Back from vacation tonight - blogging to resume
By MSH | July 1, 2008
I’ll be back tonight from vacation. I was (literally) in one of the most unwired places in the US (only dial-up, and even that was rare). Thought I was ready for that, but my pre-planning went awry. It was like a Dilbert cartoon!
I’ll be posting and answering comments starting tomorrow!
Mike
Topics: Uncategorized | No Comments »
On vacation
By MSH | June 24, 2008
Just a note - I’m on vacation with limited online access. I’m sure I’ll fall behind on posts and comments. Back July 2.
Topics: Uncategorized | No Comments »
Pre-Scientific Worldview “Problem” and Inerrancy
By MSH | June 20, 2008
Taking off on Chet’s lengthy response to my “Definitions of Inerrancy” post:
The first thing I’d like to pursue is Chet’s criticism of the word “affirm” — I also think it’s a weasel-word. You quote 1 Cor. 11:14, which says, “Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him?” Here Paul makes a specific statement about nature–it’s clearly a comment on the natural world and a truth that Paul believes the natural world communicates or points to. Having read the article in the readings list, it is quite clear that Paul’s statement is rooted in an absolutely non-scientific worldview. His statement is scientifically false. I’d say he’s clearly “affirming” something about nature here and then extrapolating to his more significant point. So, I think we need to dump this “affirming” language as some sort of safeguard (read: weasel-word) for defending inerrancy. Here’s what I’d like your (and others’) thoughts on:
1. Paul is clearly in error in terms of his understanding of nature on this point (he’s a pre-scientific man). Does that matter? Although Paul believed this, is he putting forth this belief as something his readers must believe? that is, while his contemporary readers no doubt believed what he believed, should be view this belief as something that we must believe? Is this the way this statement is cast? Put another way, when I read this passage, is Paul’s belief about hair what I am supposed to embrace as truth from this passage? I don’t think so, and I think you’d agree. But I also think it would be silly to say Paul isn’t “affirming” the particular erroneous belief about hair. He believes it.
2. Should we give Paul a pass? I’d say, of course — how is he supposed to know anything else? The science of his day was primitive by our standards.
3. What ARE we supposed to embrace from the passage? What is Paul teaching? I don’t think he’s teaching us about biology or sexual reproduction–though he presupposes some beliefs about those things that are erroneous when making his argument. If he’d said “this is what God wants you to believe about how we get babies,” the inerrancy issue would be a dead one-inerrancy would be untenable. But is it coherent to say that a speaker or writer’s conclusion or position cannot be correct if his arguments are not always correct? Obviously, the answer to this is no. People are right about X all the time when their reasons for thinking they are right are bogus. We all know that. But in this passage of Scripture this leaves us with a problem: How are we to correctly discern WHAT Paul’s point is (the thing that can still be correct) if the argument he’s using is wrong? That’s a problem, but I think it’s not an issue of inerrancy so much (as stated) as it is an issue of interpretation.
I say all the above to say this: perhaps in our understanding and articulation of inerrancy we should make it clear that taking the Bible on its own terms means not expecting more from the culture that produced it than is fair. I don’t think it’s fair for us to judge Scripture by standards foreign to the people who produced it. God chose to come to people of a particular culture, a particular region of the world, at a particular time. He used what he had at his disposal once he made that decision-some people who didn’t know squat about a whole host of things (and we’d have to say that about ourselves were we the people God chose to communicate through). God wasn’t trying to teach us science in the Bible precisely because he wasn’t teaching its authors science. They wouldn’t have understood it, and even if correct science was dictated to them, their readers wouldn’t have understood it. That would sort of defeat the purpose of dispensing revelation, wouldn’t it? (”I’m going down there and telling them lots of things they can’t grasp-and then hold them accountable for it” Huh?). To use the weasel-word, I’d say the Bible specifically does NOT “affirm” anything about science because God didn’t have anyone at his disposal sufficient to the task. So, I don’t care if Paul is wrong in his science; God didn’t care either.
But while Paul’s science shouldn’t be embraced by us as truth, can’t we still embrace what he says in this passage outside of science? I don’t think the hermeneutical gap in this instance (1 Cor 11) is that wide, either. I think we can get a pretty good idea of what Paul meant, however odd or wrong his reasoning process was. I’d say we CAN discern the truth item God wanted him to communicate while allowing Paul (even directing Paul) to make that point on the basis of his worldview’s bad science. The original audience wouldn’t have been able to understand it any other way. Our task is to recover his worldview and THEN judge the ends to which he’s arguing, not necessarily the means.
So, I just don’t think the pre-scientific worldview issue forces me to not hold to inerrancy. It DOES force me to not word what I believe the way the earlier definitions are worded (at least with respect to the “affirm” wording). I’d like to do better.
Not sure this helps (me or anyone else).
Topics: Bibliology | 20 Comments »
Looking at the Inerrancy Definitions, Part 1
By MSH | June 18, 2008
Let me say at the outset that I personally have no problem with the word “inerrancy” and want to embrace such a doctrine as an evangelical. My problem is that I’m not sure how to articulate what the word should mean so that it’s honest, defensible, and coherent. I believe truth corresponds to reality (correspondence view of truth), and so I can’t make up a definition that does not correspond to reality and then pretend it works (and worse, is self-evident). My goal is therefore not to undermine the idea of inerrancy, but to come up with a definition (or even a lengthy explanation) of the idea that honors the data of the text and the world around us, for which God is also responsible (general revelation). We can’t look away from the phenomena of Scripture–what’s written is what’s written, and it’s what God intended to be written (yes, I distinguish the autographs from copies)–nor the phenomena of general revelation (if the Bible said “pigs can fly” it would be in error). Now some brief “first thoughts” about the definitions:
1. Grudem’s definition: It’s simply inadequate. On one hand, it doesn’t offer the sorts of qualifiers the others do in a succinct way (though Grudem eventually gets to some of that discussion); on the other hand, those who lack any experience spent on this issue would be led to believe the issue is far simpler than it is. Grudem knows the issues, so I’m not sure why he settled on this definition.
2. Two of the articles I asked you to read are very clear illustrations of the pre-scientific worldview of the Bible. Erickson and Reymond have language in their definitions that seem to allow for this (without using the word “pre-scientific” or “unscientific”), but they also talk about the Bible not erring in what it “affirms.” There is nothing in their definitions that informs us what is meant by “affirm,” though they do insist that the Bible be taken on its own terms (and I’d agree there). A key issue will be what is meant by “affirm.”
3. Reymond wrote: “we must not evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its Sitz im Leben . . . .” I like that, but do we mean it? What if that means the biblical authors believed there was a solid dome over the round, flat earth? I personally don’t think we should judge them for that–that was their worldview. Why would we expect anything else? Here’s the real issue, though (for these definitions): is this pre-scientific worldview “affirmed” by the biblical author? Is it “assumed” — and is that any different than “affirmed”? Does it even matter — maybe the “affirming” language has to go, to yield to something better. That’s what I want us to think about.
4. Reymond’s discussion also includes the qualification about “the use of hyperbole and round numbers.” Fair enough–but what if the use of such hyperbole is a literary feature and completely deliberate (a deliberate exaggeration)? I have a friend who did his dissertation on large numbers in the OT, and reached the (quite coherent) conclusion, based on comparative ANE historioraphic accounts, that exaggeration of numbers was a stick element in such literature (you were supposed to brag up your god). Is this “affirmation” of deliberate disinformation? Is there a better way to view this?
5. I think the issues in numbers 3 and 4 need to be viewed in light of Erickson’s note about “the purpose to which Scripture was written.” Purpose can dictate both literary technique and is not thwarted by pre-scientific worldview. The author’s audience could not process anything by their own worldview, and has certain expectations about how something should be written to accomplish an intended purpose. In other words, there is nothing deceptive going on. Yes, the biblical author can be scientifically ignorant and still get his point across–the purpose isn’t impeded. But is ignorance of some now-known scientific fact to be equated with “affirming” that ignorance as truth?
6. I’m on Peter Enns’ side, but I find his definition unsatisfying. It just doesn’t deal with any of the issues (and doesn’t pretend to want to). Someone who is struggling with the phenomena of Scripture isn’t going to find any help there.
Topics: Bibliology | 1 Comment »
Definitions of Inerrancy
By MSH | June 14, 2008
Well, here we go with the inerrancy issue. Hopefully by now you have read the required readings for this discussion (yes, they are required; I have specific goals with this thread, and comments posted that make me think you haven’t done the reading will likely not be displayed).
In the wake of the readings, I’ve listed below a number of definitions of inerrancy. Some come from respected systematic theology books; others do not. What I’d like it for you to read them and then comments about their strengths and weaknesses, especially in light of the readings. These definitions will be our starting point.
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine
The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact. (p. 90)
Robert Reymond, A New Systematic Theology Of The Christian Faith 2nd Edition - Revised And Updated
What does the word “infallibility” mean? The Westminster Confession uses the word infallible” in I/v and I/ix (”the infallible truth and divine authority thereof”; “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself”). By it we assert that the Bible is true, that is to say, devoid of, and incapable of teaching, falsehood or error of any kind in all that it intends to affirm. It is internally noncontradictory and doctrinally consistent. Its assertions correspond to what God himself understands is the true and real nature of things . . . By “inerrancy” we intend essentially the same thing as “infallibility,” namely, that the Bible does not err in any of its affirmations, whether those affirmations be in the spheres of spiritual realities or morals, history or science, and is therefore incapable of teaching error . . . It is important that we mean by these two words no more and no less than what the Bible itself would permit by its own claims to truthfulness and by its textual phenomena. That is to say, we must not evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its Sitz im Leben, usage or purpose. Such phenomena as a lack of modern technical precision, perceived irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts and the use of free citations should not be used as arguments against the Scripture’s inerrancy. (pp. 70-71)
Millard Erickson, Christian Theology
The Bible, when correctly interpreted in light of the level to which culture and the means of communication had developed at the time it was written, and in view of the purposes for which it was written, if fully truthful in all that it affirms. (pp. 233-234)
Peter Enns offers this definition on his blog:
The Bible as it is is without error because the Bible as it is is God’s Word.
Such a confession does not predispose us to affirm in what way Scripture is without error. Rather, it puts us in a position of reverent expectancy to see what the Spirit will teach us from and about Scripture, to be self-reflective enough to allow the very categories about which we speak of Scripture to be driven by Scripture . . . To put it another way, a belief in Scripture as God’s word is an article of faith, a gift of the Spirit, and is confirmed by faithful study and following Jesus within a community of believers. It is not where we end up after some rational proofs. It is where we begin so that we can end there.
This should be sufficient to get us started. However, I also recommend reading Chris Tilling’s proposal for a new statement on inerrancy, posted a year ago on his Deinde blog. I think it will help in some respect to stimulate our thinking.
Topics: Bibliology | 2 Comments »
« Previous Entries
