|
|
These are my notes on:
The Debate about the Bible,
Inerrancy vs. Infallibility, by Stephen T. Davis. 1977. Philadelphia, Pa;
Westminster Press. Bibliography, endnotes. ISBN 0-664-24119.0.
John W. Burgeson, Feb 2003
Opening quotation:
“Do you believe the
Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, the only
infallible rule of faith and practice?” Book of Common Worship (1946)
The book has 7 chapters.
1. Inerrancy
2. The Biblical argument
3. The epistemological argument
4. The slippery slope argument
5. The case against inerrancy
6. Infallibility
7. Implications
The Forward by Clark
Pinnock, who describes himself as
p. 11 “committed to the
position of Biblical inerrancy. “
p. 13 Pinnock likes the words of the Lausanne
Covenant, “inerrant in all that it affirms.”
p. 15. Davis claims the
Bible is NOT inerrant. He considers himself an evangelical. He affirms the
quotation that begins these notes.
p. 16. Definition. To claim
the Bible is inerrant is to claim that it contains no errors at all – none in
history, geography, botany, astronomy, sociology, psychiatry, economics,
geology, logic, mathematics, or in any area whatsoever.
p.16. The word “infallible”
is used in the 1647 creed, which seems to limit the truth of scripture to “faith
and life.” See 6.001-6.010 in the PCUSA Book of Confessions. “Inerrant” is a
technical term.
p. 17. Is the claim that
the Bible is inerrant true? That is the focus of this book.
p. 17. Three arguments for
inerrancy:
1. The Bible claims it. The
Biblical argument.
2. If it is not inerrant, we
have no sure word from God. The epistemological argument.
3.. Anyone who denies
inerrancy will end up denying other evangelical doctrines. The slippery
slope argument.
p. 19. Davis writes to
counteract the recent (1970s) strong statements by Francis Schaeffer and Harold
Lindsell which argue for inerrancy as a necessary doctrine.
p. 20. Davis reaffirms his
high view of the Bible, as inspired, authoritative, trustworthy and infallible.
He decries the “all or nothing” arguments of many inerrancy defenders as being
divisive.
p. 23.
Definition 1. The Bible is inerrant
if and only if it makes no false or misleading statements on any topic
whatsoever.
Definition 2. The Bible is infallible
if and only if it makes no false or misleading statements on any matter of
faith and practice.
p. 24. there are two sorts
of possible errors.
1. Those which make false or misleading factual claims.
2. Those which occur where two accounts of the same event
or fact are inconsistent
(Note – there is at least
one other type of possible error – logical. – jwb)
Most defenders of inerrancy
qualify their claims in as many as five ways:
1. Grammatical and form errors do not count.
2. Inerrancy refers only to the original manuscripts
(Note that some defenders
refer to the 1611 KJV and do not use #2 – jwb)
3. The author’s intended meaning must be shown to be
false or misleading to be an actual falsification of the inerrancy claim. For
example, when Jesus referred to the mustard seed in Matt 13 as “the smallest of
all seeds, “ that was not the point he was making, and though the mustard seed
is by no means the smallest, there is no error.
4. Error type #2 must be shown by demonstration that the
two accounts are incapable of harmonization. (Listed by Warfield/Hodge)
(This can lead to the “death
of 1000 cuts,” as “ad hocs” are piled up. – jwb)
5. Error type #2 must be indisputably false or
contradictory – it cannot be of a type that may later be resolved. (Listed by
Warfield/Hodge).
p. 27. The debate seems to
become unreal, says Davis. When we analyze all the above, a purported error
will actually falsify the claim of inerrancy if and only if:
1. It concerns a Biblical claim, not just grammar.
2. It occurs in the original text (which is unavailable –
jwb)
3. It concerns the main point being made
4. Either it is incapable of harmonization, or
5. It is indisputably false and not a possibly resolvable
difficulty.
p. 28. Davis notes that if
all those qualifications are accepted, the inerrancy doctrine becomes
unfalsifiable. (Note that logical errors are still not mentioned, and so I
disagree with the above -- jwb)
Any imaginable purported
error can be excluded on conditions 2 or 5.
Historical and geographical
errors can be excluded on condition 3.
(Davis also notes that
internal inconsistencies in two Biblical texts can be excluded on condition 4,
but I don’t agree with him here. – jwb)
P 29. Davis argues that
inerrancy is not even relevant to much of the Bible.
P 30. Discussion of Lindsell’s THE BATTLE FOR THE
BIBLE, which defends inerrancy. Lindsell says, “Whatever it communicates is to
be trusted and can be relied upon as being true.” Lindsell makes four major
arguments:
1. The Bible teaches that it
is inspired, and that it cannot be inspired unless inerrant.
2. The historical argument.
Inerrancy has been held by the church throughout the centuries
3. The epistemological
argument
4. the slippery slope argument
Davis will address #1, #3
and #4 later. He argues that #2 is “highly questionable” and is based on
selective quotations from past theologians (Luther & Calvin among them).
Lindsell also argues that
numerical discrepancies, for instance 23,000 in Num 25:9 and 24,000 in I Cor
10:8 are reconcilable “to the standards of accuracy of the time.” Davis does
not accept this. (note – the differences in the time frame possibly addressed
by the two passages is a plausible ad hoc explanation, although weak. – jwb).
p. 35. Lindsell goes to
extremes in handling the problem of Peter’s denials. Davis argues that either
Mark, or Matthew/Luke/John are mistaken – they cannot be both correct and so
the Bible is not inerrant. Lindsell reconciles them, however, by claiming that
Peter denied Jesus not three, but SIX times. Davis points out Lindsell’s
tortured and illogical reasoning surrounding his claim. (I have read Lindsell’s
book – it is quite unpersuasive on this point – to give Lindsell credit he does
not argue that other explanations are impossible. -- jwb)
p. 38. Fuller’s defense of
inerrancy is more reasoned, says Davis. Purported errors are, he says, relative
to intention. By these criteria, the Bible IS inerrant. Fuller notes that there
are many non-revelational matters in scripture, and here he agrees that the
Bible is fallible. Fuller takes an inductive, rather than a deductive approach
to scripture. The deductivist (such as
Lindsell) begins with an a priori “full inerrancy” presupposition and then
forces the Biblical text to conform to it. The inductivist does not accept that
a priori presupposition. Fuller sees Biblical error – e.g. the mustard seed –
to simply be accommodation to the knowledge of the times. Inerrancy, properly
understood, REQUIRES the Holy Spirit leave unchanged nonrevelational, culturally
conditioned statements that are technically in error. (this makes sense to me –
jwb)
P. 43. Davis cites Fuller’s
treatment of the problem of Gen 11:26 to 12:4 vs. Acts 7:1-4. The Gen text says
Terah lived for many years after Abe’s departure from Haran. Stephen’s speech
in Acts clearly says Abe left Haran only after Terah died. Fuller says that
when Stephen spoke, the people believed the latter. (So, perhaps, did Stephen
-- jwb) (note – I find Fuller’s argument to be an “ad hoc,” and, therefore,
weak. Why would Stephen have a different view? There does not seem to be
historical evidence which supports this.
– jwb).
P 44. Davis criticizes
Fuller for wanting to retain the word “inerrant.” Fuller says “a communication
can be in error only if it fails to live up to the intentions of its author.”
Davis notes that a communication can do that perfectly – and still be in error.
Thus, while Fuller can claim “inerrancy” (his definition) for the Bible, he
cannot claim it is errorless.
p. 45. Davis discusses the accommodation
theory. That theory does explain why some errors were made, but it does not
seem to DEMAND that errors be made. Why could not accommodation errors been
avoided? The justification of accommodation error works only if in each case
there was available to the Biblical writer no equally good (and inerrant) way
to make the point. This seems dubious. Surely Jesus could have made the mustard
seed argument just as well by alluding to it as simply a very small seed.
Chapter 2. The Biblical
argument: 1. The Bible claims to be inerrant
2. Whatever the Bible claims is true
3. Therefore, the Bible is inerrant
p. 49. This is the way it is
usually stated; the argument is logically invalid, since #2 is just a different
way of expressing #3. The argument is circular. It has value only for those who
want to believe #3.
p. 50. Everett F. Harrison
argues that the Bible, itself, says nothing precise about inerrancy. It is a
conclusion, not a teaching. Davis agrees.
p. 52. The Bible contains
little systematic theology or apologetics. It does testify to its own
inspiration. Davis cites II Tim 3:15-16 and II Peter 1:20-21. (Note that he
does not speak of these passages having been written before the canon was
complete – jwb)
p. 55. It does speak to its
own authority. (I Peter 1:25, ps 119:89, John 10:35, etc.)
p. 58. It does speak to its
own reliability or trustworthiness.
p. 60. The Bible containing
an error is not to be equated with God lying.
p. 61. Lindsell’s argument.
1. God inspired the scriptures
2. “Inspired” = “God got written what He wanted written”
3. God cannot lie. (“Will not” would seem to be a better
choice of words – jwb)
4. Therefore, the Bible cannot lie
5. Therefore, inerrancy.
p. 63. Lindsell’s argument
is, again, deductive. Deduction is dangerous. Quenstedt deduced that Luke wrote
by direct dictation of the Holy Spirit of the very words he should use. Beza
was condemned by the faculty of Wittenberg for saying that the NT Greek
contained barbarisms and solecisms. Gerhard argued that the Hebrew vowel points
were inspired. Owen wrote that the Holy Spirit had kept the Biblical texts pure
throughout all textual transmission. (Peter Ruckman argues today (in 2003) that
the KJV writers were inspired to – finally – get it right. – jwb)
p. 64. Davis does NOT argue,
a priori, that the Holy Spirit COULD NOT HAVE produced an inerrant Bible – but
he does deny the reasonableness of the claim that he DID do so.
p. 64. An interesting
argument. Paul, in Rom 4:3, quotes the Septuagint of Gen 15:6 with the preface
“what does the scripture say?” Paul apparently regarded the Septuagint as
scripture, and he regarded all scripture as inspired. Thus, it must follow, if
the inerrancy arguments are correct, that the Septuagint is also inerrant. But
it is, clearly, not, so the argument fails.
Chapter 3. The
epistemological argument
p. 66. The argument comes in
many forms:
If
the Bible is errant
We
have no sure word from God
For
if it errs at one place
It
may err at any place
And
so cannot be relied upon
If
the Bible is errant
It
cannot be authoritative
If
the Bible is errant
We
have no sure source in theology
Each
person must find his own extra-Biblical criterion
This
criterion must be, in effect, superior to the Bible
This
is an unchristian notion
Inerrancy
is the only sure guarantee that other Christian beliefs are true.
If
the Bible is errant, we have no such sure guarantee.
Davis makes a general
response to all four at once.
p. 68. Davis lists four
propositions:
1. The Bible is inerrant
2. We are lost and need redemption
3. Christ rose bodily from the dead
4. Persons need to commit their lives in faith to Christ.
Can one believe 2, 3 and 4
w/o believing 1? Clearly, yes.
Can one KNOW 2, 3 and 4 w/o
knowing 1? Descartes argued that “knowing” was possible if, and only if, that
proposition was immune to any conceivable doubt. Davis cannot claim the word
“know” in this sense, only “believe.” But, if the word “know” means this – I
know a proposition if and only if I believe it on the basis of good reasons,
then Davis does claim the word “know.”
p. 70. “I do not believe we
have any “sure guarantee” that ANY Christian doctrine is true – at least not a
Cartesian sort of “sure guarantee.” We do have evidence, and I am a Christian
because I believe that the available evidence, both subjective and objective,
supports Christian beliefs. But more than this we do not have.”
p. 71. What does “believing
something as an act of will” really mean?
Is it a coherent concept? (I think not; I cannot conceive of forcing myself
to believe, in my inner being, something I do not believe. I have no problem
with taking a middle course – neither believing nor unbelieving – on many
matters. – jwb)
p. 72. No Christian, Davis
observes, who holds that the Bible is errant, can also hold that the Bible
alone is his or her authority for faith and
practice. He must also hold to the authority of his or her own mind –
ability to reason. However, Davis argues, the defender of inerrancy is in the
same position. There is NO ONE for whom the Bible ALONE is the authority of
Christian faith and practice.
Reason is not an infallible
guide to truth. But that does not mean I must distrust it, in the sense of
embracing apparently irrational propositions or rejecting apparently rational
ones.
P/ 74. Even for Lindsell and
Schaefer, reason is a necessary criterion.
p. 75. Everything in the
Bible is authoritative and normative for the Christian until he comes across a
passage which for good reasons he cannot accept. (note – this may be
“dangerous.” But I think it is necessary. For instance – God’s ordering the
slaughter of infants in I Sam 15. – jwb)
p. 77. Certain Cartesian
knowledge is nowhere to be had outside of logic and mathematics.
p. 78. So far, Davis has
been defending his own position. Now he will argue against inerrancy. First,
no contemporary defender claims that presently existing Bibles are inerrant
(note – Ruckman and his like do exactly that – jwb). Present translations do contain errors, therefore God did not
keep errors from being made. Therefore, He must think it not a vital issue. Second,
it does not seem clear why we need an inerrant Bible. The work of the church
goes on, people come to faith on the basis of an errant Bible, and therefore
the issue appears unimportant.
p. 83. The argument is the
usual one, belief in A is crucial because to reject it leads one also to doubt
B, C and D, and that leads to no faith at all.
p. 90. Davis analyzes
several versions of this; finds them all lacking. The doctrine that states,
“the Bible is inerrant” is, by itself, even if true, not crucial to
Christianity. We are not saved by the correctness of our theology (or our
belief in any Christian doctrine. We are saved by our TRUST in Christ. – jwb).
Davis argues that the doctrinal belief argument itself is insulting, divisive
and counterproductive. (note – yet we must accept it as coming in good faith
from our fellow Christians who think differently – jwb).
Chapter 5. The Case
Against Inerrancy.
p. 94. Davis gives four
arguments why the claim of inerrancy is untrue.
1. The phenomena of
scripture do not support it
2. The device of appealing
to the writers’ intentions raises more questions than it solves.
3. It emphasizes wrong
tasks, defending minutia, not proclaiming the Bible’s message
4. It appears to make all
Christianity hang on the successful defense of the claim.
Davis expounds on each of
these arguments in turn.
p. 95. 1. Phenomenological
difficulties
Davis sees only a few
problems in scripture so thorny that he must call them errors. He treats six of
these and mentions in passing two more. The two he passes over are the Biblical
claim that hares are ruminants (Lev 11:6) and how to reconcile the belief of
some writers in a three-story universe (Phil 2:10). He also mentions the
reconciliation of divergent parallel accounts or statistics and the problem of
apparently inaccurate chronologies, but does not discuss these further. He
skips over entirely the logical error in Matthew’s genealogy.
a. The problem of the
Israelite conquest. Scripture makes four things perfectly clear:
1. God gave Canaan to the Israelites; it was his will
they conquer it.
2. The Israelites were successful because God fought for
them.
3. It was God’s will that the Israelites kill every
single Canaanite, including children.
4. It was God’s doing to harden the hearts of the
Canaanites against making peace.
Davis believes (and I agree
– jwb) that killing innocent people is a moral wrong. He does not believe it
was God’s will that every Canaanite, man, woman and child, be slaughtered.
Since scripture claims this, he concludes that the Biblical writers in this
case were mistaken. The slaughter of innocent people violates the moral
standards of the Bible itself – see Gen 9:6, Ex 20:13, Luke 18:20, Rom 13:9,
etc. (Note a somewhat similar problem
in I Sam 15. – jwb)
b. David’s numbering of the
people. II Sam 24:1-2 says God told him to do it. I Chron 21:1-2 says Satan was
the instigator. The numbers are different too. Davis investigates some
reasoning by the inerrantists to explain these passages and finds those
explanations wanting.
c. The mustard seed problem.
Davis discusses Lindsell’s explanation of this and finds it too improbable to
consider, even as an “ad hoc.”
d. Matthew’s quotation of
Jeremiah in Matthew 27:9-10. The quotation is not found in Jeremiah; it is
found (loosely) in Zech 11:12-13. An “ad hoc” defense can be made, but it is
terribly weak.
e. The Enoch problem. In
Jude 14-15 the writer implies he is quoting the patriarch, but the words
actually come from the pseudepigraphal Book of Enoch, written in the first
century B.C.
f. The staff problem. Mark
6:8 refers to taking a staff; Matthew 10:9-10 & Luke 9:3 refer to not
taking a staff. (note – the ad hoc defense on this one is certainly possible,
even though still unlikely – jwb).
(Note. These are interesting examples. I would
have included the logical (or mathematical) error in Matthew’s genealogy of
Jesus – 41 generations mentioned but they are spoken of as 14 + 14 + 14 which
is 42 generations. There are others … . – jwb)
2. the Notion of intent
p. 107 what was the INTENT
of Jesus when he referred to the mustard seed? Surely he meant to give a good
and true illustration of his main point. so the intent argument fails here, as
it does elsewhere.
3. Busy at the wrong tasks.
how should Christians spend
their time? it surely must not be in arguing inconsequential doctrine. (note –
ALICE in WONDERLAND is a book which one cannot prove errant. Is it, therefore,
inerrant? And if it is, so what? – jwb)
4. A Defensive Doctrine
The bishops all have sworn
to shed their blood
To prove its true the hare
chews the cud.
Oh bishops, doctors,
divines, beware –
Weak is the faith that hangs
on a hare.
chapter 6. infallibility
1. the Bible is the Word of
God
2. It is also the words of
human beings.
3. it is infallible, but not
inerrant.
4. the Bible ought to be
authoritative for every Christian until he finds a passage which, after careful
study and for good reasons he cannot accept. reason has a critical role to play
in all beliefs. he says that the notion of “good reason” is both imprecise and
flexible. but it cannot be rejected on that account. Even by the inerrantist.
5. the historical-critical
study of the Bible is a “good thing.”
6. “Infallible” means that
scripture never misleads us on matters that are crucially relevant to the
faith. this is not my a priori position, I have come to it as a result of study
and reflection. it is simply a good term to describe the Bible.
Davis does not like the term
“limited inerrancy.”
p. 123. Davis suggests that
perhaps Jesus shared with the people of his day some false beliefs. he does not
(unfortunately) elaborate on this. (note – if I were to time travel to – say –
25 A.D. and engage Jesus in a discussion of quantum mechanics, is it likely he
would know what I was talking about? I think not. – jwb).
Chapter 7. implications
There are two kinds of
inerrantists:
1. divisive
2. non-divisive
Davis castigates the first
kind. they will split the church. a readiness to split from other Christians at
the drop of a hat is an unchristian attitude.
p. 138. Davis discusses
“liberal Christians.” (note – I think he does not understand them well at all –
jwb)
GREAT BOOK! – recommended
reading.
John Burgeson, March 1, 2003
Home page www.burgy.50megs.com
Email BurgyTwo@Juno.com