Biblical inerrancy

[Vlad!]

I'm just saying it's not necessarily a belief that can be arrived at by pure logical reasoning, which is why I think it's silly to try to go that route by using Paul to corroborate himself.

That was something I (and probably most Christians) had to come to terms with...that if every piece of our doctrine could be logically derived and empirically proven, there would be no room for faith. It makes arguing with non-Christians harder, but it also makes me look forward to the day when my faith will be sight and I won't need faith anymore because it's all revealed to me.

[murlough23]

That was something I (and probably most Christians) had to come to terms with...that if every piece of our doctrine could be logically derived and empirically proven, there would be no room for faith.

You're assuming most Christians have come to terms with it. Honestly I don't know if a lot of 'em have really thought through the difference between faith and empirical proof. On some gut level, if you really pressed 'em, they'd probably eventually be forced to admit that they take the axioms of Christianity on faith. And that's not a bad thing. I'm just saying, if you take stuff on faith, own up to it, and realize this point when you try to present your case to non-Christians and wonder why you can't win them over on pure logic alone.

It makes arguing with non-Christians harder, but it also makes me look forward to the day when my faith will be sight and I won't need faith anymore because it's all revealed to me.

In my experience, those "arguments" tend to get me nowhere because it comes down to me not being able to logically prove what I say I believe. I think it's fine to apply logic to work out the implications of the things you take on faith - in other words, I take it on faith that the Bible is God's Word, so here's how I've learned to live my life from (hopefully) careful study of it. But I honestly don't expect anyone to be compelled based on the cold hard facts as I see them, if I haven't built a relationship with that person that allows them to see how my faith has actually changed my life and the way I treat others. (But aw man, that's way too hard. I'd rather just toss out a cheesy tract and keep walking!)

[spacebrat311]

Something I recently wrote that I think would be relevant to this discussion:

"All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work." 2 Timothy 3:16

While there are numerous fallacies in assuming that this passage is designed to describe the whole of what we would now refer to as a unified book "The Bible," I do hold that each of these attributes does apply to the text.

What has struck me recently is the phrase "breathed out by God" or God-breathed. It would seem that the usefulness of scripture for these other listed purposes hinges on this. This has been translated in many places as simply "inspired by God," but I'm realizing that there may be some important connective imagery that this translation loses.

I am reminded of the Jewish concept of 'nephesh', what we often re-interpret as a soul. To simplify things down for those unfamiliar with the concept, while a soul represents being and personhood and is understood to reside within a sort of "shell" of flesh, the concept of nephesh does not place personhood on some kind of separated ethereal soul, but affirms that life is indeed flesh, physical, and embodied. The nephesh is God's breath of life. The word itself implies 'breath' or 'throat' in Hebrew. We see this perhaps most explicity in the Bible in the creation story, as God breathes life into the dust that becomes Adam, but the assumption of nephesh is present throughout ancient Jewish writings, with the books that comprise the Old Testament being no exception. The dust from which we are composed is imbued with this breath of life to compose "being." The dust is not a person without nephesh, but nor is it possible to conceive nephesh as a "being" in any meaningful sense separate from the body.

What if God breathes into the scriptures in the same way? We follow a God who operates by redeeming our failure into His victory. He is too big to be built into a logical construct. Perhaps, then, a Bible as dictated text, consistently and logically explaining God would make absolutely no sense as a way to relate to this God. I submit that perhaps the only way that such a God can be related to is in dialogue, in narrative, in poetry, in paradox. As such, the work of the Bible must be human, and therefore broken in some sense. Some will say that I am implying that perhaps the Bible is something lesser that an "inerrant" work. But I believe that in fact an "inerrant" work could have nothing to do with us, and therefore nothing to say to us. An objective text would be an inhuman text, and as Kierkegaard would say, an objective text can only be objective insofar as it has nothing to say to us of any concern. So perhaps the Bible can be seen as a microcosm of the redemptive work of God in the world. It would seem to me that any text that could serve as a witness to the Word of God, His revelation of Himself (as given flesh in the person of Jesus), would have to be such a microcosm by necessity. Perhaps then, God breathes life into the dust of human written words, coming alongside them and giving them the gift of life. Perhaps the temptation to limit the Bible to the place of a simply human, failed text and the temptation to lift it to the place of the second person of the Trinity both deny what God has done in choosing to relate to us through this text. Perhaps the Bible is exactly what we need.

[spacebrat311]

I posted this as a facebook note as well, and a friend responded thusly:

I would add that the "breath" of God that brings life and "inspires" the text of the Bible is fairly clearly God's Spirit. It is only through the filling of the Spirit and our interactions with God's Spirit that we can discover the human image of God (Jesus) within the text; it is only the Holy Spirit that makes the text of the Bible more than a dead letter and a way to encounter the living Word.
 "The Word is not the only necessary determination of the place of theology, but it is undoubtedly the first. theology itself is a word, a human response; yet what makes it theology is not its own word or response but the Word which is hears and to which it responds. Theology stands and falls with the Word of God, for the Word of God precedes all theological words by creating, arousing, and challenging them. Should theology wish to be more or less or anything other than action in response to that Word, its thinking and speaking would be empty, meaningless, and futile." (Barth, Ev Theo: Word)

[Rough Draft]

I'm glad your friend brought up Barth's comment about the Holy Spirit validating Scripture, because it highlights a minor discrepancy in the conversation 'til now that I've puzzled over.

In the defense of his 'Bible as Word' concept, Josh drew on Calvin as one of his sources:

Spacebrat: I really have zero idea where you're getting this Bible as Word idea... Point me to some sources?

Josh: ... Institutes of the Christian Religion, Chapter... oh, let's go with VII, though you could really pick just about any of 'em.

Ostensibly, Josh has been arguing for Scriptural inerrancy. But Calvin puts forth a relationship between Spirit and Scripture remarkably similar to Barth's, which would seem to rely on a not-so-inerrant conceptuality. Since Barth is said to be a modern exponent of Calvin, I'm also guessing that Barth got his idea from old John.

For by a kind of mutual bond the Lord has joined together the certainty of his Word and of his Spirit so that the perfect religion of the Word may abide in our minds when the Spirit, who causes us to contemplate God's face, shines; and that we in turn may embrace the Spirit with no fear of being deceived when we recognize him in his own image, namely, in the Word. ...

What say these fanatics, swollen with pride, who consider this the one excellent illumination when, carelessly forsaking and bidding farewell to God's Word, they, no less confidently than boldly, seize upon whatever they may have conceived while snoring?

Got to love Calvin's sass.

I wouldn't presume to know the Institutes better than anyone who's actually read them through; I only got through the beginning of the first book. Yet, that passage seems pretty explicit to me. Can someone resolve this confusion for me? Did Calvin just contradict himself? Is something being taken out of context?

[spacebrat311]

Barth isn't exactly a Calvinist.

Of course neither, really, was Calvin.

[Aaron]

Most of the Calvinists I know in real life are the worst at taking things out of context.  Sadly, they ruin it for the ones who are really passionate about what they believe and can truly back up their beliefs without sounding like an arrogant tool.

[Rough Draft]

Barth isn't exactly a Calvinist.

Of course neither, really, was Calvin.

Eh, I was basically quoting Marilynne Robinson when I said that about Barth. I wouldn't know, personally.

[spacebrat311]

Well I highly recommend checking out Evangelical Theology sometime. It's a pretty easy read, but absolutely wonderful and every sentence is worthy of intense thought.

[Rough Draft]

I think I have checked it out.. as a digital audio file. I got through the first sentence (something about Basel) before I decided to take a very long break. I would love to give it another go, though.

[Simon]

I think the tagging of Barth as a Calvinist may be related to the way Neo-orthodox trends have been tagged sometimes as a revival of Reformed emphasis on the depravity of man. It is of course always dangerous to rely on such simplistic generalizations.

In context of the previously mentioned Barth quote, I think it may be appropriate to see the Bible as a human response to God, a theological work in the truest sense. In another writing of Barth's he refers to the Scriptures (the apostles and the prophets) as the primary witness of the Word of God in the metaphor of a WWI battlefield. Barth sees the Word (Christ) as God's revelation of herself to man like an enemy (the wholly Other) approaching humanity on the battlefield. The authors of Scripture are those on the front line who then tell those of us waiting ready in the trenches that the enemy has gone into action and we must meet Him on the battlefield.

Scripture was written as a response to God's Word, to God's coming to humanity; it is not the Word itself, but it calls us into interaction with the Word. It calls us to respond and it is the Spirit that guides us in the response to God.

*I have found the battlefield metaphor to be very helpful and considered quoting the whole thing, but I do not think this is the place. However, I encourage you to check it out at the beginning of Barth's God in Action in his description of revelation.

[spacebrat311]