# Innerancy and its implications



## sotzo (May 21, 2007)

What are the best defenses of innerancy (books/articles)?

How would you respond to the following question:
If innerancy applies to the autographs, which we do not have access to, does innerancy matter?


----------



## larryjf (May 21, 2007)

sotzo said:


> How would you respond to the following question:
> If innerancy applies to the autographs, which we do not have access to, does innerancy matter?



I would say that it matters because it says something about God. If one believes in inspiration of the originals but does not believe in inerrancy then one is saying that God has erred.

There are some articles regarding inerrancy that are linked from Theopedia.


----------



## sotzo (May 21, 2007)

larryjf said:


> I would say that it matters because it says something about God. If one believes in inspiration of the originals but does not believe in inerrancy then one is saying that God has erred.
> 
> There are some articles regarding inerrancy that are linked from Theopedia.



Never knew about Theopedia...cool site.

OK. So granting that one cannot have inspiration without innerancy, what _practical_ reason does it serve? If I have a million dollars that I can't access, the million dollars is still spendable, but...I can't spend it. Yes, God is trustworthy and God accomplishes his purposes through his Word...but it is not the original inspired autographa through which he accomplishes those purposes...it is through translations of extant manuscripts. 

With that in mind, what good does innerancy do, especially when God's character is not at stake in the discussion?


----------



## larryjf (May 21, 2007)

Yes, i see your point.
That is one of the problems that i have had with the Chicago Statement on biblical inerrancy which states...
"copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original."

Therefore since we don't have the original then we can't tell the extent that copies and translations are the Word of God.

Others have seen that the apographs (copies) are also inerrant and even use the term "original" to refer to the apographs and not the autographs. Francis Turretin wrote in his Systematic Theology, “By original texts, we do not mean the autographs written by the hand of Moses, of the prophets and of the apostles, which certainly do not now exist. We mean their apographs which are so called because they set forth to us the word of God in the very words of those who wrote under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”

The question then becomes how the original autographs are preserved in the apographs. And that's where much debate comes into play.


----------



## staythecourse (May 22, 2007)

*The original autographs can be deduced*

Using binary numbers I can represent how the original can be deduced. This is just a way to figure out what a correct rendering might be. 

A subjective weight for each considering age and number of copies will be attached. The weights would be based on studying examples where the autograph was known and how variants surfaced in later copies.

Autograph: xxxx
a: 1001 1000 copies: weight = 10; later copies weight = 2 
b: 1000 200 copies: weight = 2; old copies weight = 5
c: 1000 500 copies weight = 5; mid age copy weight = 3

So using a crude formula (if it were accurate) the rendering that carries the most weight would be the b and c if the weights might be multiplied and added.

If God preserved a and it is without error, the case is closed.
If that is not known, some type of study has to weigh copies against each other.


For NT textual criticism, the spread of textual variants is like a shot gun blast whose BBs stayed tight together over a long range. The range is narrow with many BBs right on target. Some lined right behind the other. You trace the projectory back to the source (the barrel of the shot gun). We do this by seeing where all the BBs were in space and time working backward.


----------



## sotzo (May 22, 2007)

staythecourse said:


> Using binary numbers I can represent how the original can be deduced. This is just a way to figure out what a correct rendering might be.
> 
> A subjective weight for each considering age and number of copies will be attached. The weights would be based on studying examples where the autograph was known and how variants surfaced in later copies.
> 
> ...



Did Metzger ever "run the numbers" like this to see where everything fleshed out? I think I remember seeing a book where he attempted something along these lines.

By the way, just had a friend graduate from your seminary and he just took a call to pastor a church. There are some great theologians who love Christ in that seminary.


----------



## staythecourse (May 22, 2007)

*Yaay. Glad to hear it.*

Always like success stories of people pastoring churchs. May he do well for the Lord!

Metzger may very well have written a book on coming up with a formula. Even if it can't be put on paper, weighing one text to another has to be done through a gut instinct at very least. But, that gut-instinct will be based on (for example) grammar, context, theology of the writer, peculiarities of the writer, age, location of where text was found, on and on it goes. It's a special science and it has produced every single translation we have today.


----------



## Staphlobob (May 22, 2007)

sotzo said:


> Never knew about Theopedia...cool site.
> 
> OK. So granting that one cannot have inspiration without innerancy, what _practical_ reason does it serve? If I have a million dollars that I can't access, the million dollars is still spendable, but...I can't spend it. Yes, God is trustworthy and God accomplishes his purposes through his Word...but it is not the original inspired autographa through which he accomplishes those purposes...it is through translations of extant manuscripts.
> 
> With that in mind, what good does innerancy do, especially when God's character is not at stake in the discussion?



I never knew about Theopedia either. Now I've bookmarked it.

Practically speaking ... I once spoke with a pastor who rejected the doctrine of inerrancy. I had to then tell him that everything he ever preached, taught, and counciled was nothing more than his own opinion. And opinions are like you-know-what - everybody's got one. 

Inerrancy = absolute, objective truth.
Rejection of inerrancy = mere subjective relativism.


----------



## larryjf (May 22, 2007)

Textual criticism is necessary, but it's the type of textual criticism that folks don't agree on. I am a strong supporter of presuppositional criticism as opposed to naturalistic criticism. By that i mean that when dealing with manuscripts of Scripture they ought to be handled with the presupposition that they have been preserved by God and not in the same manner as any other book.

Modern textual criticism tends to handle the words of God in the same manner as the words of men.

Metzger even believes that some of the original manuscripts were are corrupt as he believes that what Paul spoke to the scribe was written down incorrectly in the autograph. This is documented somewhere in his commentary of the NT, i forget where.

Another question that folks disagree on is the level of preservation that ought to be presumed. The Scripture has been verbally and plenary inspired, but there is disagreement as to whether it has been verbally and plenary preserved.


----------



## larryjf (May 22, 2007)

p.s.
Theopedia is a great site!


----------



## Staphlobob (May 23, 2007)

*A New Take?*

Last night I heard of a liberal protestant pastor teaching a course on Scripture that supposedly debunks inerrancy. The gist of his teaching is this: 
*The multiplicity of texts are errant, but the message is inerrant.*

Now, what are some of the problems with this statement?

(1) It's illogical. (In today's dearth of thinking one is tempted to say it's "anti-logical" ... but who would know?) In other words,, errancy gives birth to inerrancy. Sounds like evolution.
(2) Who - or what - determines whether or not the message is inerrant?
(3) Who - or what - determines the content and boundaries of the message? 

Regarding the last two points, one can be a Roman Catholic or EO and provide an answer (the church). But a liberal protestant must simply look down and shuffle his feet. An errant group of texts cannot produce an innerant "message" and then stand above it to determine its inerrancy. Why? The errant texts lack internal qualifications define inerrancy. Consequently one must:

(1) Give up and become Roman (what some liberal pastors have honestly done)
(2) Give up and become a non-Christian (what most liberal pastors have done but dishonestly refuse to acknowledge it) 
(3) Embrace inerrancy (what some liberal pastors have done, and honestly given up their liberal theology in the process)


----------



## larryjf (May 23, 2007)

Kevin,



> The multiplicity of texts are errant, but the message is inerrant.


That's not necessarily an illogical statement. For example...

errant text: My n4me is Larry
still holds an inerrant message.

Do you believe in the verbal plenary preservation of the autographs?


----------



## Staphlobob (May 23, 2007)

larryjf said:


> Kevin,
> 
> 
> That's not necessarily an illogical statement. For example...
> ...




I'm sorry but I don't think the text in and of itself carries a message. I understand where you're coming from but I would have to disagree with your premise. Perhaps we might agree if you claimed the text _intended_ to convey a message, however that would still not be the same as saying it actually does. For instance, if it's a password and one "intended" to put in a 3 where you have a 4, the program still would not recognize it as carrying any kind of a recognizable message, much less an inerrant one.

Now as regards the texts themselves, I would not hold that "im is a nice guy" necessarily says anything, or "Jim a nice gu", or "Jim a nice guy" - regardless of intentions. However, in combination they (might) make sense when compared with one another, and especially so with texts that variously say "Jim is a nice guy" and "Jim is a mean guy." 

Textual criticism doesn't look at any particular verse - or even a particular group of verses - in isolation, but rather attempts to understand the autographs themselves from the plethora of extant copies in studied comparison of the thousands of variants already available.

Thus if "My n4me is Larry" seems to make sense it's only because we have numerous previous texts that clearly say "My name is Larry," as well as others from which to contrast it ("My name is not Larry"; "My name is Jane", etc.) and so have a basis for comparison. In other words,, a familiarity with the language itself. In fact, this is how the autographs and their inerrancy is proven.

Now as for the question, I'm afraid I'll need a bit more info on what you mean by "preservation." Should that word have said "inspiration" I could easily say yes. But as an out-of-context question I really can't make much sense out of it. (Perhaps a "KJV-only" person would give an affirmative answer, but I'm not in that camp.)


----------



## larryjf (May 24, 2007)

My point was simply that you could have a statement where the words are errant but the meaning is still conveyed without any errancy.

I have a dog
I have an dog

these statements each convey the exact same inerrant message, but the one is errant in its text.


----------



## Staphlobob (May 24, 2007)

larryjf said:


> My point was simply that you could have a statement where the words are errant but the meaning is still conveyed without any errancy.
> 
> I have a dog
> I have an dog
> ...



I don't disagree, as far as it goes. All I'm saying is that the only reason the second statement makes any sense is because we have a standard by which to compare it ... the first. And the only reason we can understand the first is because we have a working knowledge of the language. Hence the idea that a group of errant texts can give birth to an inerrant message is illogical.


----------



## larryjf (May 24, 2007)

Staphlobob said:


> I don't disagree, as far as it goes. All I'm saying is that the only reason the second statement makes any sense is because we have a standard by which to compare it ... the first. And the only reason we can understand the first is because we have a working knowledge of the language. Hence the idea that a group of errant texts can give birth to an inerrant message is illogical.



I agree that a group of errant texts can't reveal an inerrant message only if we have no working knowledge of the language that it is written in.


----------



## Staphlobob (May 24, 2007)

larryjf said:


> I agree that a group of errant texts can't reveal an inerrant message only if we have no working knowledge of the language that it is written in.



Sorry I should have been a bit more explicit 

Still more is required ... the belief that inerrancy is a possibility.


----------



## larryjf (May 24, 2007)

Staphlobob said:


> Still more is required ... the belief that inerrancy is a possibility.



Good point.
If i'm not mistaken the formalizing of the inerrancy doctrine did not come about until B.B. Warfield. In the 16-17th centuries the Scriptures are generally referred to as inspired and infallible, but many seem to count the apographs with the same regard. Then Warfield made inerrancy of autographs a point of reference.


----------



## Staphlobob (May 24, 2007)

larryjf said:


> Good point.
> If i'm not mistaken the formalizing of the inerrancy doctrine did not come about until B.B. Warfield. In the 16-17th centuries the Scriptures are generally referred to as inspired and infallible, but many seem to count the apographs with the same regard. Then Warfield made inerrancy of autographs a point of reference.



Sounds like you've been reading Letis. I thought the world of him. I once had a conversation (not a debate) wherein he pointed out to me Warfield's use of inerrancy, and thought it unfortunate. I was still studying the issue when he unfortunately died. 

However I ended up disagreeing with him based on 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Like the word "Trinity," or the phrase "justification by faith," the actual word(s) do not have to be present so long as the teaching is contained in the text. Between thopneustos, ophelimos, artios, and exartizo, inerrancy is both affirmed and taught.


----------



## larryjf (May 24, 2007)

Staphlobob said:


> Sounds like you've been reading Letis. I thought the world of him. I once had a conversation (not a debate) wherein he pointed out to me Warfield's use of inerrancy, and thought it unfortunate. I was still studying the issue when he unfortunately died.
> 
> However I ended up disagreeing with him based on 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Like the word "Trinity," or the phrase "justification by faith," the actual word(s) do not have to be present so long as the teaching is contained in the text. Between thopneustos, ophelimos, artios, and exartizo, inerrancy is both affirmed and taught.



Yes, i have read him and enjoyed the reading. I just let my pastor borrow that book so we could discuss the issues that Letis brings to the table.

I agree with the doctrine of autographic inerrancy simply because referring to the immediately inspired text speaks to God's character. I guess the real question is can we claim inerrancy in the apographs.


----------



## Staphlobob (May 24, 2007)

larryjf said:


> Yes, i have read him and enjoyed the reading. I just let my pastor borrow that book so we could discuss the issues that Letis brings to the table.



Letis died a Lutheran - Missouri Synod. He was at Westminster Seminary in Philadelphia when things seemed to start turning sour for sola gratia in the '70s and '80s. So he left for Lutheranism. I'm not sure if he was Reformed first, but I think so.



> I agree with the doctrine of autographic inerrancy simply because referring to the immediately inspired text speaks to God's character. I guess the real question is can we claim inerrancy in the apographs.



My question then would be: What's authoritative for you ... the autographs, or your understanding of God's character?


----------



## larryjf (May 24, 2007)

Staphlobob said:


> My question then would be: What's authoritative for you ... the autographs, or your understanding of God's character?



Well, i guess the autographs can't be authoritative for me as they don't exist. But neither is God's character as i wouldn't know much of His character without the Scriptures. So at this point i would say that the apographs are authoritative for me. Now which apographs is another question all together and i've been going back and forth between a few different ideas on that.


----------



## sotzo (May 27, 2007)

> My question then would be: What's authoritative for you ... the autographs, or your understanding of God's character?



I think this question hits the nail on the head. To the extent God's character is unknown via general revelation, I would think the autographs would have to take primacy. In other words,, the attributes of God's character such as trustworthiness / faithfulness, whereby His Word is rendered infallible / inerrant are known by the translation of those autographs and cannot be known from any other source of revelation...or so it would seem to me. 

However, circularity must entail because we trust the Bible because it says it is theopneustos and we we trust theopneustos because the Bible tells us to do so.

Sorry for the thinking out loud! I do believe Kevin's question captures the essence of the discussion.


----------



## larryjf (May 27, 2007)

sotzo said:


> I think this question hits the nail on the head. To the extent God's character is unknown via general revelation, I would think the autographs would have to take primacy. In other words,, the attributes of God's character such as trustworthiness / faithfulness, whereby His Word is rendered infallible / inerrant are known by the translation of those autographs and cannot be known from any other source of revelation...or so it would seem to me.
> 
> However, circularity must entail because we trust the Bible because it says it is theopneustos and we we trust theopneustos because the Bible tells us to do so.
> 
> Sorry for the thinking out loud! I do believe Kevin's question captures the essence of the discussion.



First, there are no translations of the autographs, we don't have them. To my knowledge the autographs were never part of the canon itself (brought together in one book).

Second, i think there is more to it than we trust the Bible because it tells us it is inspired. It is only by the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit that we come to believe in the Bible as God's word.


----------



## Staphlobob (May 27, 2007)

larryjf said:


> First, there are no translations of the autographs, we don't have them. To my knowledge the autographs were never part of the canon itself (brought together in one book).



As James White asks: Was there a canon in God's mind before the church drew up a canon? If not then the whole Reformation endeavor is useless and we all return to Rome and shut up. If yes, then we must ask what role the autographs (and apographs) play in His design.



> Second, i think there is more to it than we trust the Bible because it tells us it is inspired. It is only by the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit that we come to believe in the Bible as God's word.



Rome also claims the "inner testimony of the Spirit" for its own authority, as well as Mormons, JWs (and probably Scientologists). Yes, there is testimony of the Spirit, but it is not "only", not by itself. Especially when speaking with skeptics, we must take into consideration both the internal witness of the Scriptures to themselves, and external (secular) evidence that lends itself to inerrancy.


----------



## larryjf (May 27, 2007)

Staphlobob said:


> As James White asks: Was there a canon in God's mind before the church drew up a canon? If not then the whole Reformation endeavor is useless and we all return to Rome and shut up. If yes, then we must ask what role the autographs (and apographs) play in His design.


If we are speaking of God's mind before the Scriptures were even written then the autographs and apographs did not exist at all.
If we are speaking of the role that God has for the autographs - it would seem not much of a role as they probably were not in existence for too long after created. And when God worked to canonize the Scriptures into a book they were not used. In that sense i think God has more of a role for the apographs.



> Rome also claims the "inner testimony of the Spirit" for its own authority, as well as Mormons, JWs (and probably Scientologists). Yes, there is testimony of the Spirit, but it is not "only", not by itself. Especially when speaking with skeptics, we must take into consideration both the internal witness of the Scriptures to themselves, and external (secular) evidence that lends itself to inerrancy.


I do not think it possible to have a non-believer adhere to the Bible's inerrancy. I believe that only comes to believers by the illumination of the Spirit.

The Catholic catechism says this of the canonization of Scripture (4.120)...


> It was by the apostolic Tradition that *the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books*. This complete list is called the canon of Scripture. It includes 46 books for the Old Testament (45 if we count Jeremiah and Lamentations as one) and 27 for the New.


Can you tell me where the Catholic church speaks of the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit for its authority as opposed to the Church for its authority??

For that matter can you show me where the Mormons or JWs claim this?

The WCOF claims this (1.5)...


> our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit, bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.


----------



## Staphlobob (May 27, 2007)

larryjf said:


> If we are speaking of God's mind before the Scriptures were even written then the autographs and apographs did not exist at all.
> If we are speaking of the role that God has for the autographs - it would seem not much of a role as they probably were not in existence for too long after created. And when God worked to canonize the Scriptures into a book they were not used. In that sense i think God has more of a role for the apographs.



You didn't answer the question. Look again at what White asks: Did God have a canon prior to the church's canon?




> I do not think it possible to have a non-believer adhere to the Bible's inerrancy. I believe that only comes to believers by the illumination of the Spirit.



I agree. But no one was talking about having non-believers adhere to inerrancy. The point is that a claim to have an "illumination of the Spirit" alone is at worst gnostic, and at best navel gazing.



> The Catholic catechism says this of the canonization of Scripture (4.120)...



Yes. Precisely. Note "the church discerned ..." Not God, but the church. Herein is the error.



> Can you tell me where the Catholic church speaks of the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit for its authority as opposed to the Church for its authority??



I'm not sure what your question is here. It seems contradictory. Are you saying the Roman church depends upon itself or the Spirit for its authority? 

But if I understand you ... 
_The supernatural sense of faith 

91 All the faithful share in understanding and handing on revealed truth. They have received the anointing of the Holy Spirit, who instructs them53 and guides them into all truth.54 

92 "The whole body of the faithful. . . cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of faith (sensus fidei) on the part of the whole people, when, from the bishops to the last of the faithful, they manifest a universal consent in matters of faith and morals."55 _

As for Mormonism, simply look at its own website. I quote: 
_Listening with your heart for the Holy Ghost to whisper the truth to you. _

Also check out their exegesis of Luke 24.

Can't say much about JWs though. (Actually a joke.)



> The WCOF claims this (1.5)...



What does "by and with mean? Does it teach a sola, or point to something else? You see, though the inward work of the Holy Spirit is allows for "full persuasion and assurance" such an inward work does not work alone. What you left out is significant:

_We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God:_

The "testimony of the church", as well as those "many other incomparable excellencies" pertain not only to the texts themselves, but to truths found outside them, in creation itself. Even unbelievers will be impressed even if not convinced.

We may also look at what follows ...

_ The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[12] Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14]_

Note the emphasis on what is "common to human actions..." and "ordered by the light of nature..." These are things that will be seen to be in harmony with the Word, yet exist outside of it. All of which goes to support inerrancy.

The point is not that Scripture *needs* external witness or support (that would be Romish), but that the doctrine of inerrancy can be supported by such witness and support.

Now, what of such slogans as: "_God said it. I believe it. That settles it."_? I disagree with it. A much more biblical slogan that I would support is: _"God said it. That settles it."_ It doesn't matter in the least whether I believe it or not, it's still true. Period. End of story.

However, that does not exclude or ignore the fact that the truths of Scripture are, indeed, backed up by external sources such as archaeology, literature, etc.


----------



## larryjf (May 27, 2007)

Staphlobob,

I think i understand a little better of where you are coming from in regards to external sources backing up the Bible, and i think i agree with you on that.



Staphlobob said:


> You didn't answer the question. Look again at what White asks: Did God have a canon prior to the church's canon?


In God's mind the canon would have existed along with everything else, but i don't think it could be considered a canon in that medium. To me the canon is a group of books being brought together into one book as the word of God. So i would say "no" in a technical sense. Just as I would say that i didn't exist before my conception even though i was in the mind of God.


----------



## Staphlobob (May 27, 2007)

larryjf said:


> Staphlobob,
> 
> I think i understand a little better of where you are coming from in regards to external sources backing up the Bible, and i think i agree with you on that.
> 
> ...




Cool.


----------

