"A Rose By Any Other Name...": Does the Bible lose it's value or credibility if we abandon the unsupportable tenet of 'inerrancy' and/or 'infallibility'?

It's clear that unless we believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, we have no solid basis for trusting what it says. It then becomes just a collection of wild ramblings and tales of questionable veracity. But, the fact that it is inspired and divinely secured for the ages is indisputable (you can dispute it if you like, but if you do, do it with someone else because you clearly haven't researched it or even bothered to read the research of numbers of scholarly people). But most churches and para-church organizations also believe that the Bible is 'infallible', which I, frankly, find unsupportable practically, and even on the basis of what the Bible says about itself. (And don't quote me Psalm 19:7 - 'perfect' doesn't mean what you think.)

So here are the questions that cover this topic in a complete fashion:

1. How can we know that the Bible is the inspired word of God?

2. How do we know that the Bible as it now exists is faithful to the original?

3. Is there really any substance (or even necessity to adhere) to the belief that the Bible is 'infallible' (or 'inerrant' - see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_infallibility)?

For myself, I have no problem with the first 2 questions. I've heard wonderful lectures on the statistical improbability of the number of detailed prophecies that have been fulfilled and the history of Satan's futile attempts to rub out the Scriptures. The facts are imposing concerning the multitude of original manuscripts and their consistency and reliability when judged by the same criteria as other ancient works that the secular world holds as reliable and faithful to the original. However, I do find convincing arguments against the idea that the Bible is infallible or inerrant in the common sense of the words.


Let's start with by defining the words (thanks to Professor John M. Frame):

Inerrant: without errors
Infallible: there can be no errors
 

http://reformedperspectives.org/files/reformedperspectives/theology/TH.Frame.inerrancy.html#F4B

First of all, Paul says that 'all' scripture is inspired by God and 'profitable' for (this, that, and the other). He never says anything close to "Everything I had my scribe write down was written by the Holy Spirit taking over his will to choose every word and arrange it exactly where you now find it." He even says that some of it is his own opinion and not from the Lord. And then there's the issue of whether we can even be sure of which nuance of a Greek or Hebrew word is actually evoked in a particular context, which in many cases can radically impact the meaning of a passage. And since every one can't be a Greek and Hebrew scholar, we have to rely on 'fallible' men and women who undertook to translate from the original. And even the scholars are at a loss to find words in the target languages that effectively represent the meaning of the original. It's clear that unless God himself was the sole agent in producing the written words (in whatever linguistic form), the abundantly fallible and biased hand of sinful man has ruled out the possibility of infallibility from both the origin and the interpretation of what we now hold in our hands as God's word.

And don't even get me started on the canonization of the books of the Bible! Which version of the canon is the infallible one? Are we to believe that the Protestants, some of whose champions (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli) followed Augustine's heretical belief that torture and execution are acceptable forms of evangelization and church discipline (based on the parable where the king tells his servants to 'compel' the guests to come to the wedding feast) were 'inspired' in their canonization process but the Catholics weren't? And if an 'infallible' Bible is necessary for salvation, sanctification and rule of life, then how could someone who is illiterate or even mentally disabled find salvation through faith? It's not "All who read and memorize the infallible, inerrant words of scripture are the sons of God" - it's "All who are led by the Spirit are the sons of God." Paul makes a point in Romans of explaining clearly that the law (the Jewish Bible) isn't even necessary for knowing everything we need to know about about God and righteousness. Nature and our own consciences will get the basic job done quite nicely, so that there's no excuse for anyone.

Anyway, I can't buy the ideas of infallibility or inerrancy as I think they are implied by most, and I don't think it's a necessary tenet in order to anchor the fundamental beliefs of our faith. Jesus warned the Pharisees that their dogmatic way of approaching Scripture was blinding them to the saving truth of the Gospel: John 5:39 NASB - "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me." If we deify the written words, we are basically committing idolatry. God isn't contained in the pages of a book. We aren't saved by obeying the letter, but by being led by the Spirit through the real-time Word of God, Jesus, speaking into our hearts "this is the way...walk in it". A static faith in even the fundamental truth of Christ's substitutionary death on the cross won't save us as James clearly reveals: James 2:14 NASB - "What use is it, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but he has no works? Can that faith save him?" Believing that the Bible is true, whether or not we hold it to be infallible, won't save us. So why do we cling so tenaciously to this unsupportable idea? The Bible is 'profitable' for knowing God's revealed truth about himself and his way of salvation, but to say that it is 'infallible' is meaningless...in my opinion. Only God is infallible and the written word is not God - the Living Word of God, Jesus, is God...and he's still speaking:

 Hebrews 3:7-12 NASB - Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says, "TODAY IF YOU HEAR HIS VOICE, DO NOT HARDEN YOUR HEARTS AS WHEN THEY PROVOKED ME, AS IN THE DAY OF TRIAL IN THE WILDERNESS, WHERE YOUR FATHERS TRIED Me BY TESTING Me, AND SAW MY WORKS FOR FORTY YEARS. "THEREFORE I WAS ANGRY WITH THIS GENERATION, AND SAID, 'THEY ALWAYS GO ASTRAY IN THEIR HEART, AND THEY DID NOT KNOW MY WAYS'; AS I SWORE IN MY WRATH, 'THEY SHALL NOT ENTER MY REST.'" Take care, brethren, that there not be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God. (not the dead letter).

Unity of the Spirit Leads to Unity of the Faith

I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me. - (John 17:23 NASB)

being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. ... until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ. - (Ephesians 4:3, 13 NASB)

Beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity. - (Colossians 3:14 NASB)

In my pursuit of 'pure doctrine' I've been wrestling with the tenets of Reformed Theology and those of the Wesleyan school of thought (which I favor). I am amazed that God has chosen to use such broken vessels as Martin Luther (who advocated shipping all the Jews back to Palestine and recommended execution of the Anabaptists) and John Calvin (who advocated torture and execution as acceptable means of 'evangelism'. Why should I trust myself to Biblical interpretations from men whose lives in no way resembled that of the Christ whom they claimed to have been disciples of?

Of course I'm not eager to have my own life put under the microscope!

Anyway, I see that there is a tension between 'right doctrine', which is definitely essential, and which the Scriptures themselves admonish us to guard with diligence, and pursuit of unity in the bond of peace whereby we are told by Jesus himself that we will be identified as genuinely His disciples. So, even though I consider Calvin's views heretical (and question whether with his advocacy of forced conversions he will even attain to life eternal), I may not be able so easily to write off those who adhere to his teachings.

I'm reading 'Revival' by Winkey Pratney. Last night I read a wonderful exchange between the imminent 18th century preacher Charles Simeon and John Wesley which I think speaks eloquently to my struggle:


**********************************************************************************
Simeon - Sir, I understand that you are called an Arminian; and I have been sometimes called a Calvinist; and therefore I suppose we are to draw daggers.  But before I consent to begin the combat, with your permission I will ask you a few questions.  Pray, Sir, do you feel yourself a depraved creature, so depraved that you would never have thought of turning to God, if God had not first put it into your heart?

Wesley - Yes, I do indeed.

Simeon - And do you utterly despair of recommending yourself to God by anything you can do; and look for salvation solely through the blood and righteousness of Christ?

Wesley - Yes, solely through Christ.

Simeon - But, Sir, supposing you were at first saved by Christ, are you not somehow or other to save yourself afterwards by your own works?

Wesley - No, I must be saved by Christ from first to last.

Simeon - Allowing, then, that you were first turned by the grace of God, are you not in some way or other to keep yourself by your own power?

Wesley - No.

Simeon - What then, are you to be upheld every hour and every moment by God, as much as an infant in its mother's arms?

Wesley - Yes, altogether.

Simeon - And is all your hope in the grace and mercy of God to preserve you unto His heavenly kingdom?

Wesley - Yes, I have no hope but in Him.

Simeon - Then, Sir, with your leave I will put up my dagger again; for this is all my Calvinism; this is my election my justification by faith, my final perseverance: it is in substance all that I hold, and as I hold it; and therefore, if you please, instead of searching out terms and phrases to be a ground of contention between us, we will cordially unite in those things where in we agree. (Moule, 79ff.)
**********************************************************************************

Hungry For Change

Matthew 3

I'm starving. I'm parched. I'm hungry for change (http://tradeasone.com/get_involved/hungry_for_change/).

It would appear that the Judeans during John's ministry were also experiencing hunger and thirst as they flocked to the Jordan to confess their sins and identify with a symbol of cleansing and regeneration. What were they anticipating? Jesus had not yet begun to expound on the attributes of the Kingdom of Heaven. They must have been knowledgeable about the OT prophesies about the Messianic Age and the good things that would characterize God's reign on earth.

So John came indicating what was necessary to prepare for the Kingdom that was 'at hand'. Repent...prepare the way...bring forth fruit worthy of repentance. I can't rely on my heritage or my list of accomplishments. I must acknowledge my spiritual poverty and mourn over my infatuation with my worldly riches. This is not a message of cheap grace. The axe is laid to the root. He will thoroughly cleanse his threshing-floor.

Maranatha