Lane Severson CPO # 4429 Inerrancy VS Infallibility

Laura Miguelez BITH 565 09/19/06

The debate within evangelicalism between inerrancy and infallibility centers around two issues of accuracy: how accurate is the bible and how is the bible meant to be accurate? [Interesting way to put it.] In this paper I will first evaluate the conclusions that have been reached. Then I will investigate the merit of the questions themselves. [!] I will conclude by offering an assessment of the argument as a whole and suggestions for a different view of biblical accuracy. [All in two pages, no less!] Does the bible contain errors? The inerrancy camp boldly declares that there are no errors in the Bible. As the word of God it is divinely inspired and although it was passed down in an oral tradition, compiled, edited, and canonized in a variety of social and cultural situations and for a variety of reasons it is free of errors. The infallibility camp disagrees. They point to errors in history and science and ask how, as a modern society, we can say the bible is accurate about issues concerning the creation of the earth, the histories of Israelites and early Christians, etc. An inquisitive reader of the text is immediately concerned by the explicit discrepancies in the books of the Bible that are meant to be histories. [Though not necessarily judged by our footnote perfect standards] These are areas where the text is recounting an event as specifically as possible but is in opposition to another historical text. We see many examples in the gospels such as the linage of Christ 1 and the resurrection account 2. But this does not shake the validity of the text as historical records. Historical books on other figures in history are still acknowledged for their historical witness despite minor discrepancies of this nature. The bible must be treated the same way but I must conclude that the bible is not inerrant. But how is the bible meant to be accurate? The inerrancy argument is that the bible is meant to be completely accurate within the means of its literary style. We cannot expect poetic literature to be historically precise because it is not intending to be. Nevertheless the poetic literature is still absolutely accurate in its message as poetry. The inerrancy argument is that [? Incomplete thought] This is where the infallibles feel that they come running to the rescue by disregarding the historical use of the bible. They claim that the bible is not meant to be a historical record. Rather, it is meant to be accurate in matters

1 2

Do we use Lukes 3:23-38 or Matthews 1:1-16? Matt 28: one angel descended from heaven and rolled away the stone but Luke 24: stone gone and two angels

of faith and practice. This blatantly disregards the explicit claim of the writer of the Gospel of Luke 3 and Acts4 and the understood purpose of the Gospel of Matthew and Mark as well as the historical books in the Old Testament such as Chronicles and Kings. At this point I must state that I am not convinced that the bible is without any errors. And yet I do not think that this disqualifies it from being a historical record. So I am forced to wonder if the very questions of accuracy that we are asking are in fact valid for our understanding of the bible today. Can we posit a new way to understand scriptural accuracy, one that takes the bible seriously as a spiritual guide and a historical witness? Can we admit that the bible is inspired by God but written by men? 5 And can we do that while retaining the spiritual authority that the bible has in the life of the devotee and the church? I think it is our duty as theologians to continue to think about these issues in new ways. I contend that we should view the bible as a history of God revealing himself in the world. As a history it seeks to tell a story and to invoke a response. Historians are not seeking to convey a pure and unbiased account of events.6 They are political, theological, philosophical, and ethical beings. The writers of the bible wrote with intentionality in each of these areas. 7 The story this history tells can be broken down as Creation, Fall, Covenant, Exile, and Return. The bible itself ends before its story finishes. We are still awaiting the final Return of God to his people. We are living between the first appearance of Jesus the Christ, who has inaugurated his kingship, and the second return when he will rule fully. The response that the story invokes is that there is preparation for the return of the King. This hypothesis seeks to see the bible as a historical document that retains its spiritual authority. In conclusion, I believe that this hypothesis is less concerned with the old questions of accuracy that the inerrancy vs. infallibility argument raised. However this new scheme should answer those questions as well as raising new ones. In answer to our first question it says that there are specific errors in parts of the history but that does not invalidate the documents authority or the story as a whole. [Okay, but you still need to determine how it can err in the one realm (history) but be true in the other (spiritual). On what basis would you make such
3 4

Luke 1:1-4 Acts 1:1-2 5 I regret that the length of this paper restricts a deeper conversation on inspiration. As the history of Inerrancy and Infallibility show this belief acts as a cornerstone for both. [Yes] 6 I dont wish to sound overly post-modern in this statement. I am only reflecting on the nature of history. [I agree with you! There is no such thing as objective facts i.e. uninterpreted facts and events] 7 This is not the same as saying that the Bible is corrupt because its writers had a personality. Rather it celebrates the fact that God could use the specific worldview of the writer in the same way he used the compilation of the books and the canonization process to bring about a final product that is totally human and yet divinely inspired.

determinations?] In answer to the second question it says that the bible is meant to be accurate as a history of God in the world. But the main question of accuracy that is raised by this perspective is: do the writings of the bible present a coherent and consistent picture of the revelation of God? I believe they do and that this perspective is an honest view of scriptural accuracy that honors the teachings of scripture concerning itself as well as those of reason, experience, and the teachings of the church.

100 Outstanding work! See comments above.