In the current evangelical landscape, the sufficiency of Scripture is under assault. Is the Bible sufficient in and of itself without the need of certain lenses of gender, ethnicity, socio-economics, and the like to make it more understandable, relatable, or relevant? This has certainly occupied much of the conversation in the social media world.
However, there is an issue that still has not gone away, in fact this issue underlies the sufficiency issue, and this issue is inerrancy. You see, how you view inerrancy, how you define inerrancy, what you believe inerrancy to be will color your view of Scripture and therefore how you apply Scripture. How you define inerrancy sets a theological trajectory that will ultimately lead you down the right path, or take you out to the theological weeds.
You might be thinking, "What do you mean, how you define inerrancy? Doesn't inerrant mean without error?" Well, not exactly, especially for those in academia. For the average church goer, when someone says they believe in or hold to inerrancy, they take them at face value, just as they understand the word at its face value. However, in academia, there is (and I hate this word when used theologically) nuance applied; and, for some reason, nuance is so so valued in the academic world. In fact, in many circles, you are not thought of as much of a scholar unless you can demonstrate how nuanced you are.
So, when someone in academia, or even the pastorate, uses the word inerrant, you cannot assume they hold to a view that would seem self-apparent to most who hear that word. In academia there are eight primary definitions for inerrancy. How's that for nuance? So, if someone says they hold to inerrancy or believe the Bible to be inerrant, what really needs to be asked of them is which definition of inerrancy do you hold to? With eight different views of the term inerrant, there is much room to hide behind the word and not believe all the Bible is inspired, or truthful, or correct. There is a lot of room here for word games.
For those of us in the Southern Baptist Convention, and for many of those in other denominations, the inerrancy issue never really went away, it went underground.
Back during the inerrancy controversy I read a piece by Jim Denison that listed 8 definitions of inerrancy, which highlighted for me some of the chicanery going on by those in academia who claimed to be inerrantists as some of these definitions give ample room to call oneself an inerrantist while not really being one. Here are the eight definitions of inerrancy were listed in that piece. As you read through them you will see that one can claim to hold to the inerrancy of Scripture, while denying key elements of what makes the Bible the Word of God.
1. A Common Sense/Face Value definition: The Bible can be trusted or is trustworthy in all it states or affirms. This is a God said what He meant and meant what He said and can be taken at His Word understanding of the nature and character of Scripture. This is simple and straightforward, and would be the application that most Christians would make of the word inerrant.
2. Formal Inerrancy. This view includes #1 and those who hold to this view would additionally make the claim that the Scripture does not contradict itself, or the Scriptures contain no contradictions.
3. Material or Strict or Full Inerrancy. This view contains #s 1 and 2 and goes yet further. It is best understood as defined by the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy in the section Infallibility, Inerrancy, and Interpretation. "Holy Scripture, as the inspired Word of God witnessing authoritatively to Jesus Christ, may properly be called infallible and inerrant. These negative terms have a special value, or they explicitly safeguard crucial positive truths. Infallible signifies the quality of neither misleading nor being misled and so safeguards in categorical terms the truth that Holy Scripture is a sure, safe, and reliable rule and guide in all matters. Inerrant signifies the quality of being free from all falsehood or mistake and so safeguards the truth that Holy Scripture is entirely true and trustworthy in all its assertions.
As an aside here, the introductory section, regarding the Scriptures, of the Southern Baptist Faith and Message 2000, mirrors the Chicago Statement above.
4. Limited Inerrancy. Regarding its teaching on faith and morals, the Bible is inerrant; but can contain errors in matters where it addresses history, geography, or science.
5. Purposful or Intentional Inerrancy. Those that hold to this view of inerrancy would say that the Bible is inerrant in the accomplishment of its purpose(s), such as salvation, sanctification, or edification. However, outside of the Bible's intended purposes, errors can exist; such as science, or history, or geography, since God did not intend the Bible to be a book about science, history, or geography. This view of inerrancy has gained a lot of traction over the last couple of decades.
6. Unified Inerrancy. This approach to inerrancy would consider the unified or overall truth of the doctrines (teachings of specific subjects) of the Scriptures to be inerrant, but would not go as far as saying all words or statements are inerrant.
8. Secondary Inerrancy. This view of inerrancy is in regards to the quotations and speeches contained in the Scriptures. Those holding this view would say that the quote or speech contained in the Scriptures is inerrant, but the actual content of the quotes or speeches themselves can contain error.
It is obvious that #3, Material or Full inerrancy, is the strongest definition of inerrancy, and does the best job of safeguarding the Scriptures from downgrade. The others do provide wiggle room; but wiggle room allows the leaven of unbelief to enter and a little leaven eventually leavens the whole lump. A little doubt will eventually turn into denial and disbelief.
The rub here is that in academic circles you can be viewed as conservative and hold to a inerrancy view above that allows for errors in the Scriptures. This is where, in my opinion, those in academia and pastors can pull the wool over peoples eyes by calling themselves inerrantists, and in academic circles be thought of and promoted as conservative. This is where academia uses the same word but has a different dictionary. This allows a seminary to trot out a professor and promote him as a wonderful Christian man and scholar and an inerrantist who denies the veracity and reliability of the totality of the Scriptures.
Words, terms, and their definitions are important. So it is important not only to know if a potential pastor or professor holds to inerrancy, but which definition of inerrancy does he hold to.
Having laid this out, this now brings us to the current controversy regarding Dr. Dominick Hernandez at Southern Seminary. On the one hand we have recently terminated OT professor Dr. Russell Fuller who calls into question the views on Job and other issues with Dr. Dominik Hernandez. See here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMfiRWgobOU
And then Southern's rebuttal featuring Dr. Jim Hamilton and Dr. Hernandez. See here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yx10NOTO8uw&t=411s
I will bet that all three of these men, who all signed the Abstract of Principles, are not coming from the same definition of inerrancy.
One of the areas Dr Fuller questioned was Dr Hernandez's view of the person of Job, and, therefore, how he viewed Job as a book. One of the keys to note in the rebuttal is the wording Dr. Hernandez chooses to use regarding Job at 6:09 and 6:29. Notice he uses the term, "Seems to suggest that Job was a real person." He does not say, "Indicates Job was a real person." What did he mean by that? Dr. Hamilton did not question him on it. Later in the video Dr. Hamilton asks Dr. Hernandez if he is an inerrantist, and he affirms that he is. But my question is, "What type of inerrantist is he?" Obviously not the same type of inerrantist that Russell Fuller is.
Indeed, the issue of inerrancy is still with us. No matter which denomination or affiliation, people need to understand the terms and decide which definition of inerrancy they want in their academies and pastors.
However, there is an issue that still has not gone away, in fact this issue underlies the sufficiency issue, and this issue is inerrancy. You see, how you view inerrancy, how you define inerrancy, what you believe inerrancy to be will color your view of Scripture and therefore how you apply Scripture. How you define inerrancy sets a theological trajectory that will ultimately lead you down the right path, or take you out to the theological weeds.
You might be thinking, "What do you mean, how you define inerrancy? Doesn't inerrant mean without error?" Well, not exactly, especially for those in academia. For the average church goer, when someone says they believe in or hold to inerrancy, they take them at face value, just as they understand the word at its face value. However, in academia, there is (and I hate this word when used theologically) nuance applied; and, for some reason, nuance is so so valued in the academic world. In fact, in many circles, you are not thought of as much of a scholar unless you can demonstrate how nuanced you are.
So, when someone in academia, or even the pastorate, uses the word inerrant, you cannot assume they hold to a view that would seem self-apparent to most who hear that word. In academia there are eight primary definitions for inerrancy. How's that for nuance? So, if someone says they hold to inerrancy or believe the Bible to be inerrant, what really needs to be asked of them is which definition of inerrancy do you hold to? With eight different views of the term inerrant, there is much room to hide behind the word and not believe all the Bible is inspired, or truthful, or correct. There is a lot of room here for word games.
For those of us in the Southern Baptist Convention, and for many of those in other denominations, the inerrancy issue never really went away, it went underground.
Back during the inerrancy controversy I read a piece by Jim Denison that listed 8 definitions of inerrancy, which highlighted for me some of the chicanery going on by those in academia who claimed to be inerrantists as some of these definitions give ample room to call oneself an inerrantist while not really being one. Here are the eight definitions of inerrancy were listed in that piece. As you read through them you will see that one can claim to hold to the inerrancy of Scripture, while denying key elements of what makes the Bible the Word of God.
1. A Common Sense/Face Value definition: The Bible can be trusted or is trustworthy in all it states or affirms. This is a God said what He meant and meant what He said and can be taken at His Word understanding of the nature and character of Scripture. This is simple and straightforward, and would be the application that most Christians would make of the word inerrant.
2. Formal Inerrancy. This view includes #1 and those who hold to this view would additionally make the claim that the Scripture does not contradict itself, or the Scriptures contain no contradictions.
3. Material or Strict or Full Inerrancy. This view contains #s 1 and 2 and goes yet further. It is best understood as defined by the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy in the section Infallibility, Inerrancy, and Interpretation. "Holy Scripture, as the inspired Word of God witnessing authoritatively to Jesus Christ, may properly be called infallible and inerrant. These negative terms have a special value, or they explicitly safeguard crucial positive truths. Infallible signifies the quality of neither misleading nor being misled and so safeguards in categorical terms the truth that Holy Scripture is a sure, safe, and reliable rule and guide in all matters. Inerrant signifies the quality of being free from all falsehood or mistake and so safeguards the truth that Holy Scripture is entirely true and trustworthy in all its assertions.
As an aside here, the introductory section, regarding the Scriptures, of the Southern Baptist Faith and Message 2000, mirrors the Chicago Statement above.
4. Limited Inerrancy. Regarding its teaching on faith and morals, the Bible is inerrant; but can contain errors in matters where it addresses history, geography, or science.
5. Purposful or Intentional Inerrancy. Those that hold to this view of inerrancy would say that the Bible is inerrant in the accomplishment of its purpose(s), such as salvation, sanctification, or edification. However, outside of the Bible's intended purposes, errors can exist; such as science, or history, or geography, since God did not intend the Bible to be a book about science, history, or geography. This view of inerrancy has gained a lot of traction over the last couple of decades.
6. Unified Inerrancy. This approach to inerrancy would consider the unified or overall truth of the doctrines (teachings of specific subjects) of the Scriptures to be inerrant, but would not go as far as saying all words or statements are inerrant.
7. Soteriological Inerrancy. This view or definition of inerrancy means that the Bible is inerrant in what it teaches concerning salvation, but can contain errors in other areas it addresses.
8. Secondary Inerrancy. This view of inerrancy is in regards to the quotations and speeches contained in the Scriptures. Those holding this view would say that the quote or speech contained in the Scriptures is inerrant, but the actual content of the quotes or speeches themselves can contain error.
It is obvious that #3, Material or Full inerrancy, is the strongest definition of inerrancy, and does the best job of safeguarding the Scriptures from downgrade. The others do provide wiggle room; but wiggle room allows the leaven of unbelief to enter and a little leaven eventually leavens the whole lump. A little doubt will eventually turn into denial and disbelief.
The rub here is that in academic circles you can be viewed as conservative and hold to a inerrancy view above that allows for errors in the Scriptures. This is where, in my opinion, those in academia and pastors can pull the wool over peoples eyes by calling themselves inerrantists, and in academic circles be thought of and promoted as conservative. This is where academia uses the same word but has a different dictionary. This allows a seminary to trot out a professor and promote him as a wonderful Christian man and scholar and an inerrantist who denies the veracity and reliability of the totality of the Scriptures.
Words, terms, and their definitions are important. So it is important not only to know if a potential pastor or professor holds to inerrancy, but which definition of inerrancy does he hold to.
Having laid this out, this now brings us to the current controversy regarding Dr. Dominick Hernandez at Southern Seminary. On the one hand we have recently terminated OT professor Dr. Russell Fuller who calls into question the views on Job and other issues with Dr. Dominik Hernandez. See here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vMfiRWgobOU
And then Southern's rebuttal featuring Dr. Jim Hamilton and Dr. Hernandez. See here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yx10NOTO8uw&t=411s
I will bet that all three of these men, who all signed the Abstract of Principles, are not coming from the same definition of inerrancy.
One of the areas Dr Fuller questioned was Dr Hernandez's view of the person of Job, and, therefore, how he viewed Job as a book. One of the keys to note in the rebuttal is the wording Dr. Hernandez chooses to use regarding Job at 6:09 and 6:29. Notice he uses the term, "Seems to suggest that Job was a real person." He does not say, "Indicates Job was a real person." What did he mean by that? Dr. Hamilton did not question him on it. Later in the video Dr. Hamilton asks Dr. Hernandez if he is an inerrantist, and he affirms that he is. But my question is, "What type of inerrantist is he?" Obviously not the same type of inerrantist that Russell Fuller is.
Indeed, the issue of inerrancy is still with us. No matter which denomination or affiliation, people need to understand the terms and decide which definition of inerrancy they want in their academies and pastors.
No comments:
Post a Comment