|
But the scripture has imprisoned all things under the power of sin, so that what was promised through faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe.
Galatians 3:22
|
Biblical Authority
|
1
-
2
-
3
|
I think the last section showed rather conclusively that the Bible does in fact contain certain small errors and contradictions; exactly the type of mistakes one might expect from human authors. So let's get real for a second. If there are errors, then there are errors. We can't just sweep them up under the rug. We have to explain why errors exist in a book that is supposedly inspired by God. Can the Bible be both inspired and contain errors? I think the answer is yes.
Certainly it doesn't seem logical. If the Bible is inspired by God, shouldn't it be free from errors? After all, isn't God all-knowing and all-powerful? Certainly he would not make a mistake in telling the biblical authors what to write. But wait! Here is the problem! It has been generally assumed -- among Christians and non-Christians alike -- that revelation is given propositionally; that is, that God 'speaks' certain truth statements, or propositions, to mankind through specially appointed intermediaries. In their original autographs, then, the books of the Bible, as the very words of God written down, were thought to be inspired. But what if this is not the way revelation works? What if this was just an incorrect assumption on the part of Christians?
After all, when we look at the Bible, we notice that it does have some small discrepencies. The various view-points, contradictions and errors of the Bible that we just saw in the last section would not exist if every word of Scripture originated with, and was supremely directed by, God. But consider something else as well: Many of the authors of the Bible used extra-biblical sources in their writings (Num. 21:14; 1 Kings 11:41; 1 Chr. 9:1 2 Chr. 16:11; Jos. 10:13) or did personal research (Luke 1:1). Some like Paul even added their own opinions in the text (1 Cor. 7:12,25). Certainly these are not characteristics of 'propositional' revelation.
But if propositional revelation is not true, then how can we say that the Bible is inspired? Is there another model of revelation that might better explain these characteristics of the text? I believe there is. It is called non-propositional revelation.
Non-propositional Revelation
The concept of non-propositional revelation is not new. It finds its origin in the New Testament, the early Church and the writings of the Reformers. According to this view, revelation is not a body of revealed statements about, and from, God, but simply the presence of God within the sphere and course of human experience and history itself. In other words, God's actions in history are themselves revelation; the Bible is simply the record of that revelation.
This of course is a much broader and open concept of revelation. Here there is a human element involved: the recipient is required to interpret God's actions in history. The theological statements of the Bible, therefore, should not be seen as God's words written down, but more appropriatel as attempts on the part of human authors to understand and explain their own experiences of God's revelatory actions. This does not, of course, exclude the possibility of different and even
|
|
|
"Taken completely on its own, and contrasted with clear statements from the Bible, inerrancy simply fails to prove its truthfulness."
|
|
|
contradictory views within Scripture, the limitations of an author's time and culture, and scientific and historical errors; precisely characteristics of the text that we have observed. But it also does not exclude the possibility of heightened states of awareness and perception of God and the Divine Will; again, characteristics of the text that we have observed.
But what about the Bible itself. Does it say that God gives revelations non-propositionally? In fact, there are passages of the Bible that beautifully illustrate the non-propositional model. For example, the Hebrew prophets of the Old Testament, in viewing the various conflicts between their nation of Israel and her neighbors, saw not only political and military victory and defeat, but also the continued influence of God in the world around them, correcting, disciplining, rewarding and calling His chosen people toward higher ends. As well, the authors of the New Testament saw in the teachings, life and death of Jesus of Nazareth, not simply the actions of a revolutionary who died at the hands of political officials, but the symbolic and real presence of God in the restoration and recreation of all people. Yes, there are conflicting statements and ideas in both of these sections of the Bible. But beyond the flaws of their human authors, there is real insight and revelation here!
The Fruits of Inerrancy
It has not been my intention in writing this article to slander or malign the Bible. In its totality it is an amazing book. In its major themes and topics, it overflows with revelation. On the whole, one can see the Spirit of God moving amidst its pages. However, in its specific parts, there are scientific and historical errors, conflicting view-points and contradictory theological concepts.
It is here that the theory of inerrancy is usually evoked. Those who use it are making the appeal that even the smallest and most insignificant details of the Bible are the very words of God. And usually those who push the hardest for the doctrine do so because they want to use these specific, and often time isolated, verses of the Bible to support their own particular
|
|
|
". . . the Bible has been used by Protestants and Roman Catholics to attack a belief in the existence of dinosaurs and a helio-centric solar system."
|
|
|
political, social, or theological view-points. Whether that means condemning gays and lesbians, supporting racist or sexist doctrines, or denying the deity of Christ, ultimately it all stems from the same desire to force the Bible to approve one's own thinking.
Therefore, my argument against inerrancy finally leads us to its greatest practical fault: it gives those who interpret the Bible unwarranted authority. If the Bible is the inerrant and infallible Word of God (and if the Bible is also to be interpreted literally, and is thus 'plain' and 'direct' about what it states), then those who interpret the Bible speak with the direct authority of God. Therefore, any doctrine or ideology that can be 'supported' by the Bible, can not be false. Even if the doctrine is refuted by empirical evidence or reason, it nevertheless has divine sanction, and therefore must be believed in. For example, the Bible has been used by Protestants and Roman Catholics to attack a belief in the existence of dinosaurs and a helio-centric solar system. It has been used to support slavery and appartheid, as well as racist attitudes towards Jews, Blacks, Hispanics, American Indians, and Asians. It has been used to forbid the owning of automobiles, television sets, the wearing of jewelry and make-up, dancing, and a whole host of even more ridiculous and absurd ideas.
Conclusion
The debate over Bible inerrancy is really rather simple. In my own argument against this doctrine, I come with no hidden agenda, no desire to use a rejection of inerrancy to support any other doctrines. Taken completely on its own, and contrasted with clear statements from the Bible, inerrancy simply fails to prove its truthfulness. Even more, I think it has been misused by many Christians, and therefore is not simply untrue, but dangerous.
Of course, now that we have seen that the Bible is a mixture of human and divine influence, and that it contains different view points and ideas, one cannot simply continue interpreting the Bible according to strict literalist interpretations. There is more to interpreting the Bible and determing the nature of the world than simply opening the Bible and reading at random verses out of Scripture.
Yes, it makes things more difficult. Yes, it does not allow us to find easy solutions to complex problems. It would be nice if things were as black and white as many fundamentalist and evangelical Christians would have us believe. But they are not. Life is complex, and Bible interpretaion and Christian interpretation of life are also both complex. That is reality. The sooner Christians realize that, the sooner we all begin to address the really important questions of life more honestly and more truthfully.
|
