Is The Bible Inerrant?

This question has been asked and answered countless times over the years and, quite frankly, it is only an issue in certain evangelical circles. I don't have anything to add to the formal discussion here but, since I consider myself evangelical and liberal and, since this was once  a big issue for me (and I believe still is for some others) I want to addess it now.

The word inerrancy, in regards to the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, has at least two meanings. The first is what I was taught from my church and from my Bible College days. Essentially, it means that every word, in fact every jot and tittle in the Bible, is exactly what God wanted said while working through the individual personalities of each author. God did not dictate the words, although the end result is the same.

Every word of Scripture is literal unless expressly stated otherwise (as when Paul says in Galatians 4 that he is speaking allegorically) or unless the context or part of speech clearly demonstrates that the words are not literal (as when Jesus says hyperbolically in Mark 19:47, if your eye causes you to stumble it is better to gouge it out). Therefore, when the Bible touches up on any subject it is always factual and without error historically, scientifically, philosophically, etc.

Closely associated with this view of inerrancy is the belief in the "domino effect" of a single mistake. If the Bible is wrong in one place, in one verse or in one word, then the whole of Scripture must be discarded because it can no longer be trusted. Adherents to this view believe with deep conviction that any apparent errors can be satisfactorily reconciled.

Over the years I began to find this theory of the scriptures less and less plausible because I continued to find many mistakes, discrepancies and errors. I will use one brief example to illustrate the point.

Peter's denial of Jesus is mentioned in all four of the Gospels and they all agree that Peter denied Jesus three times, but they don't all agree on when this happened. Matthew, Luke and John say that Peter denied Jesus three times BEFORE the rooster crowed ONCE. While Mark says it happened BEFORE the rooster crowed TWO TIMES. Each prediction has a correspondingly appropriate fulfillment in each gospel.

One evangelical scholar, Harold Lindsell, admitted that in order to reconcile the accounts one must believe that Peter actually denied Jesus six times. Three times before the rooster crowed once, and then three more times before the rooster crowed a second time. If you accept that then, in a way, all the Gospels got it wrong since each one says that there were only three denials.

Examples like this can be multiplied over and over again but it is not in the scope of this article to try and prove or disprove any one theory of how to view the Bible. The above is simply one of the many problems I faced concerning the plausibility of the view of inerrancy that I had been taught. Further study in seminary only confirmed my fears and eventually I discarded the entire Bible and with it my understanding of the Christian faith. After all, I had been taught the domino effect of Scripture, which was an all or nothing approach. And even though I knew that a handful of other evengelical leaders had a different interpretation of inerrancy, the die had been cast, and I, in great despair, walked away.

This brings me to the other view of inerrancy I mentioned previously and this one allows for a more common sense approach. In essence, it says that the Bible is inerrant, not in all ways, but only when it regards faith and practice. In other words the Bible is sufficient for all that Christians need concerning those two areas but there is plenty of room for human error historically, scientifically, anthropologically, and so on. Since this view was not an option for me given my Bible College education and my overall black and white temperament and since I don't know many Christians personally who struggle with this view, I will not discuss it in detail for now.

So is the Bible inerrant or not? After many years of doubt, thought and study I no longer think that is a relevant question. First if all it presupposes that the Bible was written by individual authors whom God inspired to write God's exact words, instead of being compiled, edited and re-edited by many people from many known and unknown sources. It also presupposes that the Bible has authority only if it records the exact words of God and correspondingly, also presuposses that absolute truth can be completely captured in propositional statements. It seems to ignore the reality that these so called perfect words have countless interpretations.

In other words, if God spoke perfect, literal words then God would also have to guarantee a perfect,  literal understanding of the text. Furthermore, it would also be necessary to have not only the inerrant scriptures and from there an inerrant understanding of those scriptures but, consequently, an inerrant method of communicating those scriptures to others or it is pointless. Finally, it is this understanding of inerrancy that actually states that these perfect scriptures were limited only to the original documents which everyone agrees no longer exist.

Needless to say there are many other ways of looking at the Bible and of accepting its authority other than believing that the majority of it is primarily literal and factual. More on that later.

Larry

If I Started A Church...

         
I have always had a secret dream of starting a church and I want to now more than ever because the world needs more churches that listen...more churches that welcome dialogue over doctrinal or ideological agreement...more churches that speak to be heard rather than speak to simply speak. It is a very difficult task attempting to do this either individually or in community and it calls for continual self-critical analysis and reformation. In fact many, beginning with the Reformation, insist that the church is always being reformed...or should be.

Such self-criticism is deeply rooted in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. The most prominent examples are the prophets who were always calling on Israel to change and to have a new self-understanding, not going back to an older self-understanding, but to a newer one based on God's continual revelation of God's Self. The Church must always do the same. It is this reminder of human and communal fallibility that provides the basis of the humility necessary for dialogue. Dialogue is essential for the continual discovery of truth at any level.

Someone asked me the other day (online) why I am a Christian if I don't hold to a certain set of doctrines and all I could answer was because the love of God compels me and God will not let me go. Of course, I do hold to some doctrines but I have learned to hold them very loosely. "Correct" doctrine can never adequately be the basis of one's faith. We are called to believe in the Word of God alone who is Jesus Christ and (right, wrong or otherwise as my father used to say) we must cast ourselves upon him because there is no other Savior.

If I Started A Church (This would be the foundation)...


1. Above all we are united by the self-giving love of the Father...the self-emptying love of the Son...and the self-overflowing love of the Spirit as revealed in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

2. Demonstrating this unconditional love in faith communities, in society and in our individual lives is the sole purpose of the Christian Church. All creation groans together in pain for...salvation, liberation and healing. The church is called to build and to usher in the Kingdom of God.

3. Unity (not uniformity) within diversity is the goal. The church is one body with many members. It is very possible for Christians with both orthodox and unorthodox views of the faith to worship together side by side. Truth is sought and discovered dialogically.

4. Doubt and disagreement are inherent in the Christian faith, consequently questions are natural, inevitable and  welcomed. The Scriptures are full of faithful people who doubted God, including Jesus himself as he cried out in despair on the cross...My God, my God why hast thou forsaken me?

5. Our self-understanding as The Church of Jesus Christ is rooted in both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, hence, the Bible.

6. We seek to be a church where people can discover for themselves what Christ and Christianity mean to them. All honest seekers are welcome here.


So what do you think...would you join?

(BTW...I go to a church now that is one version of this. Germantown Cumberland Presbyterian Church in Germantown,  Tennessee.  Come visit).

About Me

I came into a conscious faith in Jesus Christ when I was 17 years old and such astounding love transformed my life from that first moment. For better or worse, I have been Christ-ridden ever since and Christ is my passion.

The church I was attending was Evangelical and when I felt called into the ministry I went to a local Bible College and received my B S. in Bible. Needless to say it was ultra-conservative and I left with many unanswered questions still in my head. It must be by nature that I was always seeking to push beyond my own small circle of faith. I just couldn't quit asking questions about the inerrancy of Scripture and about what was necessary for salvation in Christ, among many other things.

After graduating, I did mission work for three years overseas, returned and went to numerous seminaries, from the right to the left, for several years and finally, after too much heartbreak and confusion, I threw my faith away altogether...or so I thought... so I tried. At that time I had been an Evangelical Christian for thirteen years.

Oh yeah... I also began actively drinking and drugging again which is why I finally went to my first AA meeting. But there in big, bold print, in the 12 steps of AA, was the word G-o-d and I was horrified. I was horrified because, as I was taught, affirming God again meant affirming a bunch of detailed doctrine which I could no longer do and if there was a God, I Hated God!

But through the love, patience and wisdom of AA I eventually came to believe that it was never God I hated, it was merely the distorted image of a god who valued doctrine over people...a god who punishes people in hell that had never even heard the name of Jesus Christ, much less know or experience his love...a god who forced people to play the game of life (nobody chose to be born) only to sentence the unbelievers to eternal damnation. That god, I never came back to.

It took years for my faith to slowly resurrect from God...to Christ...to love... to passion again. I eventually went back to seminary (liberal) and completed my M.S. in Religion. I am now able to appreciate the rich heritage that Liberal and Evangelical theology both bring, quite literally, to the Table. Many questions still remain and I hope they always do. The peace of Christ to us all.


Larry