Accepting the Inspired Authority of Scripture Without Claiming “Inerrancy:”
Critique of a Dogma
Rev. Dr. Douglas Olds
16 April 2021
The Holy
Spirit is the ultimate source of Scripture (Deut. 4.1-2, 5, 8, 9) who is
actively bringing about the Becoming of a regenerated world. The Living Word of
God is authoritative for our lives. We access that authority through the
diligent study and reading of Scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
It is essential
to distinguish the vernacular meanings of the “Word of God.” The “Word of God” as
scripture is an objective genitive: it is the Word pertaining to or for
God (as in the Psalms of direct address) through the inspiration of its
compilers and authors. Jesus Christ is the subjective genitive, God’s
word (to us) who died for our sins. The Bible of course did not. Absent union
with the Living Word, we can fail in our interpretive claims.
The
objective word of God becomes processively subjective—making us fully alive by
faith—through its being heard inside family (Ps. 78.3) and church gatherings (Rom.
10.17). The word of God is encountered in community, and also by the
operationalization of call and mission. Experience is necessary for the realization
of the counselor’s understanding and skill—his authority--not just by his command
of Biblical citations. The objective becomes subjective not primarily by theoretical
authority, but necessarily through Spirit-led praxis. Recollection and
memoire are necessary for theology. Processive inspiration inside living faith
of equals with different capacities gives Scripture its guiding authority, not
a raw assertion of its inerrancy in the original written autographs. Such
autographs are inaccessible,, befitting their static contingencies in a time and
place mostly lost to the human present. (The question should be asked why God
would allow these originals to be lost to time if written inerrancy was a
necessary condition for our instruction and sanctification). The assertion of
written inerrancy is not needed to preserve the authority of revelation that
resides in and is confirmed by our Spirit-guided and -shaped conscience.
Dispensing with the assertion of Biblical inerrancy serves mutuality in limited
beings, opening us to more gentle dialogue and alternatives processed by the
ear. It is in human accommodations of humble communication that the fruit of
revelation is both recognized and authorized.
A.
Scripture is reliable (Ps.
111.7; 119.105), and God’s instruction in Scripture is the trustworthy
standard of faith practiced and believed (Ps. 19.7; John 17.17b). Inerrancy
as a doctrine applied to every detail may be too simplistically or
literalistically applied as a rhetorical device to divide the competence and
reliability of counselors or other church offices. Scripture is the instruction
(consensually) attested to us by our ancestors in the faith (Ps. 78.3). By
hearing the word of God (Rom. 10.17), the one justified by faith is prepared to
be recreated in the Gospel’s image and identity to serve God.
However,
limiting the Word of God to a category of Being (per a status of “inerrancy”)
may problematically limit the dynamic role and ceaseless dialectic (Becoming)
of Holy Spirit-led people in union with the Living Word of God. Scripture is part
of God’s processive self-revealing. Thus a doctrinal category of a timeless or
non-contingent reality applied to it may lead us into errors that we would
naively expect inerrancy not to lead.[1]
While we recognize that our union is adoptive and not eternally generated--so
as not to denigrate the uniqueness of the hypostatic Christ event (Webster
2003, 22)--the risk is that claims of textual inerrancy become static claims of
personal interpretive inerrancy by Christological overreach. Moreover, a
rhetoric derived from parochial (20th C American sectarian) controversies
(Bird op. cit.), [2] doctrines
of inerrancy may lead to more dissension than comity in the body of Christ (betraying
the norm of Mt. 7. 16).
B.
Scripture guides authority by holding up a
mirror to our soul (St. Basil of Caesarea). Scripture images God’s
face that we are directed to seek (Ps. 27.8; 105.4). In our reading of
Scripture, his face is set upon us in a way that imparts our Being and
dynamically penetrates (Heb. 4.12), reflects, and reveals (like a mirror) even
the most hidden and deepest part of our soul (located in the kidneys: Prov.
23.16; Ps. 16.7; Jer. 12.2) to spur our growth and wake us from stasis. Nothing
in human existence is outside of its authority. A life lived in accord with
God’s word is the measure of the regenerating image of the Living God in Christ.
C.
Scripture is a primary claim and promise:
the meanings we place on our lives and our experience are derived from its
commandments, statutes, ordinances, admonitions, exhortations, poetic images,
precepts of wisdom, mythic codes, and didactical narratives. The study of
Scripture necessitates diligent pursuit of ever-advancing understanding for
responsible and mature application by those who love God (Ps. 119:18; 148).
This scripturally processive self-development in Becoming (through discipleship)
is not grounded in static claims of Scripture’s Being. God cannot be
comprehended apart from God’s actions and condescending processions (Franke,
ch. 5 in Merrick and Garrett 2013).
D.
Like God, Scripture is both unified in
source and accommodatively pluralistic in perspective (Rom.
3.4b-6; Mt. 7.2): it reveals, accomodativley, the Trinitarian essence of God
and the processive revelation of the plan of salvation. In accommodation to
human finitude and plurality of gifts, scriptural witness may be a fragmentary
map to truth “without being drawn in infinite scale… Small ‘t’ truth” (Franke
op. cit.). As an example, Deuteronomy adds context in motivation and
exhortation to the laws of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. In like manner, the
NT a) intensifies some of the OT commandments (Mt. 5.21-36) while b) loosening (in
part) some of the Torah demands, in Leviticus, of cleanliness (Mk. 7.19; Acts
10; Schnittjer 2017); c) disrupts tribal and family boundaries (Gal. 3.28; Mt.
10.36); d) emphasizes the locus of salvation in the individual beyond that of the
people and nation; and e) processively transforms—even disrupting-- traditions
of sacred space. These contextualized changes to the maps and codes of revelation
require that we read Scripture as a processive whole without the piecemeal
applications that Isaiah warns against in 28.13 (see below).
Our
positioning with Scripture reflects the I/Thou mutuality that establishes trust
with care seekers (Isa. 50.4a), not a hierarchical relationship between sin and
Biblicist expertise.Caregivers can explore how a care seeker sustains himself
with respect to Scripture: what portions of it resonate with him, convict him,
give him hope? How much authority does he accord it as truth, as directive, as
guidance, and/or as consolation?
Doctrines
of inerrancy may rely too much on guild-norms of expertise. The word
“inerrancy” presumes a preciseness and boundedness of meaning that may preclude
an intended set of dialectical meanings or facultative practices of deliberation.
The Word of God has an elasticity and breadth that may speak processively and
dynamically to interpreters with differing and dynamic existential concerns and
capacities. The fact that the Word is a two-edge sword with transcendent capabilities
(Hebrews 4:12; Revelation 1:16; Revelation 2:12) should make us cautious and
humble about expressing any proprietary “inerrancy” in our applications.[3]
The Word is centrally grounded in the dynamically processive Trinity that
manifests economically (on earth) through a dialectic of humanity and divinity.
Its spiritual, allegorical, and/or literal factual details and codes introduce,
at times, scientific and historical contingency rather than universal and
eternal fixity of meaning. If the Subjective Word of God is both human and
divine, and if sanctification is the gradual divinization of the human, then we
might expect it to convey meaning dialectically and discursively, rather than as
a monism received by the instantaneously illumined.
Ambiguities
of translation and textual witness is why, for me, the doctrine of inerrancy
may conflict with a more fundamental doctrine of human limitation and humility.
The Gospel is one of witness addressed to the pluriformity (and multiplicity)
of those destined to hear, not a method of propositional ordering (see esp. Isa.
28.13) that convinces by some one-size fits all method however conceived. Isaiah
28:13 warns us regarding taking individual verses out of context or in service
of foundationalism (see below). Precepts are trustworthy (Ps. 111:7), but we
fallen humans are not (2 Pe.1.21) as are our epistemological constructs based
on fixed mechanism versus progressive organicism. 2 Ti.3.16-17 has Scripture
testifying to its benefits and usefulness, but it does not explicilty testify
to inerrancy. The passage’s objective of “proficiency” suggests improvement
in understanding, not culmination. The Church accordingly must be involved in
the contextual validation of any private claims of knowledge (2 Cor.13:1; 2
Peter 1:20–21).
I do not
find a doctrine of inerrancy necessary to my understanding of Scripture as
authoritative, unified, primary, and protected from existential or ontological
error by God’s accommodative involvement with the authors and compilers of
Scripture. In this, I incline to Vanhoozer’s (ch. 4 in Merrick and Garland
2013) claim that Scripture is “infallible”—it conveys what the Living God
intends--as to faith and practice.
As a
doctrine, inerrancy has been asserted to be foundational to faith (Ibid.), a questionable
program for constructing knowledge about the Biblical witness upon a set of manifest
and uncontroverted (foundational) beliefs contextualized in sequential
axiomization. Yet, more so than in structured utterance, Truth is manifest
in action (1 John 1:6). Active love witnesses to knowledge (John 13:34-35).
Unembodied, foundational utterances of epistolary inerrancy may mistake the
eschatological intentions and processive reality of God inside the already/not-yet
world. John writes precepts in order to keep his readers from sin (1 John 2.1),
which is a negative way to frame truth and address the world that is passing
away. But this author realizes that positive truth—the kind that brings healing
and salvation—is proved by Spirit-guided action and virtues more than by
structured mechanics of propositional communications.
The old
world (and its causes and effects) surrounding the text is passing away
(1 Cor. 7.31) to create a renewing cosmic reality as God wills it to become.
The Spirit appropriates the Biblical text to speak to the Church today to advance
a new world’s Becoming by missional and Gospel multiplicity and organic witnessing
communities. These manifest by eschatologically realized anthropological
diversity and fully--but contextually--realized, loving relationality. Truth is
characterized by eternity that is inexhaustibly temporal and dynamic but not relativized
(Vanhoozer loc. cit.) according to a point in time or its creed. Scripture
authorizes multiple perspectives (and systematic theological norms) circumscribed—though
not statically frozen or denominationally colonized--by the range of inspired
written and traditional witnesses under the processive guidance of the Holy
Spirit. Ideas do fit together, but that fit includes scientific understandings
of experience derived from lived sensations and deliberation with and
consideration of the experiences of others. The creedal confession that the
Church is catholic—an entirety “according to the whole” (καθόλου—Acts 4.18; Dan. 3.50 LXX)-- signals that knowledge is not
a private expertise but is, like life, an organic, progressive, and unstatic
deposit of Spirit working through living experience.
What I
understand to be (un)ambiguous, I must critically be accountable to the
authority of my understanding in consultation with the Church. “By the measure
you use, by that measure you will be judged” (Mk. 4.24). Moreover, I am a
trustee for the authority of Scripture and am accountable to Christ for my
interpretation and application of it (Deut. 4.2; 13.1).
Scripture
as it is read is part of God’s continuing examination of our conscience (Jas.
1.3; Ps. 51.6) and has a particular authority read as a whole, not normatively
as “precept upon precept” (Isa. 28.13) constructed within a foundation of
doctrines, which in any case must be accepted and adapted as provisional. A
unified system of doctrines, according to Franke (ch. 5 in Merrick and Garrett
2013) leads to “colonization and conflict.” If
not diligently grounded in charitable and missional love (1 Cor. 8.1-3), “dividing
the word of truth” (2 Ti. 2:15) almost certainly will lead to unrighteousness. A
hateful or arrogant heart brings an inverted message.
In
conclusion, the Bible is trustworthy and true (Rev. 21.5b)—it is infallible in
that it will not cause its readers to fall in contrast with a misconceived
doctrine. The doctrine of inerrancy has led an unfortunate number of its
positors into box canyons of intellectualism and propositionalism, non-humility,
and theological colonization of identity, flattening the polyphonic and dynamic
nature of the Word that the Holy Spirit uses to bring forth a diverse and
regenerating new world of peace, praise, and justice.
[1] “It has to be asserted
that no divine nature or properties are to be predicated of Scripture; its
substance is that of a creaturely reality (even if it is a creaturely reality
annexed to the self-presentation of God); and its relation to God is instrumental.
In the case of the Bible, there can be no question of ‘a union of divine and
human factors’, but only of ‘the mystery of the human words as God’s Word’”
--John Webster (2003, 23) quoting Berkhouwer.
[2] Bird (Merrick and
Garrett 2013, ch. 3) notes that American evangelicals—in contrast to
other regional groups--characteristically (though not totally) assert that
Scripture authorizes policies of no gun control, environmental care, or
universal healthcare.
[3] Various manuscripts of
the Hebrew Bible existed prior to the time of the Masoretes’ standardization,
the most important of which was the text which gave rise to the Septuagint’s
Greek translation of the Old Testament popular with the writers of the New
Testament. The Hebrew text from which the Septuagint was translated and the
text known today as the Masoretic text differs in some ways, as do the Dead Sea
Scrolls of Biblical texts which predate the Masoretes. In this polyphony of
textual witness, how may the autograph be determined? The doctrine of inerrancy
offers no assistance to this determination.
There are three kinds of particularities
raised regarding Scripture’s proposed inerrancy: factuality (e.g. Numbers 1 and
3; Gen. 31; qere vs. ketib), canonical coherence and the principle of “initial
autographs,” and theological coherence of traditions of English translations.
The King James Version’s faultiness of translation and textual history is not the go-to source of inerrant solutions to
theological disputes.
Other than by the Holy Spirit, how are
difficult Biblical syntactical constructions and conflicting manuscript
witnesses subject to an “inerrant” translation? Here are a portion of these
that are not resolved by a doctrine of inerrancy:
a.
The formal implications of the kai in Gal. 3.28;
b.
As Miroslav Volf points out, does one translate the Greek dative tois in
Rom. 8.28a as datives of advantage or datives of means/instrumentality? Or both,
dialectically? How does the doctrine of inerrancy assist this decision?
c.
How does one handle the fact that initial autographs of the Hebrew Bible lacked
vowels, which are only added to the consonantal text by the Masoretes between
600 and 900 CE? Many Hebrew verbs especially lack clarity as to voice and sense
without the late addition of Masoretic vowel points.
d.
How to handle Mark 15.28? If it is accepted (as by the KJV), how has a later
manuscript corrected the historical record? And also, how does that verse
function as a repetition of Luke 22.37?
e.
How does the reported scale in Numbers 1 accord with Num. 3.23? If these
numbers are “inerrant” and not hyperbolic, Schnittjer (2017, Session 21)
calculates that each military male of that census would have 27 brothers (plus
sisters)!
f.
Similarly, the quantities in Ezra 1.9-10 do not equal their sum in Ezra 1.11.
g.
Gen.4.10 is a disputed translation in English depending on recognizing the
compact chiasm in Hebrew involving “curse.”
h.
What of the tradition in the OT of qere
ketib system (the text as to-be-read in lieu of what is
physically written)? Eg: Ru. 3.9; Lam. 3.32, 5.18; Isa. 12.5; Dan. 3.10.
Does the doctrine of inerrant autographs have a principle to dispense with the
reading and revert to what is written in contrast with centuries of religious
tradition?
i.
Is Paul’s repeated use of the phrase “pistis Jesou” an objective or
subjective genitive?
j.
Does Gen. 30.37-39 function phenonomenologically as a valid (“inerrant”)
denotation of causal knowledge?
k.
Kostenberger and Jones’ (2004) chapter 11 is inconclusive how scripture
functions regarding the persmissability of divorce, and the idea or doctrine of
inerrancy has not helped resolve the debates. They note that the permissibility
of divorces is “relativized” with at least 4 major positions in the Church. It
seems that one is to choose to live authentically and non-hypocritically with
one of the positions scripture may offer, resolving the conflict among
positions existentially (or pragmatically, as Paul seems to) rather than on an
“inerrantly” propositional (precept by precept) or mechanistic discourse:1 Cor 7:40 has Paul
situtate himself relatively, ‘I think also that I have the Spirit of God’”
Paul occasionally wrote things that
the Lord had not revealed to him, such as: “Now concerning virgins I have no
commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment…” (1 Cor. 7:25). How are we to
handle these statements “inerrantly”?
Jesus seems to make allowance for the
contingency vs. “inerrancy” of judgements founded on Scripture by warning us
“by the measure you use, the measure you will receive” (Mt. 7.2).
Citations
Köstenberger, Andreas J., and David W. Jones. God, Marriage, and Family: Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation. 2nd ed. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 2010.
Lambert, Heath. A Theology of Biblical Counseling: The Doctrinal Foundations of Counseling Ministry. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2016.
Merrick, J. and Stephen M. Garrett, eds. Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy. Counterpoints: Bible and theology. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2013.
Schnittjer, Gary Edward. The Torah Story: An Apprenticeship on the Pentateuch. Grand Rapids, Mich: Zondervan, 2006.
Schnittjer, Gary E. The Torah Story Video Lectures: An Apprenticeship on the Pentateuch. MasterLectures. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017.
Webster, John. Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch. Current issues in theology v. 1. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
No comments:
Post a Comment