Posted on behalf of Steve Hays.
This interview with Roger Nicole was taken from pp. 16, 17 of Reformed Theological Seminary's Spring/Summer 2008 edition of Ministry and Leadership.
Q: The inerrancy of Scripture is a controversial doctrine in some quarters. How do you define inerrancy, and how is the term given to being misunderstood?
A: Inerrancy is an articulation explicit of the nature of the influence of God on Scripture, which takes a full account of the fact that it is God's Word. The question, therefore, is "What can be defined as an error, and what does inerrancy therefore avoid?" If that is not properly understood, then some people may have a mistaken notion of what we want to assert. Very definitely, inerrancy does not come as a result of testing all the statements of Scripture and finding them to be true, because if that were the case, we would never end this job. Therefore, inerrancy is not some concept that theologians have developed and then placed onto Scripture, then have to validate by checking any kind of statement that might contradict what was said.
The origin of inerrancy is that God is the divine author of Scripture, and Scripture is presented as the Word of God, which it is, actually, jointly and concurrently with being the word of the human authors whom God used. Therefore, the concept is that we need to have a representation of the activity of God that is in keeping with the character of God Himself. For God, in fact, any error would be a lie.
Q: What would you say to those who argue that inerrancy is a modern idea created by desperate evangelicals responding to the conclusions of higher criticism?
A: That would be answered by looking at all the major thinkers in the Christian faith and finding out what they thought about the Bible and whether they thought there were errors to be corrected. The doctrine of the Bible has been that this is the Word of God, and you don't correct God.
The doctrine follows the reverence of the Jews for the Old Testament, also demonstrated by Jesus in His own approach to Scripture and maintained by the Apostles. It has been the doctrine of the church from the start.
Q: So what's at stake with the doctrine of inerrancy?
A: It is to recognize that whatever the Bible says is conformed to factual identity or reality and does not depart from proper criteria of truth. There are difficulties - passages where we seem to have a problem - but the fact that we are not able to find a complete reconciliation ought not lead us to challenge something as firmly established as the fact that God Himself acknowledges to be the author. It is stated in more than 2,000 places in Scripture that this is what God says.
Q: What, then, is the greatest threat to the doctrine of inerrancy today?
A: It is that if you deny inerrancy in the sense that you say the Bible maintains things that God does not stand for, or garble the events that actually occurred, then the authority of Scripture as being God's Word has been challenged and perhaps canceled. As a result, you have lost the supreme criterion of truth - what God has said cannot be false.
Q: Where do we see the bad fruit of a faulty view of inerrancy today?
A: We find that challenge in churches where people say we ought to receive practicing homosexuals as members. Scripture has said clearly that homosexuality is so nefarious that those who practice it may be punished with death. The New Testament presents it as so bad as to show the depths of corruption unparalleled in humanity, and it states expressly that those who practice that will not go to heaven. Some say, "OK, these are in the Bible, but it represents customs of that time, so there's no authority of God in there." But if you have liberty to do that, then you can take whatever it says and say, "That's for days gone by, and we can't have that anymore." Therefore our feelings, practices and sin begin to be the authority instead of God. The damage is terrific. It's a leak so bad that all the liquid may go through it.
Q: Why does there seem to be a recurring pattern of voices within evangelicalism challenging the doctrine of inerrancy?
A: What happens is that the critical approach has been so thoroughly endorsed at the graduate level that people in the universities are constantly confronted with it. And if they are not carrying through with it, they are at times discriminated against. I have the case of a thesis by one of my Gordon-Conwell colleagues who was writing about the Old Testament. He had a view contrary to the prescribed approach to Scripture, and he was rejected for his doctoral thesis on the grounds that he did not sufficiently acknowledge the critical view. So especially in the area of Scripture, if you accept inerrancy, you disqualify yourself, so to speak, in this particular way.
The patristic scholar J.N.D. Kelly commented that:
ReplyDelete"This attitude was fairly widespread, and although some of the fathers elaborated it more than others, their general view was that Scripture was not only exempt from error but contained nothing that was superfluous." (Early Christian Doctrines [New York: Continuum, 2003], p. 61)
The fathers don't often address the issue in the sort of depth we see in modern literature, but the general thrust was along the lines of what Kelly describes above. See, for example: Clement of Rome (First Clement, 45), Justin Martyr (Dialogue With Trypho, 65), Irenaeus (Against Heresies, 2:28:2-3), Clement of Alexandria (Exhortation To The Heathen, 9), Tertullian (A Treatise On The Soul, 21), Methodius (From The Discourse On The Resurrection, 1:9), Gregory Nazianzen (Oration 2:105), Augustine (Letter 82:1:3).
Of course I am waiting for the revisionist to come along and challenge what you just said, inerrancy is after all not the most popular position, especially when you want to be respected by metaphysical naturalist and heretics. I believe I hear the foot steps coming down the hall now, I will with draw and watch the fight begin.
ReplyDeleteBlake
It's nice to say that the Bible is the Divinely Inspired Word of God, but what has YOUR CHURCH done about protecting the Integrity of the Scriptures?
ReplyDeleteIn 397 AD, the Roman Cathoics and the Eastern Orthodox held the Council of Carthage to separate the Wheat from the Chaff: to select the Books of the Bible; to mark Commentaries, Histories, and Training Manuals as useful non-Biblical Books; and to discard the books being insinuated into the Scripture by the Gnostics.
What have the Reformers done? John Calvin's Doctrine of Total Depravity implies that the Church Fathers of Carthage were not Competant because of their sin to do the work that they did. Chapter XXXI, Article iv of the Westminster Confession declares that their work is not binding. The Doctrine of Monergism implies that only God can act on this matter, and if he did not hand the scriptures down on two tablets of stone, it wasn't handed down.
As to my stand on this, let's just say that I'm more inclined to sing my "Hail Marys" and my Prokeimenons instead of my "Mighty Fortresses" for Choir Practice.
While I believe in Biblical Inerrancy, I listen more to those who actually did something about it rather than to see someone's MANMADE Doctrines bring it into Question.
1. Since the council of Carthage was a local council rather than an ecumenical council, YOUR CHURCH (Catholic? Orthodox?) did very little to safeguard the canon.
ReplyDelete2. Total depravity doesn't apply with equal force to the regenerate and unregenerate alike. But maybe you think all the church fathers were unregenerate.
3. The Westminster Confession does enumerate the canon.
4. Monergism doesn't apply across the board. Rather, it applies to certain acts of God like election, regeneration, and justification. Try not to be such an ignoramus when you state Reformed theology.
Steve, I shall expect an apology for your UNCHRISTAIN insult "ignoramus". It demonstrates that you intend to browbeat rather than to reason with me.
ReplyDeleteAs the Bible says, By their works you shall know them, just as your work of arbitrarily banned Orthodox from this board when his arguments became too compelling demonstrated.
Chapter I of the Westminster Confession copies the Council of Carthage List, at least a Thousand years too late, and is hardly authoritative.
I can tell that you haven't read the Westminster Confession either, especially Chapter XXXI, as I have.
I take the word "Total" to mean what it says. By what authority did the Council of Carthage OR the Westminster Confession say what they said.
If Chapter XXXI, article iv invalidates the Council of Carthage, it also invalidates the Westminster Confession. However, it is consistent not to accept the Westminster Confession, and still accept the Council of Carthage.
The Integrity of the Bible is an ALL-IMPORTANT issue for me, unlike you LIBERAL PROTESTANTS. My Bible is a TRANSLATED Bible not an EDITED Bible, like the 1599 Geneva Study Bible which replaces Revelation 22:19 with a meaningless footnote [http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/GenevaStudyBible/gen.cgi?book=re&chapter=022] because said verse refutes Predestination.
I don't buy any of your selective application arguments on Monergism. This leads to pointless LEGALISM, with its exceptions to its exceptions to its exceptions, ad infinitum.
I would appreciate some HONEST ANSWERS next time, even if you do run this blog.
The Book of Jude tells me all I need to know about the Spirit of you Gratuitous and UN-CHRISTAIN INSULT and Personal Attack.
Repent!
Have I been banned yet?
ReplyDeleteGood!
Now answer my original question:
What have you or your Church done to protect the Integrity of the Scripture besides teaching the Doctrines of Men, like Presedtination, Total Depravity, Monergism, or that legal Church Councils are invalid as the Westminster Confession teaches?
Hi Steve,
ReplyDeleteI like Roger Nicole's work on inerrancy. However, there's one thing about Dr. Nicole that lifts my eyebrows. He subscribes to egalitarianism.
I just don't see how anyone who subscribes to CSBI inerrancy can affirm egalitarianism.
P.S. HNC, this is how you spell and type the word: C-H-R-I-S-T-I-A-N.
And if they are not carrying through with it, they are at times discriminated against. I have the case of a thesis by one of my Gordon-Conwell colleagues who was writing about the Old Testament. He had a view contrary to the prescribed approach to Scripture, and he was rejected for his doctoral thesis on the grounds that he did not sufficiently acknowledge the critical view.
ReplyDeleteWhy do complaints like this even exist? Why can't this Enns person just go to GCTS and the person to whom Nicole refers just go to WTS?
Do these Christians self consciously seek to be martyrs even when the context doesn't necessitate it (like a fireman who starts fires to justify his position)?
It seems like a lot of unnecessary hand wringing created ex-nihilo for no reason whatsoever. If an ultra conservative Christian were to enroll in a doctoral program in Lesbian studies, he can't very well whine continually about what he finds there.
Historical Number Cruncher sounds like those pro-choice women: "What have YOU done to save babies. How many do you adopt? You must not care about life!"
ReplyDeleteHistorical Numer Cruncher. What has YOUR church done to prmote and defend sola Scriptura?
Nothing!?
Paul:
ReplyDeleteWhat is Scripture? You forget that before 397 AD, there was no Scripture. It was nothing more that a scattered collection of scrolls, both fact and fiction. You miss the point that some sorting had to be done to separate the Wheat from the Chaff. Are you really sure that you have the Right Scripture, since Sola Scriptura did not exist at this time? I am sure, but my reasons will have to be part of a differebt board, as it involves Apostolicism.
And of course, the Westminster Confession negates the choice anyway, and besides, the Church Fathers were Totally Depraved. After all, they discarded the parts of Scripture that propounded the Sacred Doctrine of Predestination, the Books of Judas, Thomas, and Phillip.
Sola Scriptura is meaningless without the Scripture's Integrity being maintained. Without Scriptural Integrity, you may as well make Ovid's Metamorphoseses your Bible.
When you refuted "By their works you shall know them.", just remember that Protestant Leader Count Zinzindorf asked the same question in the form "What have you done for Christ?"
historical number cruncher said...
ReplyDelete“Steve, I shall expect an apology.”
Then your false expectation will be dashed.
“For your UNCHRISTAIN insult ‘ignoramus’.”
I call you an ignoramus because you launch ignorant attacks on the Reformed faith. You have a very distorted grasp of Christianity if you think it’s unchristian to make true statements about another person. The fact that what I said was unflattering speaks to your character, not mine.
“It demonstrates that you intend to browbeat rather than to reason with me.”
I reason with reasonable people. Do you have anything resembling a reasonable argument?
“As the Bible says, ‘By their works you shall know them’.”
Yes, and I know you by your works. You come here with a belligerent, triumphalist, know-it-all attitude and immediately proceed to make ignorant claims about the Reformed faith. If you’re going to attack the Reformed faith, then it’s you’re responsibility to acquaint yourself with the Reformed faith. So I’m judging you by your bad works.
“Just as your work of arbitrarily banned Orthodox from this board when his arguments became too compelling demonstrated.”
A demonstrable falsehood. Orthodox was a duplicitous disputant. When we answered him on his own grounds, he simply shifted grounds. That’s’ why he was banned. Because of his shifty tactics.
“Chapter I of the Westminster Confession copies the Council of Carthage List, at least a Thousand years too late, and is hardly authoritative.”
A local council, like Carthage, is hardly authoritative either. It’s not up there with an ecumenical council.
Moreover, Calvinism doesn’t have the same OT canon as the Catholic canon of the OT or the Orthodox canon(s) of the OT. So the Reformed canon is not a carbon copy of the Catholic and/or Orthodox canon of Scripture. Try again.
“I take the word ‘Total’ to mean what it says.”
Theological terms are technical terms. You don’t learn what they mean by looking them up in Webster’s. You learn what they meaning by studying systematic theology.
“The Integrity of the Bible is an ALL-IMPORTANT issue for me, unlike you LIBERAL PROTESTANTS.”
If I’m a liberal Protestant, then liberal Protestants have gotten a bum rap.
“My Bible is a TRANSLATED Bible not an EDITED Bible, like the 1599 Geneva Study Bible.”
Since I don’t use the 1599 Geneva Bible, your comparison is irrelevant.
“I don't buy any of your selective application arguments on Monergism.”
You’re being an anti-intellectual twit. If you presume to attack Reformed theology, then you need to attack what it actually stands for, and not your ignorant straw men.
Nothing “selective” about what I said. I’m merely being accurate in my representation of Reformed theology.
“I would appreciate some HONEST ANSWERS next time, even if you do run this blog.”
If you want honest answers, try asking honest questions for a change.
BTW, I don’t run this blog. It’s a team effort.
“The Book of Jude tells me all I need to know about the Spirit of you Gratuitous and UN-CHRISTAIN INSULT and Personal Attack.”
Actually, Jude is chock-full of ad hominem attacks (indeed, some colorful invective to boot) against false teachers. Try reading it.
“Repent!”
Take your own advice!
That was not an apology. It was a compunded Personal Attack against myself and Orthodox. I've read many of Orthodox'es posts and see no evidence of ANY shifty tactics, but I have seen many from you.
ReplyDeleteYou shown your colors, and that you have shown that you do not care whether the Bible has any integrity whatsoever. Just say so and I will accept your position as being a Neo-Gnostic, instead of making your personal attacks, refusing to discuss the issues I have raised, and Teaching the Doctrines of men.
Since you have failed to appologize, the only issue left to me now is whether I should report you and your blog for abuse.
No other discussion other than your apology is meaningful beyond this point of post.
II John upon you!
TRUTH UNITES... AND DIVIDES SAID:
ReplyDelete“I like Roger Nicole's work on inerrancy. However, there's one thing about Dr. Nicole that lifts my eyebrows. He subscribes to egalitarianism. I just don't see how anyone who subscribes to CSBI inerrancy can affirm egalitarianism.”
Perhaps we should make allowance for the fact that Nicole sees a woman through the eyes of a Frenchman. Technically he’s Swiss. But he hails from one of the French-speaking Cantons. He studied at the Sorbonne. I believe his wife was French-Canadian. Imagine if Maurice Chevalier were a theologian, and you get the general idea! :-)
HISTORICAL NUMBER CRUNCHER SAID:
ReplyDelete“That was not an apology.”
It wasn’t intended to be. I don’t owe you one. You seem to think you can go around making demands of other people.
“It was a compunded Personal Attack against myself and Orthodox. I've read many of Orthodox'es posts and see no evidence of ANY shifty tactics, but I have seen many from you.”
You see what you want to see through your jaundiced lens.
“Just say so and I will accept your position as being a Neo-Gnostic.”
Gee, that sounds like a personal attack. I thought you didn’t believe in that sort of thing. Oh, on second thought, it’s okay so long as you do it to someone else. You’ve shown your true colors.
“Since you have failed to appologize, the only issue left to me now is whether I should report you and your blog for abuse.”
Were you going to report it to the Pope or the Patriarch of Constantinople?
“No other discussion other than your apology is meaningful beyond this point of post.”
I don’t know how I’ll survive the intellectual deprivation, but I’ll try my best to muddle through in your absence.
It is worthy to note in this discussion that the majority of Roman Catholic and not just a few Eastern Orthodox Biblical scholars have accepted neo-orthodox if not downright liberal views of Scripture.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, the current pope holds a very Barthian view of Scripture.
It seems that the only ones defending inerrancy these days are those darned Protestants.
Historical,
ReplyDeleteI see you didn't address my linking of the *form* of your argument with the demonstrably *fallacious* form of the pro-choicers.
I also deny the claim that "there were no Scriptures" before 387. You must think God's word "popped" into existence at 397! But since they referenced *alredy existing* documents, your claim is false.
You also seem to think that there were not any books taken as authoritative. But this is false. That's why when Roman soldiers came to the houses of Christians and asked for their holy books, they gave up the commentaries, the later documents, etc., but they did not give up their *Scriptures*.
If what you say is true, they would have given up their Matthew and Luke just as easy as the ones they did give up.
I am sure that Sola Scriptura existed. When I read the debates of the early church, debates that happened before 397, I see the fathers denying certain doctrines, *no matter how rational*, because they conflicted with the word of God.
I don't see why you think "the church fathers" were totally depraved. I don't think Ignatius, for example, was. And, I'm not even sure you know what we mean by total depravity. Ask forgiveness for your slander! I expect an apology!
And, even if SS was "meaningless with the integrity" WHAT HAVE YOU DONE SINCE 397 TO DEFEND SS???
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI found this unexpected: "II John upon you!"
ReplyDelete2 John 4 I rejoiced greatly that I found of thy children walking in truth, as we have received a commandment from the Father.
Of course, if he meant something else, perhaps he should peruse 1 John.
-TurretinFan