Science in Christian Perspective
Letter to the Editor
Inerrancy Is/is Not The Watershed of Evangelicalism: None Of The Above
Richard H. Bube
Department of Materials Science and Engineering
Stanford University
Stanford, California 94305
From: JASA 29
(March 1977):
46-47
In The Battle for the Bible Harold Lindsell joins Francis Schaeffer in
No Final
Conflict in arguing that the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy is the watershed of
evangelical Christianity, upon which all else ultimately stands or
falls. If the
term used in place of "inerrancy" were "trustworthiness,"
"authority," "reliability" or the like, there
would be little
question about the cogency of this claim. But the very term
"inerrancy"
has lost its meaning - or had its meaning sufficiently obscured - that to carry
into battle a banner with only this word held high can do little but
scatter the
people of God as they vainly seek to combat an elusive foe. If I am
asked to answer
whether (a) inerrancy is the watershed of evangelicalism, or (b) inerrancy is
not, I can only reply that the answer must be, "None of the
above."
On p. 129 of The Battle for the Bible Dr. Lindsell describes me as
"an articulate
spokesman in support of biblical errancy." This statement is
itself an admirable
example of the difficulty in using the terms "inerrancy"
and "errancy."
For Dr. Lindsell's statement is certainly true in terms of his understanding of
''inerrancy,'' just as it is certainly false in terms of ,'nine. A
survey of several
brief quotations from writings that have developed the theme according to the
perspective I presently defend indicate a consistent position for
almost 20 years.
A consideration of the total revelation of God . . . leads to the
conclusion that
the Scriptures are indeed verbally inspired, inerrant, and infallible
as a revelation
of God by Himself to men ... This by no means implies that there are
"errors"
of fact in the Bible, but rather that the criteria for judging fact are often
either uncertain or irrelevant to the revelational purpose of the
Bible. ("A
Perspective on Biblical Inerrancy, "Journal ASA 15, 86(1963))
The discovery of errors in the Bible is the result of asking the
wrong questions
to ascertain revelational content . . . . If, on the other hand, one is guided
by the Biblical criteria, all of the supposed Biblical errors and
contradictions
are resolvable problems. (The Encounter Between Christianity and Science, p. 98(1971))
It is possible to affirm that on the basis of God's faithfulness in
the Scriptures,
there is no error in the Bible when it is properly interpreted.
("Inerraney,
Revelation and evolution," Journal ASA 23,81(1972))
The more important question is: does the Bible set forth a true
description of reality? Christian faith presents a clear
affirmation, "Yes, that is exactly what the Bible does." (The
Human Quest, p. 117 (1972) )
In view of my clear and consistent denial of the existence of errors
in the Bible,
how then does Dr. Lindsell come to the conclusion that I am a "supporter
of biblical errancy?" Such a conclusion is possible only because the term
"inerrancy" means something quite different to Dr. Lindsell
and to me.
This difference can be illustrated most clearly by comparing two
quotations.
The Bible is not a textbook on chemistry, astronomy, philosophy, or medicine.
But when it speaks on matters having to do with these or any other
subjects, the
Bible does not lie to us. It does not contain error of any kind. (The
Battle for
the Bible, p. 18)
The only criterion which is consistent with the Bible's own testimony is that
which establishes that an error exists in the Scripture only if it can be shown
that the revelation of Scripture fails to achieve the purpose for which it is
given. ("lInerrancy, Revelation and Evolution," Journal ASA
24, 81(1972))
Again we have a semantic conflict. I interpret these statements as indicating
that Dr. Lindsell defends "arbitrary inerraney" whereas I am defending
"revelational inerrancy." I call the former position "arbitrary
inerraney" because it demands that the Bible be judged as free from error
regardless of what kind of arbitrary criterion is used to judge by,
even one independent
of the Biblical purpose of revelation; I call the latter position
"revelational
inerrancy" because in the process of communication through
historical documents,
only the ability to convey the intended message can be the ultimate criterion
of reliability. On the other hand, Dr. Lindsell considers the former
to be "total"
or "biblical inerraney," the only form consistent with the integrity
of an inspired Scripture, and he considers the tatter to be a
"partial"
or "limited inerrancy" because it is not as inclusive as
his own definition.
In presenting three possible views of the Bible, Dr. Lindsell argues (pp. 18,
19) that either (a) the Bible is not at all trustworthy, (b) the
Bible is truthful
in all its parts (arbitrarily inerrant, using my definition), or (c) the Bible
contains some truth and some error. But his conception of inerrancy forces him
to miss a fourth view of the Bible, the one which I would defend: the Bible is
totally trustworthy in presenting to us the revelation of God, but if
it is regarded
as arbitrarily inerrant, some of the questions that we may put to it may result
in our concluding there is error present - error according to the perspective
of arbitrary inerrancy, but not error according to the perspective of
revelational
inerrancy, and not, therefore, actual error in the Bible.
Others have and will argue the case against "arbitrary
inerrancy" more
cogently than 1, both from a historical and a theological position,
but it seems
to me essential to emphasize two aspects of such a case.
1. The most ardent advocate of "arbitrary inerrancy"
applies his principle
only with great care, falling back time and again on the principles
of "revelational
inerrancy" to argue that this was not really an error, after all, because
the purpose of the authors and of the Holy Spirit were better served
by the form
taken. Thus differences between descriptions of the same event in
different biblical
accounts are interpreted as being consistent with the purpose of the
authors not
being to provide verbatim accounts. Different chronological ordering of events
in different accounts is interpreted as being consistent with the
purpose of the
authors not being to provide chronological ordering. The difference between New
Testament quotations of Old Testament passages and the Old Testament passages
themselves is interpreted as being consistent with the overall purpose of the
New Testament writers. Direct misstatements of fact, as in Matthew's three sets
of 14 generations in the genealogy of Jesus (whereas there were five
other generations
that Matthew omits) are interpreted as being consistent with the
author's purpose
in giving this genealogy. So many exceptions are routinely cited by
the advocates
of "arbitrary inerrancy" in order to defend it, that its
defense seems
arbitrary indeed. More
importantly, its defense seems not at all consistent with the Bible's
own testimony
of the kind of book that it is.
2. On p. 19 of The Battle for the Bible Dr. Lindsell suggests that
the "errors"
that exist in the Bible according to his interpretation of the view
that departs
from that of "arbitrary" total inerrancy, can be assumed to
have arisen
"incidentally and accidentally, not intentionally." But
such "errors"
as Dr. Lindsell would find on the principle of "arbitrary inerrancy"
are not present in the Bible because of some slip of the mind or pen; they are
present of necessity. Any book that seeks to communicate to men of
many different
ages and cultures, many different worldviews and civilizations, must be written
in a form that is meaningful to those for whom it is immediately
intended without
obscuring its meaningfulness for those who are to follow after. Nowhere is this
more clear than in the discussion of whether or not the Bible is scientifically
true. By insisting that the Bible must be scientifically true, Dr. Lindsell is
insisting upon an impossibility - for the simple reason that what is
scientifically
true is defined by each generation for itself. To suppose that our
present scientific
views are ''true" and that previous ones were "false"
is to misunderstand
the necessary transient nature of ''scientific truth.'' Revelation,
given as communication
as is the Bible, must be given in terms of the ''scientific truth" of the
people for whom it was written. It is the task of inspiration to
insure that this
process will not obscure the meaning of the revelation for future generations;
the Bible is an awe-inspiring evidence of how this can be accomplished. It must
remain, however, that the revelation of God's Creation can be expressed equally
truthfully in terms of the three-layered universe, the Ptolemaic universe, the
Newtonian universe, or the Einsteinian universe. The model chosen
will be determined
by the date the revelation is given; the message is timeless and applicable to
all generations. If it is demanded that the Bible speak with an ultimately true
cosmology - which one shall we demand? We know that tomorrow's will differ from
today's. To suppose that "error" and "truth" can be handled
in these matters in terms of naive intuition or common sense, is to
misunderstand
the nature of these terms as they must apply to scientific questions
in a historical
continuity.
It is true that Dr. Lindsell senses this argument and on p. 190, in connection
with his discussion of Beegle's writings, he seeks to reply. His
reply is essentially
that if God wanted to convey absolute scientific truth, He could, because God
is sovereign. This reply does not recognize that there are indeed things that
God cannot do. God cannot act contrary to His character, He cannot lift a stone
heavier than He can lift, He cannot make the sum of two and two be five. And He
cannot take a relative thing like
"scientific truth" and absolutize it in revelatory communication. If
the law of contradiction is not applicable in describing God and His
activities,
then we have come a long way indeed from biblical theology.
Because of the confusions discussed above, the term "inerrancy" has
outlived its usefulness. The basic authority and reliability of the Scriptures
as God's revelation continue to be watersheds of evangelical Christianity. But
it is not a shibboleth about "inerrancy'' that truly challenges
the evangelical
community today - it is not there that the watershed is to be found.
The watershed,
as in every other day, is still to be found in whether Christians are obedient
to the Lord they serve.