click here to tweet this post
click here to share with your friends
subscribe to this feed
Inerrancy is Too Much: An Alternate Proposal to Amend ETS Doctrinal Statement
by C Michael PattonNovember 24th, 2008
97 Comments
Having just come from the annual Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) conference, I want to propose something for discussion concerning the doctrinal statement currently ascribed to by ETS. Whether you are familiar with ETS or not, this conversation will be beneficial to you, especially my students.
First, I want to make clear that I hold to inerrancy. I sign with good conscience the ETS doctrinal statement which is founded upon a confession of inerrancy. I have written on this issue here on this blog and defended what I call “reasoned inerrancy” as a hermeneutical motif for Christian hermeneutics. Therefore, this is not a post about any problem that I have with the doctrine itself.
Second, I want to make it clear that this is not a formal proposal of any sort. Although I am a voting member of ETS, I do not have any aspirations right now of taking this any further than this blog discussion.
Having been involved in ETS for the last eight years, I have come to appreciate what it is about. At least what I think its original and abiding intent is.
From the ETS website:
“Founded in 1949, the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) is a group of scholars, teachers, pastors, students, and others dedicated to the oral exchange and written expression of theological thought and research.”
“Oral exchange and written expression of theological though and research.” What this means is that ETS, while decidedly Evangelical, desires to provide a forum where Christian scholars can exchange research for peer review. ETS is not an official Evangelical magisterium in any sense, and it should never be seen as such. It is simply a place to “do” Evangelical scholarship.
I believe this is good and necessary. In fact, I don’t think Evangelical scholars should be involved in popular scholarship, presenting new ideas and influencing others, without being involved in this type of fellowship. Why? Because such forums allow critique and a public square, seeking influence and feedback from peers. In other words, those who avoid such peer review don’t need to be gaining friends and influencing people for their absence begs the question of their scholarship! While such accountability is not nor will ever be above criticism (as it is not perfect—what accountability is?), it is needed nonetheless. It does not have to be ETS, but ETS is an example of such a need in the church.
Starting in 1949 with a small meeting of sixty Evangelical scholars, as of 2005 the ETS membership has grown to more than 4,200.
The ETS doctrinal statement
The society’s purpose gives grounding to a intentionally broad doctrinal statement. From the ETS website about its founding: “While denominational loyalties and doctrinal orientations were widely divergent, there was no disposition whatever to compromise on the one matter which all delegates considered of supreme importance, the inerrancy of the Scriptures.”
The idea here is to be broadly Evangelical. This way, whatever denomination you are from, whatever your view on baptism, whatever your liturgy, whatever your view on predestination, you can find engagement here among those who were bound by one “fundamental”: the inerrancy of Scripture. It is assumed that if society members held such a view of Scripture, they could not verge far off the beaten path. As few anchors as possible creates a stable center of unity and diversity among its scholars. The society chose to have a “doctrinal basis” rather than a doctrinal statement or an extensive confession of faith.
Therefore, the initial doctrinal statement was conceived as such:
“The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.”
Some may argue that this stabilizing anchor should not be one of bibliology, but Christology, since Christ, not the Scripture, is the ultimate fundamental to Christianity. While this is true and I am sure society members would concede Christ as the ultimate center, a mere confession of a unified Christology would not go far in anchoring this type of forum since Christ himself is not an authoritative source document from which one can be critiqued. Another more technical way to put it is that Christ is the formal cause of Christianity while the Scriptures are the material source. Therefore, society members rightly, in my opinion, chose to ground their doctrinal statement in bibliology. With this, one can more objectively critique another’s understanding and interpretation of the Scriptures. Let me be clear once again. I agree that the anchor for this type of society should be in bibliology, not Christology.
Understandably, the society has had it members that don’t represent the best of Evangelicalism and, doctrinally speaking, don’t fit the historic definition of what it means to be Evangelical. When non-Trinitarians began to become a part of the society, ETS voted to amend its doctrinal statement to include a firm adherence to the doctrine of the Trinity in the nineties. In this way, they narrowed the discussion, but believed that such a move was necessary and justified in order to remain truly “Evangelical.”
Recent events have also fueled the discussion causing many members to fear the society’s ability to remain “Evangelical” with such a limited doctrinal foundation. Open Theism, a belief that God is limited by time and in knowledge, bought about the excusing of Clark Pinnock from the Society in 2003. This was based on a “technicality” without having to expand the doctrinal basis. The proposal was that Pinnock, and some other Open Theists, were denying inerrancy by saying that God can get the future wrong.
Last year Francis Beckwith, then the president of ETS, announced that he was converting to Catholicism. The storm caused by this event brought forward more proposals for amending and extending the doctrinal statement. This is especially the case since Beckwith said that he would have no trouble signing the statement in its current form, even as a Roman Catholic.
It was recently proposed by some society members to extend the doctrinal basis to mirror a more Evangelical stance on many theological issues including God’s sovereignty, the sinfulness of humanity, the work of the Holy Spirit, the nature of the Church, salvation by faith alone, and Christ’s future coming. These proposed amendments go well beyond its original basis in bibliology.
However, as much as I understand and respect where such thoughts come from, I am not for such an amendment. I believe in doctrinal statements and detailed statements of faith in many forums, but not this one. To draw the doctrinal circle so tightly would, in my thinking, amount to an exercise in the confirmation of prejudice that does not promote the “iron-sharpening-iron” philosophy that ETS originally intended. Yes, there would be less risk and the challenges from “outsiders” would be less radical, but this type of control, in my opinion, does not foster the type of scholarship that this forum can uniquely provide. Adding such doctrinal stability could turn ETS into a rally rather than a place where rigorous scholarship happens.
In fact, I think that inerrancy is too much already.
Here are my reasons for saying this:
1. I don’t believe that inerrancy is of “supreme” importance as stated here. If such a caveat were included on the ETS doctrinal statement, I would have second thoughts as to whether I could sign it in good conscience. I believe that inerrancy is important, but not supreme, even for such a society to function.
2. Inerrancy is too narrow. With all that has happened over the last fifty years with regard to this doctrine, the doctrine cannot serve as a valid foundational basis for true scholarship. Inerrancy naturally produces hermeneutical assumptions that are not shared by all those who adhere to it. Therefore, it has lost its meaning and ability to anchor without great misunderstandings.
3. Authority is the issue. I think adopting the firmer stance on the authority of Scripture would solve many of the problems that the current statement causes.
I propose this doctrinal statement:
“The Bible alone is the final authority for all Christians in matters of faith and practice.”
That is it. No more, no less.
This would allow for a broad range of scholarship without having certain nuances of the hermeneutics of inerrancy policing the effectiveness of the society’s purpose. It would allow for a broad range of scholarship by truly anchoring the society in bibliology rather than a particular implied hermeneutic that often accompanies inerrancy.
Yeah, BUT . . .
This too broad, allowing for too many loopholes?
It might, but probably not. Any doctrinal statement one puts forth will have its loopholes. But these possible loopholes should not cause anyone to fear. Those who go through these loopholes will provide the challenges that the society needs. I have found that the Open Theism controversy has been a positive influence on the Society, and Evangelicalism in general. Not because many are ascribing to it, but because it has brought serious discussion, challenge, and reaffirmation of our understanding of God’s nature. Sometimes heresy is introduced to provide clarity.
What about Mormons?
If a Mormon can sign the doctrinal statement, they are not really Mormons since Mormons have other books that they believe are as authoritative (if not more) than the Scriptures.
What about Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox?
I don’t think there would be many of either of these traditions who become members of the Society. I do believe that some Catholics and Orthodox could sign this statement in good conscience, but this would be the exception. A Roman Catholic or Orthodox who holds to prima Scriptura, such as Scot Hahn and, possibly, Francis Beckwith, Peter Kreeft, and Bradely Nassif, might be able to sign this statement, but what is the harm? I think that the society would do well with this kind of diversity in scholarship. Again, this would be the exception. But one must realize that as it stands right now, Preterists and Pelagians can sign the document. Are these not much further outside the circle of Evangelicalism than Roman Catholics and Orthodox? Yet I don’t find the society being overrun by such. If they present significant challenges, isn’t that what it is about. Do we fear such? The grounding of these challenges would be engaged through a rigorous study of the Scriptures. That is what the society is about.
What about the canon?
I would be open to defining the canon, but would not be so quick to add this. Again, I don’t think there would be any significant challenges to the Protestant canon, but if there were, wouldn’t be a privilege to engage them? Again, isn’t that what the society is about?
Isn’t this just proposing a foundation of sola Scriptura?
Yes and no. It is a narrow definition of sola Scriptura. Normally I would say that sola Scriptura is properly defined as “The belief that the Scriptures are the final and only infallible source of authority for the Christian.” For the ETS doctrinal statement, would take out the “only infallible” since it might cause some members to question the validity of those members who hold to a continuationist view of prophecy (those who believe that the gift of prophecy is still active today). This could be problematic for some of the society’s most valued and prolific members. In the end, Scripture is that which tests all beliefs, including modern-day prophetic revelation.
What about elected officials? What if we had a Roman Catholic president?
I think that the society is controlled by its members. The members would always be decidedly Evangelical Protestant. I doubt that any elected official would fall outside of the spectrum of true Evangelicalism. Besides, as it stands now, ETS could have a Pelagian president. Why don’t they? Because one would never get elected. It is that simple.
Conclusion
With such a doctrinal foundation, I believe ETS would be better suited to accomplish its purpose. While I believe in inerrancy, I think it is, today, somewhat counter productive to the purpose of ETS. It just carries too much baggage that narrows the field of scholarship unnecessarily. If someone believes that the Scriptures are the final authority, that is good enough, in my opinion, as a foundation for the exchange of ideas and biblical scholarship. As well, this would allow many Evangelicals, such as Alister McGrath, Roger Olson, and I. Howard Marshall, who have their reservations about inerrancy, yet are tremendous Evangelical scholars, to contribute to ETS.
I believe that Inerrancy is too much. It represents a twentieth-century American Evangelical phenomenon which often has a spoiled meaning and is no longer effective as it was in a different context. I believe that ETS should adopt a new doctrinal statement that is based on the authority of Scripture, not inerrancy.
Please see my friend Denny Burk’s proposal “Inerrancy is Not Enough“, which would take an opposite approach. It is well argued and needs to be read.
(Let me just say that my views don’t necessarily represent the views of other contributors to this blog 
.)
Similar Posts:
- Quarles Reviews Licona on the Resurrection
- How Theologically Diverse Should Your Church Be?
- A Test of Essentials and Non-Essentials
- Case Studies in Inerrancy: A New P&P Series
- A Possible Error in the Bible?
Loading ...
97 Comments
Like or Dislike:
0
I think Burk and Van Neste are both wonderful scholars and I am thankful that they are also part of the ETS. With that said, I didn’t agree with the proposed amendment for a few reasons. First though, here’s what I agree with:
1. I think that the Tyndale Fellowship requirements are a good comparison as an example of a similar society on the other side of the water.
2. It outlines many views that are clearly evangelical and all evangelicals would agree on.
With that said, here are my disagreements:
1. I think that Article 4 concerning God’s wrath when combined with Article 6 of the amendment makes it clear that the intentions of the amendment are to support a particular view of the atonement. Whereas most evangelicals and members of the ETS (including myself) hold to penal substitution, recent fine discussions have made it clear that it is not the only view of evangelicals (i.e. Joel Green’s recent works, as well as the IVP Four Views of the atonement which discussed the atonement form a purely evangelical perspective, but presented it in different ways). Of course, one could argue that every view of the atonement at least believes in Christ as a substitution within a larger scheme, I still think the amendment comes across as suggesting the evangelical view is specifically penal substitution.
2. Article 8 which argues that the Holy Spirit alone makes the work of Christ effective to individual sinners is what I believe. My problem is that if making that statement requires a paragraph to explain that this view is capable of including Arminians (of which the ETS has many), then the article needs to be revised to be more clear in this regard, or the particular line needs to be removed altogether.
As a statement alone (and if I were back in the States right now) these reasons would have been two reasons for my voting against the amendment, because I believe that to encompass those within American evangelical Christianity it needs to be revised.
My primary reasons for voting against the document would have been twofold:
1. Despite the knowledge that this amendment began well before last year, the timing for the vote makes it appear as though it was in particular response to Frank Beckwith’s situation. I know this is not the case, but it comes across that way.
2. In that regard, I personally believe that there are evangelical Catholics and Orthodox, who may not say inerrancy, but when push comes to shove have the exact same beliefs as those of us who hold to “reasoned” or “limited” inerrancy and are full members of the ETS. Furthermore, there is no question that these particular Catholics and Orthodox also hold to the virgin birth, divinity of Christ, Triunity of God, universal need of redemption from the curse of sin, etc. As such, I believe they are clearly evangelical.
In the end I’m not sure why revision is truly necessary. The original Van Neste paper mentioned particularly Catholics and Orthodox, and I’m not sure why they are not able to be considered evangelicals. Van Neste also argued that the current statement allows “historical heretics” but I think his argument (especially the placement within the context of likewise excluding Catholics and Orthodox) was a tad extreme. In the few situations where someone has been questionably evangelical (Gundry, Pinnock), the society has found a way to have the questionable theologians removed, so I doubt any historical heretics could reside in the society for long. Then is the purpose of this amendment ultimately the exclusion of Catholics and Orthodox?
If we want the ETS to simply include Protestants, then why not merely revise the inerrancy statement to say “Sola Scriptura.” That would exclude every Catholic and Orthodox simply by adding two words. We could even revise it more if we truly only wanted to include low-church Protestants as some members of the society are uncomfortable with Anglican and Lutheran theology. But why would we do this? Isn’t the purpose of calling ourselves the “Evangelical” Theological Society our unified interest toward the highest level of scholarship for the purpose and advancement of the gospel of Jesus Christ? Then why exclude those who are unified with us in this pursuit, and particularly unified in regards to the inerrancy of Scripture? Doesn’t their affirmation of the inerrancy of Scripture imply their belief in the virgin birth, bodily resurrection, etc.?
I’m not saying that the entire other side of the Tiber can gladly join in the society, but I have no problem with those who likewise hold to such a strong conviction about Scripture.
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP: “Adding such doctrinal stability could turn ETS into a rally rather than a place where rigorous scholarship happens.”
I’d rather err, if err it be, in this direction than slide down the slippery slope (which I regard as a high probability) that you’re proposing.
Like or Dislike:
0
Having been immersed in studying this topic and examining the undermining of scriptural authority produced by dialectical position of Barth and Berkouwer, I can certainly symphathize with TU..AD’s concern.
However, I can’t help but wonder if there might not be a benefit to opening the dialogue to those that would soften this critical issue. By subjecting such positionings to the rigorous critical analysis of strict adherrants to inerrancy, such as exists with current ETS membership, perhaps might have the impact of strengthening the cause for inerrancy rather than reducing it.
Like or Dislike:
0
Another problem is that limiting it to only what you wrote, without a statement on the Trinity, would open things up to “oneness Pentecostals” and other kinds of unitarians who claim to go by Scripture alone.
Some liberals and homosexuals are also claiming that they believe the Bible alone; and saying, “depends on your interpretation”.
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael, what do you think of Dave Armstrong’s critique of your, “In Defense of Sola Scriptura” series??
Please consider responding to it.
Like or Dislike:
0
oops, I forgot to give Dave Armstrong’s URL. He is a Roman Catholic Apologist and former evangelical and very aggressive and tenacious and voluminous in writing against Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide.
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/
Like or Dislike:
0
Ken, I have not had much time to look at it. However, from what I have seen, he discounts my arguments sentence by sentence without having read the following. I think he needs to take it as a whole. Otherwise, it is hard to take seriously. That is often the problem with apologists (Protestant or Catholic). Their intentions are not to understand, but defend their interpretation at the expense of understanding whatever the cost. When this occurs, it becomes somewhat of a waste of time for the writer and the reader; a typical popular canned apologetics approach is not my style.
I doubt I will get time to respond. I have not even finished my series on sola Scriptura!
Like or Dislike:
0
Speaking as one who left the ETS in 2003 precisely because of the Pinnock disaster, you left a few things out of sort here. Pinnock was charged with violating the very narrow charter statement on inerrancy by declaring in his writings that the Bible was mistaken. Sadly that was all the charter allowed them to charge him with, and even that was voted down. He was not dismissed, nor was Sanders, and this is why I left. The much more serious charge that could not be framed under that charter, was that not only was the Bible mistaken (violating the statement on inerrancy) but that Pinnock had repeatedly stated that God himself had made mistakes – a position which is a stab at the heart of Christian orthodoxy in any form.
Even worse was the milktoast arguments given for not dismissing his membership. Most of the talk was about the need for collegiality and sadly as almost always alleged “unity” won out over Biblical truth.
I asked the current leadership what would keep the Mormons from joining? After the Mormons have already come into the Society for Christian Philosophers – add to this that ETS already has people who have a false gospel (Stone-Campbell) as well as those mentioned above who have a false god. If the ETS is going to have an open-ended pomo approach to what inerrancy now means, if it is going to be left open to multiple layers of interpretation or someone other Derridean ordeal, then why keep the Mormons out? Mormons can rationalize better than most – and have no shame in doing it.
This is why many of the surviving members of the founding ETS group and their immediate disciples were distressed after 2003. It is hard to see how the ETS will at some point be any different the the SBL or AAR.
And on the rally thing – isn’t that why most of the folks go anyways? Most of the time the enjoyable part was seeing old friends, making new ones and ESPECIALLY buying lots of books at cheap prices!
Like or Dislike:
0
You said, “Open Theism, a belief that God is limited by time and in knowledge.” I am confused as to why this terminology is so often used to describe open theism. The open theist position is that certain aspects of the future are outside the category of what can be known. Thus, an open theist does not deny that God knows the future, but denies that certain things commonly assumed (rightly or not) to be knowable are not knowable. The limitation is not placed on God but on the category of what can be known. This position does have implications for one’s philosophy of time, but it would hardly be accurate to say that, for the open theist, “God is limited by time.”
As an open theist , I have a very hard time taking seriously the criticism of people who do not take the time to study the open theist position or do not care enough to fairly treat it in situations like this. I feel like your description of apologists above applies to so many who have “critiqued” open theism. “Their intentions are not to understand, but defend their interpretation at the expense of understanding whatever the cost.”
Like or Dislike:
0
I didn’t know Pinnock had to leave. Did all of the other open theists (Boyd et al) have to leave as well? So any open theist can’t be in the ETS? I’m confused about this, because it seems like an authoritative way to view inerrancy. It’s like saying that since I’m not a Calvinist (and many thinks this mean I don’t believe in Romans 9), then I can’t believe in inerrancy. I’m not an open theist, but unlimited foreknowledge is not dripping off of every page of Scripture, and it is tough to find.
Good words CMP. I wholeheartedly agree with all of your arguments and would like to see them lose the “inerrancy” label as well just because of the baggage it has come to carry and the way people use it to defend a post-enlightenment hermeneutic and say you have to take everything “literally.” I think a lot of scholars probably stay away from ETS just b/c of that statement. If I had to guess, it is probably looked at by many as a fundamentalist society where honest scholarship cannot occur because of that statement. So, to see you say this is encouraging to me.
I’m very glad the proposed amendment didn’t pass. They were trying to include entirely too much and, in my mind, it reflected a reformed point of view. I could not sign the amendment in good faith, and the level of scholarship would have been decreased drastically had it been passed. I know some professors at my school who would have certainly left because of it.
I’m glad TUAD doesn’t decide what’s right for evangelicalism. Everything that doesn’t communicate his soapboxes is a slippery slope to liberalism.
Like or Dislike:
0
I agree Joseph. Also, I have never seen an open theist say that God can’t know the future, but that he limits himself because of the freedom he has decided to give to human beings. This is far from the caricature of open theism that is so often expressed by others.
Like or Dislike:
0
Yes, there are different types of Open Theists. In all types, the future is open because God does not know it.
Some will say that this limited knowledge is a self-limitation like that of Christ while he was here on the earth.
Others will say that it is a necessary ignorance because events yet future are unknowable.
Pinnock was excused but Boyd and Sanders left on their own. I don’t think Boyd was “on trial.”
I agree that this should have been allowed. Let the issues resolve themselves through rigorous biblical, theological, and philosophical scholarship. It is not as though Pinnock was winning many over and I think the debate was healthy in as it brought about a revitalization of theology proper in many ways.
Because of the debate, I am a much stronger classical theist, but I think that the Open camp helped people to see some glaring deficiencies, even if their stance was a little too extreme to be taken seriously.
Like or Dislike:
0
Amen to that CMP. I could understand if it were a denomination he was excused from, but not the society. It sounds like they were trying to make it too much like a church. I assume that’s the problem with many evangelicals though. They think everybody who doesn’t think exactly like they do are wrong, heretical, and should be cast out. I hear those were some vicious times when the debate was going on. Just hearing about it makes me embarrassed to be an evangelical, but being there in person I would assume would be much worse. I wish they were still in because I really appreciate a lot of the stuff that they do, especially Boyd. He’s a pastor who’s a legit scholar who is passionately in love with Jesus Christ. Open theist or not, I will listen and learn to a man like that every day of my life.
Like or Dislike:
0
I’d settle for calling the Bible a true account of the history of God’s relationship with the human race.
I’m not sure I’m an inerrantist.
Like or Dislike:
0
I am writing from SBL in Boston and have been talking almost non-stop with young evangelicals in the process of getting their doctorates or at the beginning of their academic careers.
It is surprising to me how often the term “inerrancy” has become radioactive among many (not all) who have a very high view of Scripture and would feel completely comfortable with:
“The Bible alone is the final authority for all Christians in matters of faith and practice.”
I continue to love the term inerrancy though I completely agree that, insofar as it is code for saying that Moses wrote the Pentateuch except perhaps for the last verses, it is rightly subject to ridicule.
Furthermore, the limitation of inerrancy to the autographs which we do not have has a whiff of heresy about it. Of course I want to read the Bible in a form as free of scribal error as possible, but I want to affirm, and do affirm, that whatever scribal errors the Bible I have may contain, the Bible I have in my hands is inerrant in all the senses that truly matter.
This would be my proposal, an adaptation of a statement of the reformer of Zurich:
Scripture is certain. It cannot err, it is clear, and it does not let us go errant in the darkness.
It gifts the human soul with all salvation and all grace. It makes the soul confident in God and humbles it, so that it abandons and throws away its pretensions, and places itself in God’s hands.
In it, we live. Toward it, we turn. Through it we doubt all creatures, and God alone is our trust and security. Without it, we have no rest, and in it alone we find rest.
To God be the glory, now and forever: God in three persons, blessed Trinity. Amen.
Like or Dislike:
0
Interesting topic yet again Michael.
I find the comments about Clark Pinnock quite fascinating. I have never met the man, but we have mutual friends and I just found out that I park in front of his house every Sunday when parking for church. I am going to have to stop in some time and say “Hi”.
However, that is not why I wanted to comment. I found it interesting that “The Evangelical Manifesto” that was released earlier this year did not contain the word inerrant. Neither does the Statement of Faith for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. Perhaps it is a word that has outlived its usefulness and should be replaced with “authority”.
By the way, Canada is roughly 19% Evangelical when people are surveyed according to core Evangelical theology. Only 8% attend Evangelical Churches.
Like or Dislike:
0
“The Bible alone is the final authority for all Christians in matters of faith and practice.”
Maybe it should be ‘…the final written authority for all evangelical Christians…,’ for clearly some other Christians regard tradition or inspiration highly and we still know them as Christians. The Holy Spirit inspired the writers, but it was the church that declared the writings to be authoritative. So, the NT scripture receives its authority from the church, as Jesus said to the apostles, particularly Peter, that what they bind (decide) on earth will be bound in heaven.
Like or Dislike:
0
“Speaking as one who left the ETS in 2003 precisely because of the Pinnock disaster…”
I’m glad you spoke up Bill. God bless you.
Like or Dislike:
0
Both Pinnock and Sanders survived removal from ETS at the 2003 meeting. Their memberships were both voted on. As for Boyd, he resigned his membership before his membership could be challenged. Here’s a piece about it in First Things authored by Peter J. Leithart: http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=311
Like or Dislike:
0
I love discussing theology, hearing others present it, and I’m sure the ETS is a helpful society in many ways. But from reading your article above, CMP, it seems like the ETS doesn’t function as healthily as it could. To be honest, I have always found structures consisting of pyramid-style leadership, yet being democratically led with the ‘voting members’ having the real weight, as being an unhelpful model. I can’t find that model justified in the NT for the living church. Maybe gov’t is ok, but not sure about the body of Christ. All of the arguments and divisions seem the fruit of every society that functions in such a way, even those that are Christian, yet still decide to function in such a way. I hope you guys find the way forward, but I think the way forward might be to strike the pyramid and votes.
Just some thoughts.
Like or Dislike:
0
This topic is just begging for a converse with scholars segment with Peter Enns (late of Westminster). Personally I have had serious reservations about inerrancy ever since I started to look at the processes of canon formation. In addition the fact that very few of the men who wrote the bible seemed to think that what they were writing was scripture has also seemed to me to be profoundly unsettling.
Cheers
Steve in Toronto
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
With all due respect, this proposal is in fact reflective of the subjective premise upon which many evangelical members proceed and the reason why I am not a member of ETS.
Sorry, but the premise for all Godly authority is the triune God’s character, which includes unambiguously, infalliblity and innerancy.
Scholars like Enns and others may make allowances with their adopted historical surmises and reconstructions, but the consciousness of the biblical authors as to their function in God’s “word” revelation is undeniable.
Vladimir
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
Thanks for your general initial response to Dave Armstrong’s critique of your “In Defense of Sola Scriptura” series.
You mentioned you have not finished it. So you are going to do more that the 8 parts ?
When you say
“. . . he discounts my arguments sentence by sentence without having read the following. I think he needs to take it as a whole. ”
- by “the following”, do you mean that by breaking it up like that, he looses your overall point and arguments? How far should he let your argument go on?
He feels he wins the arguments by refuting “point by point”.
That is his style; he always critiques papers by comments in between smaller chunks. (sometimes in between every sentence; or a few sentences, or in between every paragraph; if necessary.)
He champions that method as “refuting him point by point” and he also demands that others do the same; “point by point”. If they summarize, he dismisses the opponent as not answering him, “point by point”.
I felt your strongest argument was your point about epistemology and possibilities and probabilities.
The illustration of the movie, “What about Bob?” was great and really hit the nail on the head. They demand infallible certainty on the canon, the right interpretation on issues that Christians disagree on; and certainty that they are in the right church.
But one can question anything and everything endlessly with that kind of thinking. “How do you know for sure?”
You are right that God never demands that kind of “infallible knowledge” from us. (our understanding of God’s infallible truth)
so, your overall argument was a very good one. the charts are excellent and very pleasing to the eyes.
It seems to me that the apologetic of John Henry Newman and the modern movement of evangelicals turning to the Roman Catholic Church (Scott Hahn, Jerry Matatics, Dave Armstrong, Rod Bennett (Four Witnesses), Francis Beckwith; and others is built upon skepticism and doubt about assurance (epistemology – “how do you know that you know”) of
– the canon
- church history – that the gates of hades never overcame the church for a time and later restored by Luther and Calvin.
- the right interpretation
- the right church
They ask, “how do you know what books belong in the canon?”
The answers are mostly historical facts based on the evidence we have; so they feel the Catholic church decided the canon; and the fact that things like baptismal regeneration and apostolic succession and mono-episcopacy were common before the first listing of the canon of the NT, (Athanasius, 367 AD); then they say something like, “see the church and interpretations you disagree with were already prevalent in the church before the canon was established.”
They also say, “you are relying on your own self, your own mind; your own understanding” (a violation of Proverbs 3:5-7) if we have private interpretation that goes against history, tradition, and the Pope.
Like or Dislike:
0
“Yes, there are different types of Open Theists. In all types, the future is open because God does not know it.”
Michael, it would probably be more accurate to say “because God has not determined it.” The way you phrased it makes it sound like open theists believe there is a future out there which is knowable but God doesn’t know it. Of course, if you articulate it this way, you would likely exclude those who “say that this limited knowledge is a self-limitation like that of Christ while he was here on the earth.” But you have rightly discerned two very different brands of open theism. I am not sure if there is a way of lumping them into the same descriptive category without distorting one position or the other.
“Others will say that it is a necessary ignorance because events yet future are unknowable.” While certain definitions of “ignorance” might agree with this description, the negative stigma our society associates with the word makes it inaccurate. Would you call someone “ignorant” if they didn’t know how to make 2 + 2 = 3.14? When it comes to open theism, one should not speak of “what cannot be known” as God’s ignorance. Whether one agrees with open theism or not, the open theist is not trying to attach negative attributes to God.
Open theism requires careful articulation. It is a radical redefining of traditional Christian assumptions. Perhaps some feel it doesn’t deserve a response (like the apologists you mentioned above). However, you seem to believe otherwise, and I respect you for that. Open theists, like myself, have serious questions that traditional or classic theism hasn’t answered adequately for us. If our discussion is to continue, we must be fair to each other in how we speak of one another.
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] “Inerrancy is Too Much: An Alternate Proposal to Amend ETS Doctrinal Statement” – by C. … ← Carl Trueman: An Ironic Catalyst to Roman Catholicism — Denny Burk [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael
I am returning to the P&P/Theologica fold following a self-imposed fortnight’s absence as a means of careful thought and reflection in the light that I found myself getting just a tad worked up responses from some posters (mainly on Theologica I have to say). Rather than carrying on I thought it best to adoot the “you say it best when you say nothing at all” rather than say something which I would regret and be required to heartily repent of.
Can I say that I think this is a brilliantly argued piece. Not that I class myself as an august theologian by any stretch of the imagination, but if I were to think about becoming a memebr of ETS I would feel that I would be able to sign up with a clear conscience.
I remember back in my college days that to become a member of my university Christian Uniion (which I was later to lead as President for a year) I and everyone else had to sign a doctrinal basis which professed belief in both the inerreancy and infallibility of Holy Scripture. If I am honest, I had my doubts then, as did the President before me, but I signed up nonetheless.
I would have been perfdectly happy to sign up to a declaration that read
““The Bible alone is the final authority for all Christians in matters of faith and practice.”
Not only would I have signed up to it myself but I would have strongly, passionately and happily urged and encouraged others to do likewise.
The very thought that scholars of the amazing calibre of Alister McGrath (who has done more than nearly anybody in recent years in actually challenging and refuting the writings and assertions of Richard Dawkins) and I Howard Marshall would be excluded from ETS because they could not in all conscience sign up to an inerrancy clause is frankly, nothing short of frightening and deeply disturbing.
Thank you for having the courage to suggest reviewing and re-evaluating this doctrine in a calm and reasoned manner, and for suggesting a revision to what is still a contentious issue amongst contemporary evangelical scholars.
Like or Dislike:
0
Re: Vladimir
“The consciousness of the biblical authors as to their function in God’s “words” revelation is undeniable”
Is that so? Please sight examples from the biblical text I would like one for each book in the Canon (presumably not everything that the apostles wrote was inspired, so simply establishing apostolic authorship is not enough). What about the books that were not written by apostles? What about the books that are anonymous? If you’re Orthodox/RC I will give you a pass but as a Protestant who respects the judgment of the early church fathers but does not think all those councils were infallible these question shake me to my bones.
Peace
Steve in Toronto
Like or Dislike:
0
[...] “Inerrancy is Too Much: An Alternate Proposal to Amend ETS Doctrinal Statement” – by C. … [...]
Like or Dislike:
0
McGrath does not ascribe to inerrancy?
What are the specifics that make several of the commenters want to avoid the understanding of the Bible as inerrant?
Genesis 1 and Science issues?
Women in pastoral roles? I Timothy 2:11-15
others?
Scribal/number errors in Kings/Chronicles?
Like or Dislike:
0
” . . . but as a Protestant who respects the judgment of the early church fathers but does not think all those councils were infallible these question shake me to my bones.”
Why does it “shake you to your bones”?
Because 2 and 3 John, Mark, Luke, James, etc. don’t say, “I believe I am writing words of revelation or inspired Scripture” ?
Luke 1:4 seems to be close in his mind that a good case can be made, since he indicates that he is writing “. . .in order that you may know the exact truth of what you have been taught.”
Like or Dislike:
0
Ken,
Would not Mark be claiming divine revelation when he says in the first verse of the book, “The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.”?
As well 1 John says,”That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we looked upon and have touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— 2 the life was made manifest, and we have seen it, and testify to it and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was made manifest to us— 3 that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you…”
Like or Dislike:
0
Re: Ken Temple “why does it shake you to your bones”?
Because I know where the rational/skeptical approach to bible left the church and I don’t like it. On the other hand I am not happy with the way conservative biblical scholarship has dealt with very human nature of the Bible. It’s not just the first few chapters of Genesis or even just the Old Testament, the book of Revelations only seems to make sense if you use a hermetic that is so detailed it seems to presuppose a conclusion before the voyage even begins. Right now the only viable option seems to be some sort of “Neo-Orthodoxy” but even that option seem unappealing (is god really that wholly other?) likewise the approach of Van Till and his collages seems too much like fideism. I just don’t know what to hang on to except my own subjective experiance of biblical text (mediated I hope by the Holy Sprit) and frankly I don’t trust my self. The way things are going right now in 5 years I think I will be ether a Roman Catholic or a Classical liberal Christian and I don’t like either option.
God Bless
Steve in Toronto
P.S. If the authors of the bible were so confident that their words were in fact the words of God don’t you think we would see the expression “thus saith the lord” a lot more often then we do?
Like or Dislike:
0
Michael,
Would you say that the term Inerrancy is used more in a apologetic sense than anything else?
What I mean by that is the idea that many people throw the term “inerrancy” around as a means to justify their position on a particular issue. In other words, “the reason you don’t agree with me is because you don’t believe in inerrancy”, is what I often hear. It functions, from my experience, more as an epistemological straight jacket which limits (to its own hurt in many instances) the pursuit of the mind in its knowledge of the Holy. I think this is what J.P. Moreland was trying to argue last year at the ETS, and we know the firestorm that that caused within the Evangelical community.
What do you think?
Like or Dislike:
0
Josh, short answer: yes.
Long answer: yes.
Like or Dislike:
0
BritPhil, for another take on Dawkins and his amusingly ridiculous assertions try Vox Day’s The Irrational Atheist.
Like or Dislike:
0
When you say “the bible alone” do you mean “only the bible”, or “the bible alone and divorced from other helps”?
And do you mean that the bible is the only final authority for ALL Christians (whereas SOME Christians have other final authorities)?
And when you say it is the final authority for all Christians, does that mean that anybody who has other final authorities is denied the name “Christian”? Or do you mean that it ought to be the final authority?
And when you say it is “the” final authority for all Christians, do you mean to deny that God can provide direct revelation to individuals, who are individually bound to follow God as a direct source of authority?
Like or Dislike:
0
Peter, this is a proposed very broad definition of faith for the Evangelical Theological Society, not for Christianity in general or even for Evangelicalism in general.
Like or Dislike:
0
..yeah… but what is the answer to the questions?
Like or Dislike:
0
Thanks Steve in Toronto for your honest answers –
You wrote:
Because I know where the rational/skeptical approach to bible left the church and I don’t like it.
Where/When did it leave the church?
Where/When did it become the dominate method of approaching Scripture? Your statement seems to assume that is was the dominate approach in the first and second century.
On the other hand I am not happy with the way conservative biblical scholarship has dealt with very human nature of the Bible.
Your options of classic liberal Protestant and Roman Catholic are very different indeed. Your doubts about Scripture make the liberal option understandable, but not the RCC – it is because of your need for
a. a sense of history?
b. a sense of unity?
c. an infallible interpreter to tell you which interpretation is the right one?
d. a desire for a final authority here on planet earth ?
All of the above?
Like or Dislike:
0
Hello Ken
I am a child of the unlikely marriage of a quasi fundamentalist reformed Baptist childhood and a post modern education. As my knowledge of the bible grows (and one hopes my walk with god deepens) I am finding that I have not fewer questions about my faith but more. I once laughed a professor who told me that texts have no fixed meaning but spend a few hours taking to an academically (as apposed to apologetically) inclined bible scholar about Isaiah 7:14 or Isaiah 53:5 and I am inclined to agree with him. I am convinced that the reason that the Catholic Church needs it Magisterium and the Reformers needed there elaborate confessions (Westminster, Book of Concord ect.) is that the actual meaning of the biblical texts is often so ambiguous. Add to this fundamental epistomological problem the very troubling historical and political circumstances that lead to the formation of the Canon and the early creeds (I am talking about the likely murder of Arias not Dan Brown’s nonsense, murky politics are called Byzantine for a reason) and I feel like just giving up. At least the Orthodox and Roman Churches can clam antiquity and some measure of universal scope (confessional protestants seem to bound to particular cultures to legitimacy clam the mantel of “true church”). It basically comes down to: is my subjective experience of Christ as my crucified and risen lord enough or do I need to wed my self to an authoritative system of dogma as well? If the answer is yes it seems like Rome is the best option if not perhaps the Episcopalians.
God bless
Steve in Toronto
Like or Dislike:
0
I wouldn’t swim the Tiber, nor flock to Canterbury, but if you want to arbitrarily restrict your choices to those two, then blessings to you.
Like or Dislike:
0
Right now I am worshiping in a relatively orthodox Anglican church (I say relatively since my priest is a woman). There is obviously a lot of hyperbole in my previous post but for someone who loves traditional liturgical worship my options are more limited than most of the reader of this blog. It seems to me the Bible is ether too much (the real focus of our faith is Christ) or to little (with out a set of binding dogma’s we will descend into mass of meaningless subjectivity) I don’t think that I am the only person that is coming to realize that the conventional evangelical view of the bible is inherently unstable.
God Bless
Steve
Like or Dislike:
0
Steve in Toronto:
It sounds like you and I are in similar water crafts (i.e., in the same boat).
I left 2+ decades of Evangelicalism/non-denominationalism for Byzantium, but about a year later the wheels fell off the wagon, so to speak, on issues related to the Eucharist and having a human priesthood that I found incompatible with Scripture and the New Covenant and what I knew, or felt I knew, about Jesus and Paul’s gospel.
Reading church history and the history of the formation of the canon only made things murkier and more complicated, as you’ve also found out.
“Text and Canon” was the theme of this year’s ETS Conference. I wish I could have attended. I did order the MP3 CDs, so I’ll get to listen to the talks, and sometimes some of the papers are posted on the Internet.
Like or Dislike:
0
TUaD said:
“I wouldn’t swim the Tiber, nor flock to Canterbury”
Heh… Because you find Geneva irresistible?
Like or Dislike:
0
Steve in Toronto: “I don’t think that I am the only person that is coming to realize that the conventional evangelical view of the bible is inherently unstable.”
(1) I wouldn’t exactly call the Anglican Communion stable either. (You are permitted to laugh along with me.)
(2) Conventional evangelical view of the Bible is Sola Scriptura, one of the five solas from the Reformation. I don’t think Sola Ecclesia solves the problem of “inherently unstable” that you think it does.
(3) For a different perspective than yours, please see this comment by Dudley Davis here on Reclaiming the Mind.
Jugulum: “Heh… Because you find Geneva irresistible?”
Heh… The New Jerusalem sounds irresistible.
Like or Dislike:
0
Hmm… Implying that it’s an alternative to the other three?
Like or Dislike:
0
Re “Truth Unites… and Divides”
I laugh along because I cry alone.
You’re right of course the Anglican Communion is unstable but it is important for Americans to remember that the Episcopal Church USA is an out rider. The rest of the Communion is in much better shape. In Toronto we are blessed with a first rate low church (evangelical) Anglican Seminary Wycliffe at University of Toronto that is now so popular (not only among Anglicans but other denominations as well) that it rival Anglo Catholic neighbor is considering discontinuing its M.Div. program for lack of interest. It is my experience that the younger the priest the more Orthodox he of she is likely to be. My own priest is in her late 20’s and not only impeccably orthodox* but a closet charismatic (I worship at a very small “c” conservative small town parish and believe me their not ready for the concept of “Baptism by the Holy Sprit” come to think of it am not ready for it either) we have had special Sunday night healing service however. Our mother church in England is likewise experiencing an incredible revival based at Holy Trinity in Brampton (home of the Alpha program). What I love about the Anglican Church is that it one of the last places that liberal and conservatives, Armenians and Calvinist, Anglo-Catholics and Neo puritans, charismatic and secessionist not only talk to each other but worship together. I find Geneva to be intellectually sympathetic but ultimately unsatisfying. It’s not just that I love liturgy (I have worshiped at two wonderful and very arty Presbyterian churches that were both very liturgical in there own way) but I reluctantly came to the conclusion that Calvinism was too narrowly focus on a God sovereign and perfect will and not enough on a broken and suffering Christ that enters into our lives and shares our suffering with us. I still love and respect Reformed theology I just don’t think it’s the only (or even the best) way to understand God and the scriptures.
Peace
Steve in Toronto
*I know some of the reader of this Blog will find this to be impossible to believe but there are too many great women priests out there (exhibit one Fleming Rutledge). It’s time to reevaluate your hermeneutics it looking increasingly absurd.
Like or Dislike:
0
Steve in Toronto wrote: … (I worship at a very small “c” conservative small town parish and believe me their not ready for the concept of “Baptism by the Holy Sprit” come to think of it am not ready for it either) we have had special Sunday night healing service however.
It’s out of print, but if you can find a copy of The Healing Ministry: A Personal Journal by Emily Gardinder Neal, I think you’d enjoy it. She was a skeptical reporter who went to cover a “healing evangelist” and … she was healed. She later joined the Episcopal Church and God gave her a healing ministry.
There’s also Leanne Payne, whose books might resonate with you. The late Morton Kelsey, an Episcopal priest, was into some rather unorthodox things, but his book Tongue Speaking: An Experiment in Spiritual Experience, is IMO one of the best books on the subject. He was friends with Agnes Sanford, another Episcopalian (her husband was an Episcopalian priest) whose writings on healing might be too New Agey for some, but she apparently had a valid healing ministry.
Then there is J. Rodman Williams’ Renewal Theology (originally 3 volumes, now available as a single volume). He was Reformed, but became Charismatic and this, his Systematic Theology, is informed by both camps.
Like or Dislike:
0
Don’t worry Eric I actually like charismatics (I feel about them the same way my reformed father felt about dispensationalist – He disagree with them but was glad they took the bible seriously and that made them allies not enemies). At this point I am just delighted to have a preist that is preaching “mere christaniy” clearly and forcfuly. I am curious about the charismatic movement however it’s the one branch of protestant christanitly I have almost no direct experience with (I did date a girl who did her under grad at oral Roberts but I don’t think that counts).
God bless and thanks for the reading list
Steve in Toronto
Like or Dislike:
0
CMP, I notice that you mention preterists here as being “far outside” orthodoxy. You had a post a while back that distinguished between partial preterism (which is orthodox) and full preterism (which is heretical) — please remember that there is a difference.
More Comments:
1 2 Next »