Science in Christian Perspective
The Bible: Truth and/or Error?
Norman L. Geisler
Professor of Systematic Theology
Dallas
Theological Seminary,
Dallas, Texas
Director, Publications Division International Council on Biblical
Inerraney
From: JASA 32 (March1980): 55-58
The recent attention (June 1979) given to the topic of inerrancy by
the Journal
ASA is well deserved. The editor has graciously given me the opportunity to
interact with the articles.
1. A Response to Bube
First, let me comment on Richard Bube's article, "The Relation Between
Christian Truth and the Natural Sciences." His first two
points are noteworthy.
(I) Truth is "that which conforms with reality." This is
a correspondence
theory of truth. As such it stands in contrast to some noninerrantists (such
as Dan Fuller) who define truth in terms of intentionality. This allows them
the loophole of saying the Bible is wholly true (inasmuch as it accomplishes
its intended redemptive purposes) even though it may affirm some
factual errors.
(2) Further, Bube notes that "total truth is something we seldom-shat we
really never have in our possession." We are, of course,
finite. In biblical
terms, "now I know in part" (I Cor. 13:12). A
clarification, however,
is called for. What we know as Christians (through God's revelation) is the
whole truth. We simply do not know is whollr. Put another way, we
know God who
is infinite truth; we, however, do not have an infinite grasp (only a finite
one) of the infinite Truth. Let us, then, be cautious. There is a
needed epistemological
humility, but we should not neglect either the certaints' we do have of she
essential truth, nor the completeness of truth as we know it, nor
the infinity
of the truth we know (viz., God).
As to the "metaphorical" nature of knowledge, 1 believe
Bube overstates
the case. First, not all theological language is metaphorical (an implication
that can possibly be drawn from this section). Something must be
literally true
or else to speak of the nonliteral (i.e., metaphoric) would make no
sense. Even
Paul Tillich saw the logic of this and changed his earlier view
that all religious
language was symbolic. He later included at least one non-symbolic statement,
namely, God is Being or the Ground of Being.
Further, Bube states that all scientific descriptions are
"transient"
and "none represents the true picture of the universe." Besides the
implied scepticism in this statement, it is selfdefeating. It
implies that one
already knows what "the truth" about the universe is and,
hence, can
see that the present scientific descriptions fall short of this
knowledge.
Also it is not clear whether Bube believes that theological
"models"
really describe God (as he seems to imply that scientific models
really describe
the world), or only "reveal" some "inspired pictures" of
God (as he indeed says). Does the Bible tell us only how' to think about God
or does it tell us something about the way God really
Finally, has not Bube "punted to paradox" when he says
that the metaphors
"cannot [?] be simultaneously applied." The orthodox
Christian position
is that God's attributes are not mutually contradictory. It is the
more radical
"modern" existential thelogians who sec this kind of irrationality
within the nature of God.
It is worth noting that we may not assume so easily, as Robe does, that there
is no "inevitable strife between creation and evolution." At least
we may not assume this if truth is "that which conforms with
reality"
(as Bube defined it). For if scientific truth entails factual conformity with
spare-time reality, then surely the description in Genesis of the
special creation
of certain forms of life and especially of Adam and Eve from "dust"
and a "rib" would be false. It would seem that either one must hold
a different definition of "truth" or else give up the belief that
total evolution is compatible with the view of the factual
description of creation
in Genesis.
In the concluding paragraph there is an inexcusable (and false) caricature of
what Rube believes to be "many" inerrantists. I would challenge the
author to even find one contemporary writer on inerrancy who holds, as Rube
charges, that the Bible is "a book that tells the absolute
truth in every
conceivable category regardless of whether the authors of that hook
under divine
inspiration were using that categorr or not" [emphasis mine]. This is an
unfair, untrue and unscientific exaggeration.
Furthermore, the author misconstrues the normal inerrantist's claim
for "scientific
accuracy" in Scripture. lncrrantists do acknowledge the "transient
and changing" nature of scientific theories. That is precisely why most
inerrantists are not willing to allow present theories about
evolution to overthrow
clear teaching of the Scripture to the contrary. As a matter of
fart, what concerns
inerrantists is that many non-inerrantists too easily capitulate
the scientific
(i.e., factual, space-time) affirmations of Scripture to the current moods of
changing scientific opinion (which is all too often built on
naturalistic presuppositions).
One final point on Bube's article. He strongly objects to the
supposition "that
the scientific truth can be known and stated once and for all." Sorely
he does not mean that God cannot know it and state it in Scripture.
Of course,
no one is claiming that God stated all scientific troth in
Scripture. However,
inerrantists do wish to claim that sonic of it is there.
II. A Response to Pinnock
It is personally and professionally sad for me to witness my friend and former
colleague Clark Pinnoek turn his talented pen from a strong and
articulate exposition
of inerraney (in his earlier writings) to a militant attack on the proponents
of the doctrine he once so fervently defended. Unfortunately, as
his first paragraph
indicates, Pinnock has bought into a" peace-at-any-price" mentality
regarding inerraney. While we all desire true unity among brothers in Christ
I would ask thinking Christians to ponder these questions: can we have true
unity without having unity in the troth? And can we have the troth if we do
not stand firmly (even militantly at times) for the complete truthfulness of
Scripture? This is, after all, precisely what the inerrantists are concerned
about-the complete truthfulness of Scripture in whatever it affirms.
In the second paragraph Pinnock implies that divine authority and inerrancy
can be separated. How can we have a divinely inspired error
affirmed in Scripture?
Sorely it is nonsense to suggest that the God of all troth, who
cannot lie (Heb.
6:18), can utter an untruth. The only way out of this dilemma for
the errantist
is to deny either that the Scriptures are uttered or "breathed out"
by God (see II Tim. 3:16), or that God is unchangeably truthful
(see Titus 1:2).
Surely no evangelical- Pinnock included-should deny either of these.
A little later Pinnoek uses a curious phrase to describe the Warfield-Hodge
type inerrantist. He says they believe the
doctrine of "perfect errorlessness." Does this not mean that those
other inerrantists (such as Pinnoek himself claims to be) hold to
"imperfect errorlessness." Now I soberly ask, does this really make
sense? Do we not
really have here death by qualification the "qualification" of one
word ("errorless") by another ("imperfect")
which is really
the negation of the first?
I have observed Pinnock's pilgrimage away from the historic
position on inerrancy
(which he held himself) in a gradual but continual movement over the past few
years. I was none the less shocked to read what seems to be his
personal prophecy:
"Indeed, it may well be, that modified inerraney [his present view] will
prove to be a temporary way-station on the road . . . to a
noninerraney position
on biblical inspiration."
As to the alleged "serious discrepancies" in Chronicles, Pinnock is
no doubt aware of the able and scholarly explanation of these by
the late Barton
Payne. In this connection, it seems to me that somehow Pinnock and
modern opponents
of biblical inerrancy have allowed a subtle but definite shift in the burden
of proof issue. For if the Bible is accepted as God's Word, then the burden
of proof is not on us to demonstrate how all these problems are to
be reconciled.
We need only show that there is a possible answer.inerrantists, however, are
more likely to really try to find an answer because they believe it
is possible.
In other words, the non-inerraney position does not really provide
the motivation
for research because they believe either that reconciliation is impossible or
at least onfroitfol to attempt a solution.
For instance, in court one need not explain how he could not have committed
the alleged murder. He is to be presumed innocent until proven
guilty. If there
is a possible explanation of his whereabouts and no proof to the
contrary that
he did commit the murder, that is all that is necessary. To use a scientific
illustration, few scientists give up looking for an explanation of an anomaly
which stands in contradiction to present scientific theory. On the contrary,
most scientists assume (by faith) there is an explanation and keep on looking
to find it. I hey assume the unity of the natural world and are
often convinced,
against evidence which seems to be to the contrary, that there is
some possible
explanation. Why, then is it so incredible if the Christian, who
accepts (with
good reason, I might add), the unity of God's Word, rests in the possihility
of a reconciliation until there is more evidence?
Later in the article Pinnock touches on a fascinating point (which
he more clearly
states elsewhere). He speaks of the inspiration of the Bible in our hands (as
opposed to the autographs, as inerrantists hold). How, I would like to ask,
in the name of good logic can the Bible in our hands be inspired?
Everyone admits
there are copiests' errors in it. 'This means that the Bible
contains "inspired"
errors! This becomes all the more ludicrous when we remember that
"inspired"
(from It Tim. 3:16) means "breathed out" by God. Are the
"writings"
"breathed out" of God's mouth errors and all?!
At least Pinnock is honest in calling this a "new" view.
It is certainly
not the one held by Jesus who said "every jot and tittle" is true
(Matt. 5:1?, 18) and Scripture "cannot he broken" (John 10:35).
As one reads on in the article he has second thoughts as to how
"new"
Pinnock's view really is. When he speaks of the Bible's
"sufficiency"
(not really inerraney) in the "practical realm" and of
hearing God's
voice "in" Scripture (evangelicals hold that Scripture is
God's voice),
one wonders how different this "new" view is from the
"old"
neo-orthodox view.
Ill. A Response to Coleman
Coleman correctly observes that virtually everyone places some qualification
on inerraney. For example, almost all inerrantists limit it to the original
writings (not every copy). He correctly adds, "this
qualification has not
been overly abused." In addition, virtually everyone holds
that it is only
what the Bible affirms (not everything
it contains, such as Satan's lies) that is true (or inerrant).
However, Coleman
goes well beyond the evidence when he says this first qualification "is
nothing less than a Catch 22." I personally believe, however,
that Coleman
strikes a sensitive nerve in the common defense of inerrancy which retreats
behind the affirmations of Scripture into the alleged "intentions"
of the author. He correctly observes that this "involves the interpreter
in a game of mind reading." It seems to me that inerrantists should stay
in the inerrant text (not go "behind" it) and in the affirmations
of the text (not in the alleged intentions behind it). To be sure there are
intentions behind the affirmations, but we know what the intentions were only
by examining the affirmations; we du not (and cannot) know what the
affirmations
mean by an independent examination of the intentions.
On other matters, Coleman's comments are less than penetrating.
Sometimes they
seem clearly misdirected or misinformed. For example, he argues (a
priori) that
"if the Bible is infallible on all matters, . . . the Holy Spirit must
have inspired the authors with supernatural knowledge in such
matters as biology
and astronomy in the creation account(s) " While acknowledging
the legitimate
distinction between what is being "asserted" in a passage and what
is not, Coleman wrongly assumes that this reduces to the
"intention"
of the author. I would claim that one need not (and should not) retreat to an
author's alleged intentions behind the text but simply engage in a
good historieo-grammatical
exegesis of what the author asserted in the text. Inerrancy holds
that whatever
the author really asserted in the text as true, is true.
In a strange twist of logic Coleman argues that if Warfield and
Hodge were right
that biblical language is only "adequate" but not
"perfect,"
then the Bible cannot be inerrant in expressing the truth for all times. Why
not? loerrant only means "without error" in what is expressed. As
everyone knows, there are other (even better) ways of saying the sante truth.
The fact that one is a'i//erent (whether better or nut) does not
make the other
one wrong. Coleman seems to believe that because the Bible is
expressed in culturally
conditioned language, the truth expressed cannot be absolute. But
this confuses
the truth itself as absolute and the medium by which it is mediated
to us (namely,
language). "Seven plus three equals ten" is not a
culturally conditioned
truth even though she English words used to express it are
culturally conditioned.
While Coleman rightly criticizes some inerrantists for ton quickly giving up
the "literal" method of interpretation for an easy
solution to biblical
problems, it scents so me that Coleman too quickly gives up on the historieo-gram
matieal hermeneutic for a "spiritual" one. He raises
questions about
whether the author of Genesis I was "a poet first and an
astronomer last"
and about she biographical nature of the Gospels. It seems to me
this goes somewhat
beyond the limits of a legitimate hermeneutic. Indeed. Coleman falls pi ry to
his own criticism about retreating to the intentions of the author
when he insists
that one must ask whether his method is "in accord with the purpose of
the author" (emphasis mine). A few tines later he clearly
says, "infallibility
is limited only by the intention of the author.
(emphasis mine).
The interesting thing about Coleman's article, in contrast to
Bube's definition
of truth, is that the latter conceives of truth as
correspondence and the former in terms of intentionality. 1 personally believe
that the theory of truth is the heart of the debate between errantists and
inerrantists and that only on Bube's (correspondence) view of truth
can inerraney
be defended. (We have spoken to this point elsewhere in a paper
entitled: "What
is Truth: The Central but Neglected Issue in the Inerrancy
Debate," given
before the Evangelical 'theological Society, December, 1979, St.
Paul. Minnesota.)
IV A Response to Phillips
Space allotted permits only brief response to some of the central
points raised
by Phillips. The main point of his article is to show' that
contemporary inerrantists
are epistemological foundationalists who
have raised the doctrine of inerrancy from its earlier secondary order status
to a first order doctrine from which one can deduce indubitable truth. This
he feels is neither exegetically sound, philosophically correct nor
spiritually
fruitful.
It seems to me that Phillips is wrong on almost every point. Several things
should be pointed out in response.
First, he wrongly assumes that there is only one kind of
epistemological foundationalism
for inerranttsts a deductive kind where absolutes are deduced from
an absolute
principium in a kind of geometric way. There is also a reductive
foundationalism
which says that all valid knowledge must sooner or later be reducible to some
irreducible first principles of knowledge some absolute.
Second, Phillips confuses ontology (what is known) with epistemology (how we
know' it). He fails to see that the foundation -
the inerrant originals can be absolute even though we do not know them in an
absolute way.
Third, he confuses the formal and the material questions regarding the truth
of Scripture. He apparently does not understand that inerrantisss insist only
that whatever Scripture teaches is true (she formal principle), and
this leaves
open the question as to what the Bible is teaching (the material)
so hermeneutics.
Fourth, his argument is a "straw man" as applied to the main stream
of contemporary scholars who defend inerrancy. The International Council on
Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI) which met last October and produced the 19 article
"Chicago Statement" in no way committed themselves to a
foundasionalist
posture in their statement. Rather than using words like
"absolutely necessary"
the ICBI spoke of "vital" importance (Article XIX) of the doctrine
of inerrancy. Phillips is attacking a largely non-existent foe.
Fifth, Phillips seems not to appreciate the kind of foundational
argument that
inerrantists do sometimes use. They do not usually claim that if one accepts
even one error in the Bible then nothing else in the Bible can be accepted as
true. It is an obvious truth that a single mistake made by one's friend does
not forever shroud all their statements in uncertainty. What inerrantists do
often argue is that if one's friend claims to be the voice of God to mankind
and then makes one mistake, then they can no longer be trusted as the voice
of God to mankind, regardless of how much truth may be in their
statements.
Sixth, space does not permit refutation of Phillip's weak exegesis. But even
more glaring is his overlooking of many crucial passages which if
he had correctly
exegeted would have answered his problems (such as Matt, 5:17, 18; Mast. 22;
Gal. 3; Heb. 1,3; Ps. 19, etc.).
Seventh, one can easily see how Phillips misunderstands the
Reformers and post
Reformers by reading the excellent chapters by Preus, Gerstner and Krabbendam
in the forthcoming ICBI book Inerrancy Zondcrvan, 1980, edited by N.L.
Geisler).
Eighth, Phillips wrongly assumes that one must have an infallible
interpretation
in order to have an infallible principium of Scripture. But why? Suppose the
U.S. Constitution were the absolute political truth for mankind. Despite the
fact that the Supreme Court is fallible in interpreting is, it
would be a whole
lot better to live in the United States than under a totalitarian
constitution
which did not guarantee our freedoms, even it this constitution
were infallibly
interpreted by someone.
Finally, Phillips seems to assume, contrary to Bube, an incorrect
intentionalist's
theory of truth. He speaks of the "primary intent and purpose
of Scripture"
in terms of "redemption." If it is only salvitic or moral
intentions
which are the primary focus of the truth of Scripture, then one
need not concern
himself with whatever( minor?) historical or scientific affirmations there
are in Scripture that may prove to be false. His faith, built unshakable as
it is on only the
"redemptive" truth of Scripture, is in the final analysis
really unfalsifiahle.
At least an inerrantist's position is "red-blooded" enough to claim
something that is subject to scientific and historical
falsification. The non-inerrantists'
and "modified" (7) inerrantists' view is. in the final
analysis, unfalsifiable.