Is The Bible Inerrant?

[OBW]

Aron,

Within the context of this thread, and of the Bible, I think that there is a definite place for logic and reasoning. And there is a place where it fails. There is he place where scripture itself calls to "come reason." And there are the places where there is great mystery that is left as such.

And even where Paul says that there are things hidden in ages past that are now made known, even that was not everything. It was something specific. Lee liked to make each of those things into grand metanarratives. But, for example, the rather grand statement in Colossians 1:27 "the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory" is not as revelatory as some might think. First, is the last part referring to the riches or the mystery? (I'm sure that someone who knows Greek well might be able to tell.) But is the statement that follows really about the full mystery of God, or about the entirety of his riches? Probably not. And it is encapsulated in something that has a "known" factor, but is still not fully known or understood. "Christ in you" is something that is at one level simple, yet at another is not so simple.

We sometimes refer to it as complete, yet at others as incomplete, as if we have let him into the foyer and he will slowly move into the rest of the house over the remainder of our lifetime. And in this life, it is a hope. And while hope is not necessarily irrational or incomplete, it is not the same as certainty and complete knowledge. Oh, we are certain — or as certain as a fallen human can be. Yet we have an expectation that we do not understand. All we have is the present, and some notion of what is to come.

But enough on this. I believe it is sufficient to say that there is a lot in that. Yet there is also a lot in that which we still do not understand.

In the meantime, those who argue for inerrancy, especially in the typical evangelical way, are leaning toward a version of inerrancy that is setting them up for a crisis of faith. They assert that the Bible is true and accurate and without error on all things on which it speaks. So if you find a verse that says you can dig brass, then we have to assume that there was a time when brass was not the combination of metals not found naturally in a combined form in the earth, but was found already combined. And since that is not true, there is an error in the Bible. Inerrancy is now destroyed and Christianity is in chaos.

The terms under which inerrancy is said to exist by those who need to have it and define it are far beyond the claims of scripture itself.

Profitable for teaching. Is the Bible concerned with the table of elements and the methods by which things like iron and copper might be alloyed into something else? Or is the passage in question a statement about the bounty of the land in question? And when it comes to teaching, what are you looking to the Bible to teach? Science? Technology? Or the person of God, his relationship to man, and the life that he has chosen/ordained for his people?

Reproof and correction. About science? About history and timelines if past events? Or about living life as one regenerated to be the active image-bearer of God?

Instruction in righteousness. Not in understanding about precisely how the cosmos, the earth, and man came into being. As little information as there is on the subject, it is as if God simply said "I did it. Now let's move on.)

But when someone tries to assert inerrancy, they are almost always starting with a specific interpretation of a specific passage. They are not talking about the Bible in general. They are talking about their interpretation. They might deny that. But since it is almost always attached to an interpretation that is declared to simply be "the word of God," the whole discussion becomes a ruse. It is an alternative way to turn an interpretation into the "pure word of God."

The Bible clearly says a lot. But the things it is clear on do not need an inerrancy clause to be true. Inerrancy clauses are part of the arguments by people who need to find the remains of a wooden ship high in the mountains of what is now the vicinity of the borders of Turkey, Iraq, and Armenia. If those remote sightings that no one seems to be able to get close to turn out to be illusions, then where is their faith?

If it turns out that the earth was created millions of years ago (by God) and a form of intelligent design through directed evolution turns out to be the way so much of the life on earth came to be, what will happen to the faith of those who are clinging to a literal, six-day creation? What if Adam and Eve are stand-ins for something long before, like a general rebellion among many humans, some of whom recognized their error and some who did not? What if the two trees are symbolic of the directives God put before mankind at that earlier time? What if the fall as we know it was not part of a time long after the fall of Lucifer, but was part of that rebellion? Is the simplistic description of a civilization that came to be, then was destroyed (by flood or other calamity) with only a paltry few surviving, importantly described in accurate detail, or in metaphorical language? If we are meant to have a knowledge that can be argued in the manner of a scientific inquiry, we are missing too many details. The only stories of what happened before that calamity were either what Noah and the few with him could keep up with, or what God distilled into the short telling. In any case, over a thousand years, plus the account of the creation and fall are only 6 chapters in Genesis (assuming the literal 6-day creation). Not much detail on which to hang too many hats. And virtually no details if the longer creation timeline is ultimately true.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

Aron,

Within the context of this thread, and of the Bible, I think that there is a definite place for logic and reasoning. And there is a place where it fails. There is he place where scripture itself calls to "come reason." And there are the places where there is great mystery that is left as such.

And even where Paul says that there are things hidden in ages past that are now made known, even that was not everything. It was something specific. Lee liked to make each of those things into grand metanarratives. But, for example, the rather grand statement in Colossians 1:27 "the glorious riches of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory" is not as revelatory as some might think. First, is the last part referring to the riches or the mystery? (I'm sure that someone who knows Greek well might be able to tell.) But is the statement that follows really about the full mystery of God, or about the entirety of his riches? Probably not. And it is encapsulated in something that has a "known" factor, but is still not fully known or understood. "Christ in you" is something that is at one level simple, yet at another is not so simple.

Certainly there is a place for logic, for rational thought. I am nothing if not a rational person. But at the same time I realize the limits of my rationality today, much more than 20 years ago, and I am less impressed with people who are so satisfied with their "revelation", however they present it, that they brook no questioning or conversation. And Lee certainly falls in that camp.

We need look no farther than today's newspapers, with wars either raging or simmering in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Israel/Palestine, Ukraine, and Missouri (?!?), with a large subset of our population either incarcerated or mentally incapacitated, and with millionaire movie stars committing suicide, to know that there are limits on our rationality. Under the veneer of our logic are animal instincts, not always properly tamed. We though Lee had somehow gone beyond all that and was "transformed", now our own logic was limited to "Brother Lee is always right"; but hard experience should have taught him some bounds, and it certainly schooled the rest of us.

"Christ is you" is a mystery which I suspect (barring some phenomenal breakthrough, which I always hold out 'irrational' hope for) that I will spend the rest of my life working on. He said, "It is finished", and it is, but my journey continues nevertheless. That includes my full faculties of rationality, but today I know that it goes deeper. It always goes deeper.

Originally Posted by OBW

We sometimes refer to it as complete, yet at others as incomplete, as if we have let him into the foyer and he will slowly move into the rest of the house over the remainder of our lifetime. And in this life, it is a hope. And while hope is not necessarily irrational or incomplete, it is not the same as certainty and complete knowledge. Oh, we are certain — or as certain as a fallen human can be. Yet we have an expectation that we do not understand. All we have is the present, and some notion of what is to come.

But enough on this.

I think we are saying the same thing. My only difference is in the "enough on this" part. There is never enough on this.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

I think we are saying the same thing. My only difference is in the "enough on this" part. There is never enough on this.

That's too true. There is never enough because we never really get it.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

That's too true. There is never enough because we never really get it.

If the apostle wrote, "We see darkly", how much more we all!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by aron

If the apostle wrote, "We see darkly", how much more we all!

That we see darkly is why those like Lee, and Nee, can build something like the local church movement.

Cuz they acted like they didn't see darkly, but crystal clearly.

But it's our fault. We're the ones that bought into that they didn't see as darkly as all the rest of us. They tricked us with the Bible ... using it to sound like their speaking was from the very words of God.

Looking back it now appears to me that is was a sleight-of-mind-now-you-see-it-now-you-don't kind of trick.

It's a tried and true method of attracting a following. And has been used down thru the ages. That, speaking the Bible is God's present and new speaking on the earth. Hey, it sounds good. It's the Bible, the very Word of God.

But the disappointment, for me, was as great as, well, >The Great Disappoint<.

[zeek]

I have rarely seen explanations for how the Bible is inerrant. It is usually simply asserted that such is the case and that such assertion must be accepted on faith. II Timothy 3:16 is cited to support the proposition, but again no explanation is provided for how it works. Witness lee did attempt an explanation on the basis of the principle of incarnation by which I understood that God was somehow incarnating himself in the Biblical writers. He may have admitted that this might be a temporary or conditional phenomenon of the Spirit in some cases. I can't recall at what conference or training he taught this. I don't remember what texts he used to support his claim, but, it might well have been Galatians 2:20 with the inference that Christ is incarnating in Paul. Apologies in advance to everyone on all sides of the issue if my memory is mistaken.

[OBW]

As has been stated by some recently, there are things that we can use our good minds to deduce. But there are parts that we can only accept by faith. And other parts that we cannot even understand and can only accept that what it actually means is really the truth.

The main thing about a book like the Bible (ignoring the part about it being written by the actual God of the universe) is that it is true to those of us who believe. We believe in God because we believe in God. This almost sounds postmodern because it is only true for those who believe that it is true. By that, I mean that it is accepted as true and is given place to guide us in the ways that we believe are true because we believe.

I am not saying that it is not true to those who don't believe. But if they don't believe, in this life, they don't believe. When (as we understand and believe) each of our lives ends (with or without the end of times) they will discover that what we have said was true was actually true.

If you try to use inerrancy on an unbeliever, it is pointless. They don't believe any of it, so making a claim about how accurate it really is seems kind of stupid. With the exception of some of the most liberal of Christians, if you use the inerrancy argument on another believer, what does it mean? We all believe. And we believe the Bible. So what is the point?

The point is to lay claim to a particular interpretation of a particular passage as meaning a specific thing as opposed to another specific thing that some other people think it means. So it is not really about the accuracy of the Bible, but the accuracy of our interpretation. And that claim is made out to be part of the Bible through your claim of inerrancy.

And this results in the classic error of begging the question. The issue at hand is the interpretation of the Bible. One side claims that their interpretation is simply the Bible while the other is not. They are forcing their interpretation — not by working through the words, history, hermeneutics, etc., but by declaring that it is simply so. (Sounds a lot like Nee and Lee.)

Inerrancy is a ruse to win an argument without making an argument. Just state that your position is God-ordained and walk away.

In short, no matter how we want to understand the accuracy, inerrancy, etc., of the Bible, the only really important part is faith in Christ and obedience to his words. That might seem to insist on knowing what is really right. But it seems that the parts that are really important don't need that kind of rubbish to prop it up. And the parts that people think do need it still don't because we have faith, not scientific proof.