have missed my point, If we agree that God's Word is infallible
>and therefore binding and we read "I do not permit a woman to teach..."
>then the plain meaning is obvious and therefore binding...
Ditto for a non-inerrantist who accepts the authority of the Bible.
>The
>differences amongst evangelicals comes in how we should understand that
>today, ie we all agree in its original meaning but what is its
>application today.
Exactly! We have to use our fallible reason to work out the
modern-day application of "I do not permit a woman to teach..."
>> >Just because you feel that there may be a contradiction, this does not
>> >mean there is, once again (fallen)reason victors of Scripture. You deduce
>> >a possible contradiction and so as to alleviate any possible discomfort
>> >you resort to errancy and that way you feel confident again. Perhaps, we
>> >might say, simply I do not understand, but by faith, and by the witness
>> >of the H.S I shall believe until my fallen reason understands God's
>> >perfect Word.
>>
>> Let's turn your argument around:
>> How can you be sure that your fallible human reason has correctly
>> deduced the doctrine of "inerrancy of the original autographs"?
[snip reasons 1 + 2 already covered]
>3. The Holy Ghost testifies
>to my soul that this is so (Most important-it is the inward witness of
>God, the same who testifies to the Living Word)
Well obviously I can't argue with your personal experience,
but I would *guess* that what you are being convicted of is
the Bible's inspiration, not its inerrancy.
Peter Ballard
Adelaide, AUSTRALIA
pballard@...
[personal opinions only]
Back to Peter's Home Page
Contact Details