A redated post.
I have recently read Don Williams essay in the Lewis encyclopedia on
Reflections on the Psalms and find it interesting. Lewis, as we know,
rejected what he called "fundamentalism. " I think what he called
fundamentalism exists in the real world (found, for example, in the
insistence on Young Earth Creationism as the only doctrine acceptable
to Bible-believing Christians). I have often struggled with the whole
issue of inerrancy because I think that the word is just a shibboleth
until we spell out what hermeneutical constraints follow from it. I
could use the word inerrancy if I wanted to and be a Bultmannian,
(that would require some doublethink, to be sure), or I could use it
and insist that literal six-day creation follows from it. The Chicago
Statement is a helpful tool to understand the doctrine as it is
currently defended, and Don is right in saying that Lewis was not
familiar with more nuanced explications of the doctrine.
But how do you answer questions like:
Can you reject Young Earth Creationism and still be an inerrantist.
(as prestigious a preacher as John McArthur has insisted that you can't):
http://www.amazon. com/Battle- Beginning- John-MacArthur/ dp/0849916259
Can you describe the Psalmists as expressing sinful passions and still
be an inerrantist.
Can you believe that Ruth is fictional and be an inerrantist? (I am not saying you couldn't have other reasons for thinking that Ruth is historical, but the question is whether inerrancy requires that it be historical).
Can you beileve that Darius was a Persian, not a Mede, and be an
inerrantist?
Some of the moves Lewis makes with respect to Scripture probably could
be accepted by your typical present-day inerrantist. Others, I
suspect, would not be acceptable.
8/12/09
I think that sensible inerrancy does mean that quick scripture-to-doctrine moves have to be considered a little suspect.
6 comments:
I see several layers with the group that call themselves inerrantists. One layer is the scholarly layer of thoughtful theologians. The Chicago Statement represents a conservative representation.
Another layer is preachers who attended schools where classes were taught by the scholarly group. These pastors are not theologians for a reason. They are more relational and perhaps gifted in communication skills. If they truth be told, they were a little bored by their theology classes. They easily slip into some sloppy thinking or adopt positions that are easier for their congregations to accept.
The third group is regular people who gain their theological ideas from the preachers with some exposure to other thoughts. These inerrantists can be quite adamant in their opinions (and a little humorouse at times).
"Inerrancy" is a shibboleth not only by the intrinsic confusion that comes with the term, but also by the dilution of some thoughtful ideas through these layers of adherents.
Mike has a very good point; but it doesn't really address the principle of the questions Victor was asking. In some ways I have more problems with 'qualified inerrantism' than I do with "ALL GOD'S WORD OR NOT AT ALL GOD'S WORD! {THOOM!}" inerrantism. Especially since in my own experience it is not uncommon for qualified instructors to effectively preach unqualified inerrantism from the pulpit, when five minutes actual discussion with them reveals they aren't nearly so sanguine as that about the inerrancy. I have an expectation that my own experience in this is not uncommon elsewhere, too.
I can respect the theological notion that God will at least make sure the theology is correct, even if various historical blips are allowed to slide. But then I start seeing qualifications of the qualifications as to what is going to count as inerrant theology. After a while, it just looks too 'a priori' convenient to me--after which I start to note that at least half of these qualified inerrantists are theological presuppositionalists anyway.
In any case, if someone is going to bother to use the term 'inerrancy' (or 'infallibility') and then qualify it out the wazoo, why is such an absolute term being used at all??
The original theological point was that _God_ doesn't make mistakes, and _God_ doesn't fail in His purposes. Those positions I can accept. When those propositions start being predicated to not-God entities, then I get nervous. (And not-surprised when goofiness of one degree or another results from the application.)
JRP
I consider myself a "modified inerrantist." I believe that all of Scripture is true, but that not all of it is necessarily factual, a distinction that seems to be lost on "pure" inerrantists.
Victor
Among your questions you might have included whether one can be a true inerrantist and believe in heliocentrism. In this regard the website at fixedearth.com is interesting.
Did ancient readers of Psalm 19:6 know that the motion it describes is apparent but not actual? Did they need to know? What would we conclude from that verse and others if we excluded entirely the evidence of godless astronomy?
In terms of Genesis creation account, I have yet to see anyone advocate a literal, plain sense reading of Gen 4:20-21. Everyone picks and chooses about what to consider "literal" and what to interpret as figurative. Figurative does not mean erroneous.
Jason correctly observed that I failed to answer Victor’s questions. Behind his questions is the likely accusation that C.S. Lewis fails a test of orthodoxy among some Christians because he did not defend inerrancy. For some Christians this would be a serious charge of his reliability as a Christian teacher. I am not prepared to provide evidence of whether Lewis’s hermeneutical practices reflect inerrancy or not. I assume they do not. However, I still think that inerrantists can find a friend and trustworthy resource in Lewis.
Now to Victor’s questions:
Can you reject Young Earth Creationism and still be an inerrantist?
The answer is Yes.
The Creationism-Evolution debate was clearly a major issue during the consideration of the Chicago Statement on inerrancy. Article 12 includes the statement, “We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.” Since the statement fails to take a clear stand on what “the teaching of Scripture” is on this issue, it is possible to affirm this part of the statement while believing something other than Young Earth Creationism. It is understandable that Inerrancy and Young Earth Creationism are usualy linked because it is likely that nearly all those who accept Young Earth Creationism would also believe in Inerrancy. But I would suggest that there are likely very many that could agree with the Chicago Statement that have doubts about Young Earth Creationism.
Can you describe the Psalmists as expressing sinful passions and still
be an inerrantist.
This is an easy yes. We can be reasonably assured that the Psalmist did in fact experience sinful passions. It is important to note that many things are reported as happening that are not intended as examples to follow but as sins to avoid. Not everything in Scripture is intended to be prescriptive.
Can you believe that Ruth is fictional and be an inerrantist?
This one is Yes with qualifications.
There is certainly reference to literary genre in the Chicago Statement.
Article XVIII
We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historicaI 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, dehistoricizlng, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.
It seems to be an issue of motivation for considering Ruth fictional. It it is to discount the teaching of the book, considering the book fictional could disqualify one from affirming inerrancy.
Can you beileve that Darius was a Persian, not a Mede, and be an
inerrantist?
I don’t know enough about this issue, but it may be covered in Article 13:
"We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. 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."
I do not think it matters a great deal whether Lewis or Victor can comfortably ascribe to inerrancy. The Chicago Statement identifies this as an issue among Christians, not one that separates orthodoxy from unorthodoxy. It is primarily a label indentifying a tendancy toward hermeneutical practices. It gives justification for putting great weight on word studies when interpreting a passage. It encourages the use of the orginal languages in interpretation.
{{However, I still think that inerrantists can find a friend and trustworthy resource in Lewis.}}
Agreed--just not on a few particular topics. {g} (Lewis himself admired the work of B.B.Warfield, father of modern inerrancy theory, incidentally.)
{{But I would suggest that there are likely very many that could agree with the Chicago Statement that have doubts about Young Earth Creationism.}}
I think that's true in my own experience, too, btw. But then I have to wonder, on what grounds are they having these doubts? It's entirely possible to diddle with Gen 1/2 and find holes allowing OEC--how legitimate those holes are is debateable; personally I'm good to go either way. But why are these people looking for subtler clues about the meaning to start with? Is it not because the scientific evidence (the evidence of scientia in the older way of talking about it) tells us we ought to be expecting to take the data at something other than immediate face value??
Maybe the inerrantist drafters meant 'assertion' by 'hypothesis'--in which case I agree, it would be irresponsible to just believe a hypothesis outside of a good theory (much less a conclusion). Which could in principle be turned around against them perhaps (though that isn't the discussion at the moment).
If they meant something more general, though, then the fact of the matter is that most inerrantists (including Warfield, incidentally) who have doubts about YEC or even outright affirm OEC, are probably following inferences from scientific examination, and so would (if a general sense is intended) be going against the Chicago Statement.
{{t is important to note that many things are reported as happening that are not intended as examples to follow but as sins to avoid.}}
Where does it say in the Psalm that it is a sin to avoid bashing a Babylonian baby’s head open against a rock? Wasn’t a blessing from God pronounced instead upon people who would do that? (I mention this example because it’s one Lewis appealed to against a ‘fundamentalist’ acceptance of scripture, in the book Victor mentioned.)
Granted, other places in scripture might (or might not?) proscribe against that apparent divine prescription. In which case some tough metaphysical questions then need to be addressed. Still, your answer seemed to involve the notion that the Psalmists themselves would correct their own sinful mistakes or that if they mentioned they felt such things then they themselves would censure them under corrective inspiration.
The Ruth-fictional question doesn’t look satisfactorily answered on grounds of the Chicago Statement either. (Incidentally, I don’t consider it to be fictional, though it might be anachronistic. I might be wrong about its historicity though. {shrug} Lewis thought the book of Jonah was basically fictional and maybe Job as well, to mention a more topically pertinent example of dissension. Ditto Gen 1/2 apparently: _thematically_ truthful but historically fictional.)
The statement specifically says, “We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text... that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching...” It doesn’t seem to be a question of intention in the dehistoricizing, though clearly if the intention is to discount its teaching, that would probably be a failure to adhere to the statement at least as much as a result of discounting its teaching. {g} But the result of dehistoricizing is treated as a different category from denial of teaching.
That being the case, one cannot believe Ruth (or Jonah or Job, or Gen1/2) to be non-historical fiction (truthful though it may be to principles the story is illustrating, like a parable), and still be in communion with the ChigStatement’s position. Indeed, it’s a little questionable how some parables are to be regarded, too, on this ground!--for most of them don’t make clear claims to be fictional illustrations of principle. Obviously in the case of the parables the distinction is irrelevant, so the question may be considered venial at worst. In the case of Ruth, an ancestor of Christ, the question is not venial: the text is presented as history with clear historical links fore and aft to be ostensibly accepted. And while the stories of Job or Jonah don’t have similar historical ramifications (Christ’s reference to Jonah could be for principle’s sake, not an affirmation of its historicity; ditto the tacit reference to what rabbis of the time believed happened to the Mosaic pharoah after the parting of the Sea, in relation to Ninevah, in Rom 9), they _are_ presented as face-value events-that-happened-in-history.
As far as Darius and Article 13 goes, I suppose it would then be necessary to ask whether identifying Darius as a Mede instead of a Persian (which would be a lack of ancient historical precision, too) is alien to the usage or purpose of the mention of Darius. I would have to look up the scriptural context again; though I distantly recall it being for purposes of setting historical context. (There are of course potential solutions to the Mede/Persian problem which don’t require this to have been a historical error, though I don’t know what stock I place on them yet. It seems a bit specious to be calling something inerrant though when it contains even topically irrelevant historical gaffes not explicable by use of hyperbole etc.)
{{I do not think it matters a great deal whether Lewis or Victor can comfortably ascribe to inerrancy. The Chicago Statement identifies this as an issue among Christians, not one that separates orthodoxy from unorthodoxy.}}
Actually it does, though at secondhand: the Statement makes very clear (including a place you quoted) that anything that threatens to discount its teaching, is to be rejected. Doctrinal orthodoxy (insofar as the Statement is concerned, I think, and certainly as far as many of its adherents are going to be concerned) comes from accepting the teachings of the authors as divinely inspired truth. This is precisely why various stylisms of the times and places of the scriptural authors are asked to be given a reasonable pass. But we aren’t talking about various compositional stylisms (plus normal processes of textual corruption and subsequent restoration) when asking whether a book’s story is to be accepted as historical or not (especially when the book presents it as being historically linked to other things, like Ruth). And we certainly aren’t going to be able to appeal to compositional stylisms etc. when discussing the blessing pronounced from God on someone who dashes a Babylonian baby’s head open against a rock!--not without calling into question other teachings (including blessings) to be doctrinally _accepted_ without dissent, as being perhaps only similar stylizations only to be expected by the author in his sitz und leben.
JRP
Post a Comment