Comments on Biblical Inerrancy Articles

Response:
"The Bible is inerrant with regard to the intended message of the original author" is not the standard definition. Part of my problem is making "inerrancy" such an important doctrine is that the definition is fuzzy - when I say I do not believe "inerrancy" most readers assume I am talking about their definition.

"Still, the Scriptures, correctly understood (salvation-historically) cannot be broken." If you read my review of DH Williams, "the early apologists had to rely on "tradition," and "the rule of faith" instead of the known "scriptures" when defending the faith because Gnostics used the same biblical texts, giving it their own spin. (pp.87-94) This reminds us of all the Protestant sects that hold to a high view of the biblical text, yet disagree on significant doctrinal points: ten different preachers can give you ten different opinions on water baptism."

Again, what good is it to say we believe in "inerrancy" when there are so many variants of the definition?

The problem as I see it is our apparent inability to admit to textual difficulties, texts where the meaning is just not crystal clear and the fact that our biblical text is, to quote Gordon Fee, "the Word of God/man." (I doubt this is original with Fee). Fee did not say it, but I do: anything touched by man is flawed. The wonder is that a perfect God willingly, joyfully uses imperfect people to conduct His business. Amazing. Why can't we just say it?

One of our pastors delivered the sermon yesterday. We are doing a four-part series on Isaiah 9:6 and his text was "his name will be EVERLASTING FATHER." He admitted that he struggled with his sermon because in his mind he could not get past his trinitarian model to call Messiah Jesus, the "Father."

He did a good job of dancing around this difficulty, but he said it took him a few days and a lot of reading to come up with some explanation. I jokingly told him after the service that he should have called me and in 30 seconds I could have answered it for him. I was joking, but not entirely. Isaiah had NO concept of trinity in his head when he wrote this. WE read the text as Messianic, and I think it is, but we cannot force our NT conceptions into the text.
You said something like this below.
I went on to say that the explanation of the actual text is not as important as WHY he had struggled. Our teaching of inerrancy leads to the "need" to read/interpret the text literally. This led him to feel pressure to read the Isaiah text and take it literally. MOST people define inerrancy with some kind of idea that the individual words are inspired...which leads to a literal reading and forces difficulties.

It is the message that is inspired, not the individual words.

Response:
I agree with 99% of what you just said. The only difference would be that the rooster crow is used for those who hold to "total inerrancy," that the text is perfect as written. It is not meant to be a barometer of "Truth," but it is a barometer of whether the text is perfect. Those who hold to strict inerrancy would argue that God whispered in the writer's ear what to write - at least that is how I was taught. The idea that our synoptic gospel writers actually had other gospel texts in front of them, using them as reference is NOT something the strict inerrantist can stomach very well.

Response:
Thank you, Steve. I sincerely appreciate the affirmation.

Questions, Comments or Criticisms:
You can send an email to directly to me Al Baker, CH101.
CH101 retains the right to edit and post comments/questions unless you specifically ask that your comments NOT be posted. Comments that are personal or private are never posted...only questions about Church History, the Bible, etc.