# Inerrancy in Historical Theology



## P.F. (Dec 7, 2009)

Recent discussion in a book review thread has sparked my interest in the position of inerrancy in historical theology. First, here are some examples that I think show a view of inerrancy both among the fathers and the Reformers.

Augustine on Innerrancy (Letter to Jerome, Letter 82 in Augustine's Letters, Section 3):


> On such terms we might amuse ourselves without fear of offending each other in the field of Scripture, but I might well wonder if the amusement was not at my expense. For I confess to your Charity that *I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error.* And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it. As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason. I believe, my brother, that this is your own opinion as well as mine. I do not need to say that I do not suppose you to wish your books to be read like those of prophets or of apostles, concerning which it would be wrong to doubt that they are free from error. Far be such arrogance from that humble piety and just estimate of yourself which I know you to have, and without which assuredly you would not have said, "Would that I could receive your embrace, and that by converse we might aid each other in learning!"



William Whitaker (Disputations on Holy Scripture, I:III):


> That some of the ancients were of this opinion appears from the testimony of Augustine, who maintains, in opposition to them, "that the evangelists are free from all falsehood, both from that which proceeds from deliberate deceit, and that which is the result of forgetfulness." (De Cons. Ev. Lib. II. c. 12.)



Next, here is the key statement for the "modern" view on the subject.

Article XII of the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy: "We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit."

I'm told that some (McGowan, for example) have tried to assert that the doctrine of inerrancy is a 19th century rationalist invention, not something held by the fathers (Augustine is my counter-example) or the Reformers (Whitaker is my counter-example). The question I'd like to pose is: what makes folks like McGowan conclude that Augustine and Whitaker meant something substantially different from the "modern" view? Alternatively, in the difference is insubstantial, what is the significance of alleging that the precise nuances of inerrancy are not exactly duplicated in the fathers or the Reformers?

Finally, so as to include those who would disagree with the seemingly absurd position of McGowan, what other evidences do we have of a position of inerrancy in the historical record?


----------



## Marrow Man (Dec 7, 2009)

P.C., this does not really help to answer your question, but anecdotal I would add that it has been my experience that certain folks of a neo-orthodox persuasion have hid in the fact that the WCF does not use the actually term "inerrant"; therefore, they have concluded, we shouldn't either (and operating under the guise of being the more confessional!). Of course, this is a bit anachronistic, sort of like insisting that since the KJV Bible does not use the word "homosexual" (a term not invented until much later) that it somehow does not speak against homosexuality.


----------



## Christusregnat (Dec 7, 2009)

PCFLANAGAN said:


> I'm told that some (McGowan, for example) have tried to assert that the doctrine of inerrancy is a 19th century rationalist invention, not something held by the fathers (Augustine is my counter-example) or the Reformers (Whitaker is my counter-example).



Perhaps I am misunderstanding this citation of McGowan, but my research leads me to believe that the German school of biblical criticism (or any other Rationlistic School) held nothing even remotely resembling the inerrancy position. Philip Schaff identifies the "magical theory of inspiration" of Augustine, Fathers, Papists and Reformers _*as being dismantled by the Rationalists*_ (of whom he was one, albeit a milder one, and therefore more dangerous).

If I understand this citation correctly, that the modern view of inerrancy was born under the evil star of Rationalism, then this qualifies as major quackery and an abject use of the Big Lie Theory. What would be more accurate would be to argue that _*in response to the bold and daring atheistic heresy of German Rationalism, the Chuch was forced to define clearly its view of Scripture, and therefore had to formulate things like the doctrine of inerrancy*_.

Cheers,


----------



## Guido's Brother (Dec 7, 2009)

See Muller, Vol. 2 of PRRD, especially pages 243-245 & 303-308. You could add Rijssen, Mastricht, Hoornbeek and Poole among others.


----------



## P.F. (Dec 7, 2009)

Christusregnat said:


> Perhaps I am misunderstanding this citation of McGowan, but my research leads me to believe that the German school of biblical criticism (or any other Rationlistic School) held nothing even remotely resembling the inerrancy position. Philip Schaff identifies the "magical theory of inspiration" of Augustine, Fathers, Papists and Reformers _*as being dismantled by the Rationalists*_ (of whom he was one, albeit a milder one, and therefore more dangerous).
> 
> If I understand this citation correctly, that the modern view of inerrancy was born under the evil star of Rationalism, then this qualifies as major quackery and an abject use of the Big Lie Theory. What would be more accurate would be to argue that _*in response to the bold and daring atheistic heresy of German Rationalism, the Chuch was forced to define clearly its view of Scripture, and therefore had to formulate things like the doctrine of inerrancy*_.


The original claim that I read was:


> The idea that McGowan contests is that of inerrancy. He points out that "inerrancy" is nowhere taught by the Reformers or in the Reformed Confessions - such as the Westminster Confession of Faith. That inerrancy is a product of the Rational/Scientific philosophy that pervaded Christianity in the 19th Century.


(source) I assume that the claim is not that Warfield is a German Rationalist, though perhaps that there was some cross-pollination.


----------



## Christusregnat (Dec 7, 2009)

PCFLANAGAN said:


> The original claim that I read was:
> 
> 
> > The idea that McGowan contests is that of inerrancy. He points out that "inerrancy" is nowhere taught by the Reformers or in the Reformed Confessions - such as the Westminster Confession of Faith. That inerrancy is a product of the Rational/Scientific philosophy that pervaded Christianity in the 19th Century.
> ...



The claim appears to be that Rational/Scientific philosophy pervaded (thoroughly infiltrated) Christianity in the 19th Century. The non-errancy position, however, bears the indeliable marks of the Rational/Scientific philosophy, _ergo_, the claim is false.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## py3ak (Dec 7, 2009)

I don't know if this is what McGowan is saying, but the point might be that in answering an opponent's charge, we sometimes adopt some aspect of the opponent's platform - we answer them on their own terms, and in that way subtly slide away from our original position.


----------



## larryjf (Dec 7, 2009)

I wonder...in Augustine's quote, is he referring to the Latin translation that he read from?
If i remember correctly, Augustine did not like the fact that Jerome was going to use the Hebrew rather than the Greek LXX to translate the OT into Latin...therefore i have doubts that he was referring to the original autographs as we consider inerrant today.


----------



## Christusregnat (Dec 7, 2009)

py3ak said:


> I don't know if this is what McGowan is saying, but the point might be that in answering an opponent's charge, we sometimes adopt some aspect of the opponent's platform - we answer them on their own terms, and in that way subtly slide away from our original position.



Ruben,

Do you think that such was actually the case with certain 19th Century theologians who opposed German and other forms of Rational/Scientific approaches?

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Dec 7, 2009)

This is from the Council of Trent. It is clear that even the Roman Catholics of 1546 believed in scriptural inerrancy as they use the word "dictante" in their declaration in regards to the method of inspiration.

Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent

Bible-researcher is a good one for research on topics like this.


----------



## py3ak (Dec 7, 2009)

I don't know about the 19th Century theologians. I know that sometimes the way people comprehend inerrancy they are sometimes thrown by rather pointless arguments, like that the measurements given of the brass laver in Solomon's temple are not quite mathematically precise. But whether it was presented to them in that way or that is merely how they apprehended it, I can't determine.


----------



## P.F. (Dec 7, 2009)

LarryJF:

The reason I think Augustine is talking about the autographs is the fact not only that he refers specifically to the authors in the bolded part of the quotation, but also the following sentence states: "And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it."


----------



## FenderPriest (Dec 7, 2009)

The Muller reading that was recommended is _very_ helpful on this point, especially regarding how to think of the Reformational possition. So is God's Word in Servant Form by Richard Gaffin. Both do an excellent and thorough job of refuting the modern notion that inerrancy was a brain child of B.B. Warfield. As usual, when the muck is pushed away, the Biblical and historic Christian position of inerrancy is clearly seen.


----------



## larryjf (Dec 7, 2009)

PCFLANAGAN said:


> LarryJF:
> 
> The reason I think Augustine is talking about the autographs is the fact not only that he refers specifically to the authors in the bolded part of the quotation, but also the following sentence states: "And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it."



I understand why the passage quote looks like he's referring to the autographs. But knowing that he did not want the OT translated from Hebrew but rather from Greek begs the question, "did he really refer to the originals if he felt that the Hebrew originals were inferior to the Greek?"


----------



## DTK (Dec 7, 2009)

larryjf said:


> I understand why the passage quote looks like he's referring to the autographs. But knowing that he did not want the OT translated from Hebrew but rather from Greek begs the question, "did he really refer to the originals if he felt that the Hebrew originals were inferior to the Greek?"


Do you understand why Augustine was so fond of the LXX translation of the OT on which his own Latin translation was based?

DTK


----------



## P.F. (Dec 7, 2009)

larryjf said:


> PCFLANAGAN said:
> 
> 
> > LarryJF:
> ...


One easy way to reconcile the plain meaning of his words with his preference for the Greek editions of the OT is a recognition of the fact that the Hebrew copies extant in Augustine's time were not the autographs. He may well have suspected the Jews of intentionally altering their manuscripts. In fact, one occasionally sees the same charge today from folks who are arguing for LXX priority over the MT.


----------



## Wayne (Dec 7, 2009)

FenderPriest said:


> The Muller reading that was recommended is _very_ helpful on this point, especially regarding how to think of the Reformational position.



And could you please refresh our memories as to that reading? I looked, but didn't find the citation on the previous thread. As I remember, it was Richard Muller's _Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics_, vol. 2, pp. 242ff.

I remember that much, but there was some additional that I didn't jot down.


----------



## larryjf (Dec 7, 2009)

DTK said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> > I understand why the passage quote looks like he's referring to the autographs. But knowing that he did not want the OT translated from Hebrew but rather from Greek begs the question, "did he really refer to the originals if he felt that the Hebrew originals were inferior to the Greek?"
> ...



One reason is that it was widely held that the LXX was re-inspired...that God had moved the entirety of the Bible over into the Greek language and that the Hebrew was no longer relevant.

The other reason...which is more speculative...is that Augustine didn't know Hebrew. We can't really be sure that this was the reason he rejected the Hebrew texts...after all, there are many today who don't read Hebrew, but accept those texts as authentic.


----------



## Osage Bluestem (Dec 7, 2009)

DTK said:


> larryjf said:
> 
> 
> > I understand why the passage quote looks like he's referring to the autographs. But knowing that he did not want the OT translated from Hebrew but rather from Greek begs the question, "did he really refer to the originals if he felt that the Hebrew originals were inferior to the Greek?"
> ...



Why?

Is it the same reason many claim for the KJV?


----------



## DTK (Dec 7, 2009)

larryjf said:


> One reason is that it was widely held that the LXX was re-inspired...that God had moved the entirety of the Bible over into the Greek language and that the Hebrew was no longer relevant.
> 
> The other reason...which is more speculative...is that Augustine didn't know Hebrew. We can't really be sure that this was the reason he rejected the Hebrew texts...after all, there are many today who don't read Hebrew, but accept those texts as authentic.


I don't think "re-inspired" would be the best description, but Augustine and others certainly believed the fabled account of the seventy translators giving us an inspired translation of the Hebrew that was just as good, if not superior to, the original Hebrew text.

As for the second reason you mentioned, I give that no weight.

DTK


----------



## TimV (Dec 7, 2009)

> Do you understand why Augustine was so fond of the LXX translation of the OT on which his own Latin translation was based?



He believed at least Job was more accurate in the Hebrew but he nevertheless wanted what he considered an inferior Greek translation used, and yes, for the same reasons many KJV onlies do; an ecumenical translation. As to the New Testament, he was open and even demanded textual criticism that could end up changing the Bible that they had for one with less errors.

Reading Augustine is complicated and takes time!

-----Added 12/7/2009 at 03:13:25 EST-----



> I don't think "re-inspired" would be the best description, but Augustine and others certainly believed the fabled account of the seventy translators giving us an inspired translation of the Hebrew that was just as good, if not superior to, the original Hebrew text.



I provided quotes about that in the last LXX thread I started. He couldn't have felt that the LXX (that they had at the time!) was inspired in the same sense the KJV onlies feel, i.e. that there was word for word preservation without any errors. After all, he admitted Jerome's translation of at least Job was closer to the original than the Greek based version that was then common.


----------



## DTK (Dec 7, 2009)

TimV said:


> > Do you understand why Augustine was so fond of the LXX translation of the OT on which his own Latin translation was based?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, and you've convinced me that you don't understand Augustine. But I have no desire to engage you further on account of the way you addressed me in an earlier thread. Consider this to be my last post to you until you offer me a public apology.

PS. I am not a part of the "KJV onlies" and do not appreciate the implied connection based upon what must be some subjective guess.

DTK


----------



## TimV (Dec 7, 2009)

> PS. I am not a part of the "KJV onlies" and do not appreciate the implied connection based upon what must be some subjective guess.



I guessed that you weren't, and was trying to make you see that you were accusing me of doubting the doctrine of inerrancy, even after I went out of my way to clarify that

1: Due to Rob's (C&H) long standing defence of the KJV as word for word perfect and then modifying his stance somewhat to allow for errors in the KJV as long as any corrections would be made on clear Byzantine testimony, it would only be natural for me to assume the point he wanted to discuss were those sorts of error he had in mind. 

2: That I may have understood the point wrong because of that.

3: I clearly said that there were no errors in the autographs.

I just tried to get clarification from you and you accused me of running.


----------



## P.F. (Dec 7, 2009)

Larry, 

Hopefully the dialog above provides you with the evidence that the plain meaning of Augustine's words should not be disregarded, and that consequently Augustine did believe that the originals (whether better represented in the Greek or Hebrew) were without error.


----------



## DTK (Dec 7, 2009)

Dear folks reading this thread. I accused no one of "running." And due to the fact that this is the sort of thing continues here, I intend to limit my participation on this board, if not reconsider altogether my future participation. This sort of thing gets old, and I think my time and effort are best used elsewhere.

Blessings to those who have been patient with me,
DTK


----------



## larryjf (Dec 7, 2009)

PCFLANAGAN said:


> Larry,
> 
> Hopefully the dialog above provides you with the evidence that the plain meaning of Augustine's words should not be disregarded, and that consequently Augustine did believe that the originals (whether better represented in the Greek or Hebrew) were without error.



I would like to see more context of what Augustine wrote before making a decision for myself as to his belief on the autographic text. I have a suspicion that he was writing Jerome regarding his use of the Hebrew texts...i'll have to look into this a bit further than this thread allows.


----------



## P.F. (Dec 7, 2009)

Larry:

By all means, read the context for yourself: NPNF1-01. The Confessions and Letters of St. Augustin, with a Sketch of his Life and Work | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

As you'll see in the introduction, you will probably want to read three preceding letters also.


----------



## TimV (Dec 7, 2009)

I apologize for my ungracious remark of saying you were in a self righteous huff.

You said



> It doesn't seem that I can get a simple, straight answer for your claim. Therefore, I'm bowing out of this discussion to spend my time in more fruitful pursuits.



When Todd, the other person demanding me prove my point, could see I meant



> If I'm deciphering things correctly now, it seems that Tim did not mean to claim that Augustine denied inerrancy, but that he denied perfect manuscript transmission.



And I lost my patience with you, since I made myself as plain as I could.


----------



## lynnie (Dec 7, 2009)

Something the OP might find interesting to read is part of a book I just read last week. It is Marsden's history of Fuller Seminary called Reforming Fundamentalism, and brings in some of the great American evangelical debates from the time of Machen onward. Not exactly ancient history, but the chapter towards the end where the great inerrancy debate starts up is rather fascinating. 

Dan Fuller took a position of limited inerrancy that lent itself to treating history and science as inspired but not inerrant, and a big fuss started up. Hubbard was appointed president and he too rejected classic inerrancy in favor of limited ( true for spiritual things and faith and morals, but not necessarily history and science).

It was a quick slope from there. Once you go to limited you open the door to questioning other things like some of Paul's writings. You might like reading it just to get a background of why doctrine in American evangelicalism is going off the rails, especially at formerly good colleges like say Calvin, Eastern, etc.


----------



## FenderPriest (Dec 7, 2009)

Wayne said:


> FenderPriest said:
> 
> 
> > The Muller reading that was recommended is _very_ helpful on this point, especially regarding how to think of the Reformational position.
> ...



Wayne,

The reading is Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, II, 224-294. In 4.2 Muller opens the issue that the Reformational writers assumed the issue of inerrancy, and used the basic definitions of the terminology developed from the medieval scholastics. The issue at stake for them wasn’t inspiration (which they shared formal agreement with the Roman Catholic Church over) but the authority of Scripture. The Reformation doctrine of Scripture can be summarized as, “inspired, dictated by the Holy Spirit, [and] the words of God” (239). The doctrine’s aspects are considered in Aristotelian terms, so that it is essentially (fundamentally) from God, while accidentally (properties not consisting in nature) in human form (242).

Of the Orthodox, Owen held a very strict view of divine dictation and passivity in the authors largely to preserve the infallibility of Scripture. However everybody did not argue in this manner (Pictet, Virtinga, Venema, etc., 249), stating that inspiration “in no way indicates the loss of rational faculties” in the writers, instead stating that it was “an illumination of their rational faculties with a heavenly light and their preservation from error” (250). Textual criticism is not entirely rejected by all the Orthodox, but incorporating it under a thorough teaching of verbal inspiration (Poole), even allowing for inspired redactors (Henry). 

There is more to be said here - I'm basically cutting and pasting from some work I did for class recently. Hope this helps.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 7, 2009)

McGowan's position is quite confusing. He doesn't like the doctrine of inerrancy, but he says he doesn't believe in errancy either. He may be trying to have his cake and eat it.

I shouldn't comment as I haven't read the book. Here's Dr Iain D. Campbell's critique of it:-

Creideamh: Search results for mcgowan

and John Richard de Witt:-

Banner of Truth Trust General Articles


----------



## TimV (Dec 7, 2009)

Larry, here are some quotes from Augustine on the subject



> In this letter I have further to say, that I have since heard that you have translated Job out of the original Hebrew, although in your own translation of the same prophet from the Greek tongue we had already a version of that book. In that earlier version you marked with asterisks the words found in the Hebrew but wanting in the Greek, and with obelisks the words found in the Greek but wanting in the Hebrew; and this was done with such astonishing exactness, that in some places we have every word distinguished by a separate asterisk, as a sign that these words are in the Hebrew, but not in the Greek. Now, however, in this more recent version from the Hebrew, there is not the same scrupulous fidelity as to the words; and it perplexes any thoughtful reader to understand either what was the reason for marking the asterisks in the former version with so much care that they indicate the absence from the Greek version of even the smallest grammatical particles which have not been rendered from the Hebrew, or what is the reason for so much less care having been taken in this recent version from the Hebrew to secure that these same particles be found in their own places. I would have put down here an extract or two in illustration of this criticism; but at present I have not access to the manuscript of the translation from the Hebrew. Since, however, your quick discernment anticipates and goes beyond not only what I have said, but also what I meant to say, you already understand, I think, enough to be able, by giving the reason for the plan which you have adopted, to explain what perplexes me.
> 
> For my part, I would much rather that you would furnish us with a translation of the Greek version of the canonical Scriptures known as the work of the Seventy translators. For if your translation begins to be more generally read in many churches, it will be a grievous thing that, in the reading of Scripture, differences must arise between the Latin Churches and the Greek Churches, especially seeing that the discrepancy is easily condemned in a Latin version by the production of the original in Greek, which is a language very widely known; whereas, if any one has been disturbed by the occurrence of something to which he was not accustomed in the translation taken from the Hebrew, and alleges that the new translation is wrong, it will be found difficult, if not impossible, to get at the Hebrew documents by which the version to which exception is taken may be defended. And when they are obtained, who will submit, to have so many Latin and Greek authorities pronounced to be in the wrong?



Letters of Augustine (No. 28, 71, 82) and the Letters of Jerome (No. 112) in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Translated into English with Prolegomena and Explanatory Notes under the Editorial Supervision of Henry Wace and Philip Schaff. (Oxford: Parker; New York: Christian Literature Co., 1890-1900).

And from chapter 44 of his City of God



> But some one may say, "How shall I know whether the prophet Jonah said to the Ninevites, 'Yet three days and Nineveh shall be overthrown,' or forty days?" [Jon. iii. 4.] For who does not see that the prophet could not say both, when he was sent to terrify the city by the threat of imminent ruin? For if its destruction was to take place on the third day, it certainly could not be on the fortieth; but if on the fortieth, then certainly not on the third. *If, then, I am asked which of these Jonah may have said, I rather think what is read in the Hebrew*, "Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown." Yet the Seventy, interpreting long afterward, could say what was different and yet pertinent to the matter, and agree in the self-same meaning, although under a different signification. And this may admonish the reader not to despise the authority of either, but to raise himself above the history, and search for those things which the history itself was written to set forth


. 

Note the bolded section. So you can see he wanted an ecumenical text (at least with the OT) and he was willing that the text contained errors of transmission, but that those errors didn't change any Christian doctrine. Or at least that's how I read him.


----------



## P.F. (Dec 7, 2009)

TimV:

Would you agree with me that Augustine (like Whitaker) believed that the autographs were without error?


----------



## TimV (Dec 7, 2009)

Hi

Yes, from what I understand, he felt the autographs inspired. If nothing else, those who believe the autographs were not inspired would use Augustine for "ammo" just like those who don't believe in 6 day creation use Augustine for ammo to support their side. In other words, those who don't believe in the Genesis account use Augustine as a fellow traveller, since he clearly didn't believe in 6 day creationism. And if Augustine truly doubted that the autographs were without error, those modernists who also felt/feel that way would claim him as a fellow traveller, but to my knowledge don't.

But my reading of him is severely limited, what with me being a construction worker and all. I've only concentrated on his view of the LXX and a very few other issues, and I find him (surely due to my limitations) difficult.

Best


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Dec 7, 2009)

Hay Guys:

I was not aware that my little book review would touch off such a serious firestorm. I think that those who hold to inerrancy need to answer some questions as a means of defining their position fully:

1) Did Satan misquote (thus produce an error) when he quoted Scripture to Jesus during the temptation of Jesus?

2) God says to Job that he and his friends did not speak perfectly - thus stating that they erred - but God does not "correct" or "point out" their errors?

3) When Paul says that he baptized only a few people in Corinth, and then, later on, says he also baptized others - was his original statement in error?

Since I am about to start class I will leave you with these "errors" to think about.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Christusregnat (Dec 7, 2009)

TimV said:


> Hi
> 
> Yes, from what I understand, he felt the autographs inspired.



Inerrant though?


----------



## TimV (Dec 7, 2009)

> Inerrant though?



Yes! I caught that lack of clarity and edited my post while you were making yours.


----------



## P.F. (Dec 7, 2009)

Rob:

As to your three-part question:

1) Did Satan misquote (thus produce an error) when he quoted Scripture to Jesus during the temptation of Jesus?

As to the traditional doctrine of inerrancy, the answer is that the Scriptures accurately relate what Satan said. As Theodoret explains in Question 88 on Genesis, "So no one should imagine that such words are those of holy Scripture; the author sets down the words of pagans, because he is writing history." Likewise, when Scripture tells us that the fool said in his heart, "There is no god," that is not an error on the part of Scripture, though it is on the part of the fool.

2) God says to Job that he and his friends did not speak perfectly - thus stating that they erred - but God does not "correct" or "point out" their errors?

I'd beg to differ with this interpretation of Job. Nevertheless, a similar interpretation to that given about as to (1) may be set forth here as well.

3) When Paul says that he baptized only a few people in Corinth, and then, later on, says he also baptized others - was his original statement in error?

No.


----------



## Christusregnat (Dec 7, 2009)

CalvinandHodges said:


> 1) Did Satan misquote (thus produce an error) when he quoted Scripture to Jesus during the temptation of Jesus?
> 
> 2) God says to Job that he and his friends did not speak perfectly - thus stating that they erred - but God does not "correct" or "point out" their errors?
> 
> 3) When Paul says that he baptized only a few people in Corinth, and then, later on, says he also baptized others - was his original statement in error?



Rob,

Is this a serious series of question? It is hard for me you to believe that you are serious in these.

If, for example, the Holy Spirit provides us a quotation of an erroneous statement (questions 1 and 2 above), does that mean that the Holy Spirit was guilty of error? If the Holy Spirit retells the sinful actions of men, does that make the Holy Spirit guilty of their sins? The questions are ridiculous.

As for the third, the usage of sacrasm, hyperbole and exaggeration are not errors; those who read them amiss are in error.

These questions do not give the Holy Spirit the benefit of the doubt, and I pray that you are not ensnared by such jejune irrationality.


Adam


----------



## Wayne (Dec 7, 2009)

Rob:

Have you read Warfield, or Woodbridge, or Beale on this topic?


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Dec 7, 2009)

Greetings:

It is breaktime - so I can answer some of these points.

Adam - you are reading into my questions more than what I say. This is an example of the rationalist presuppositions which indwell the inerrantist position.

Wayne - I have read Warfield on this issue, and I am familiar with Woodbridge from McGowan and speaking with others. I have just picked up Beale's book "The erosion of inerrancy in evangelism."

Inerrancy has been eroded to the point where an evangelical can be defined as the emerging church. We see a degrading progression concerning inspiration from the 19th century onwards. Warfield degraded inspiration by using a rationalist approach and formulating the current inerrantist position. Now inerrancy is being degraded to something akin to postmodern/neo-orthodox understanding of Scripture.

Sorry class is starting....

Rob


----------



## py3ak (Dec 7, 2009)

Rob, take your time. It is better to answer judiciously than to answer in haste. And I think you have at least one more pressing matter.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Dec 7, 2009)

Hi:

I have homework to do, but I do have a few minutes to flesh this out some more. I think a quote from McGowan's book may help:



> My argument is that Scripture, having been divinely spirated, is as God intended it to be. Having freely chosen to use human beings, God knew what he was doing. He did not give us an inerrant autographical text, because he did not intend to do so. He gave us a text that reflects the humanity of its authors but that, at the same time, clearly evidences its origin in the divine speaking. Through the instrumentality of the Holy Spirit, God is perfectly able to use these Scriptures to accomplish his purposes ... Lest there be some who suspect that I am really presenting a slightly different version of the Rogers and McKim hypothesis, it is important to clarify the difference between their position and the position advocated in this chapter ... I am arguing for a high view of Scripture, based on a verbal spiration of the text but one which accepts that God chose to use human authors, with all the implications of that decision. In other words, I am arguing that Scripture is as God intended it to be, in his gracious providential overruling, but reject the impication that thereby the _autographia_ must be inerrant, p. 124.


McGowan is forced to come to this decision because: 1) There is no clear teaching in Scripture that advocates the modern view of inerrancy, and, 2) There is no satisfactory argument from "good and necessary consequence" which teaches inerrancy. The idea of inerrancy neglects the human element in the Scriptures.

On the same page McGowan talks of the Rogers/McKim and Woodbridge debate:



> Their (Rogers and McKim) analysis of the theology of Calvin is particularly striking. They lay heavy stress on his understanding of accommodation, literalism and the nature of 'error' and argue that he was relatively unconcerned with minor discrepanciees in the text and certainly did not hold an inerrantist position. John Woodbridge, in his response, produces many references where Calvin appears to have a very high view of Scripture, even occasionally verging on the dictation theory. On the whole, Woodbridge had the best of the argument, but the problem remains - there are references produced by Rodgers and McKim that cannot be accommodated by Woodbridge's hypothesis, and there are references produced by Woodbridge that cannot be accommodated by Rogers and McKim's hypothesis. How are we to explain this difficuty?
> 
> The answer lies in recognizing that we are being offered a false choice here. We do not have to choose between Woodbridge's inerrantist text and Rogers and McKim's errantist text. There is a third option, namely that the Scriptures we have are precisely as God intended them to be, but we must take seriously the fact that God used human authors to communicate his Word and did not make them into ciphers in do so. Calvin and Luther understood this and gave a much higher place to the humanness of the Scriptures than later writers in the Reformed tradition. That is why neither Rogers and McKim nor Woodbridge can get them to 'fit' completely into their theories ... As far as they (Luther and Calvin) were concerned, the Scriptures had come from God and could therefore be trusted, but having used human authors one must expect these minor textual difficulties. Certainly, these textual matters should not be regarded as undermining the supreme authority of God's Word, 124-125. parenthesis mine


The Holy Spirit can use the errors of the human authors of Scripture for His Own Purpose. Thus, when Matthew writes down the errors of Satan - he does so under the approbation of the Spirit of God. The error is recorded and is a part of Scripture because God has a purpose in presenting it.

What is the consequence of saying that the words of Satan are not a part of Scripture? Can we then edit out these words and have a complete teaching from Christ?

There are two principles at work here:

The first involves text-critical matters. Over the centuries "errors" have been introduced through the copying process. In this specific category we can speak of an inerrant autograph - that the autographs are free from copying errors. They have to be, because they are the originals! I believe that the large majority of what Augustine and others are saying is speaking to that very point.

The *authentic* copies of these autographs (as spoken of in the WCF 1:8) are also free from copy errors, and, because they contain every jot and tittle of the autographs, are just as inspired as the autographs. Consequently, these copies have the authority of the autographs and are the rule and touchstone concerning all controversies of religion.

To give an example of this: If we have Paul's autograph of the Book of Romans, and we made a clear photocopy of it, then the copy would be as inspired as the original. This is not because of any virtue in the copy machine, but because it is an exact copy of the original. As this is the case - the copy would be as inspired - and inerrant - as the autograph.

It is the second principle that I think McGowan is addressing:

That God allowed errors into the *autographs* for the accomplishment of His Own Special Purpose. Inerrantists need to explain the errors away because they have brought into the arguments of the 19th Century rationalists. They explain these errors away either as, 1) The errors are not a part of Scripture, 2) They use a bizarre theological or textual juggling to prove that they are not errors, or, 3) Finally, they claim that there are no errors in the autographs, but these are simply copy errors accumulated over the centuries. I am sure there are other points as well - these are the ones that I am familiar with at this juncture.

I think that McGowan is touching upon something that is very important in the Reformed understanding of the Inspiration of the Scriptures, but is seriously lacking in the idea of inerrancy. The inerrantists are so fanatical about defending the Spirit-Inspired Scriptures (2 Tim 3:16), that they forget that "Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit," (2 Pt 1:21), and, "God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the *fathers by the prophets*, Hath in these last days *spoken unto us by his Son*," (Heb 1:1-2). They miss the human element in Scripture - especially regarding the inspired errors in the autographs.

Hope this helps,

In Jesus,

Rob


----------



## Christusregnat (Dec 8, 2009)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Adam - you are reading into my questions more than what I say. This is an example of the rationalist presuppositions which indwell the inerrantist position.



I'm sorry Rob, but your driveby epithets move very little. Your assertions are moving further and further away from orthodoxy. The Bible is not the word of man, it is the Word of God. Modern "scholarship" is craven for respectability, and you seem to be swept up in this as well.

The recording of Satan's error is not an error. This is such a ridiculous assertion that it makes me wonder why you would want to even say such a thing. The bottom line is that since the rise of German Rationalism, men have been craven before their Gnostic idols. Men such as Philip Schaff introduced this middle position by dismissing the "magical inspiration" theory of Augustine as the Reformers as "untenable" in a "scientific and critical age". You have fallen into his trap, and your end will be with Schaff. If you are consistent with this fear of man position, you will be devoured. You are cutting up the faith by its roots: our faith does not stand in the wisdom of man, but in the wisdom and power of God. If Paul could say that the preaching of the apostles and prophets was received "not as the word of man, but as it is in truth the Word of God", HOW MUCH MORE THEIR WRITINGS?!


----------



## toddpedlar (Dec 8, 2009)

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> I have homework to do, but I do have a few minutes to flesh this out some more. I think a quote from McGowan's book may help:
> 
> ...



If the words of Satan are what Satan said, then their presence in the autographs is not an "error in the autographs". To argue that such IS an example of "errors in the autoraphs", it seems to me, a complete misunderstanding of inerrancy.



> There are two principles at work here:
> 
> The first involves text-critical matters. Over the centuries "errors" have been introduced through the copying process. In this specific category we can speak of an inerrant autograph - that the autographs are free from copying errors. They have to be, because they are the originals! I believe that the large majority of what Augustine and others are saying is speaking to that very point.



On what basis do you say that?



> The *authentic* copies of these autographs (as spoken of in the WCF 1:8) are also free from copy errors, and, because they contain every jot and tittle of the autographs, are just as inspired as the autographs. Consequently, these copies have the authority of the autographs and are the rule and touchstone concerning all controversies of religion.



And why would this be a problem?



> It is the second principle that I think McGowan is addressing:
> 
> That God allowed errors into the *autographs* for the accomplishment of His Own Special Purpose. Inerrantists need to explain the errors away because they have brought into the arguments of the 19th Century rationalists. They explain these errors away either as, 1) The errors are not a part of Scripture, 2) They use a bizarre theological or textual juggling to prove that they are not errors, or, 3) Finally, they claim that there are no errors in the autographs, but these are simply copy errors accumulated over the centuries. I am sure there are other points as well - these are the ones that I am familiar with at this juncture.
> 
> I think that McGowan is touching upon something that is very important in the Reformed understanding of the Inspiration of the Scriptures, but is seriously lacking in the idea of inerrancy. The inerrantists are so fanatical about defending the Spirit-Inspired Scriptures (2 Tim 3:16), that they forget that "Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit," (2 Pt 1:21), and, "God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the *fathers by the prophets*, Hath in these last days *spoken unto us by his Son*," (Heb 1:1-2). They miss the human element in Scripture - especially regarding the inspired errors in the autographs.



So let me be very plain, because your excess verbiage eludes interpretation. 

Do you intend to say that some of the time when God "spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets" the prophets messed up what was to be said? That is, are there mistakes in Scripture - things that the human authors wrote, but which are incorrect - where, because of their humanness, the authors messed up the intended revelation of truth? That is - an example of this might be that instead of fish WITH scales and fins being unclean, fish WITHOUT scales and fins are in fact unclean. Is this kind of error in the autographs because of the humanness of their authors? If you're continually going back to "the humanness of the authors" isn't this your main point - that such errors exist (for the purpose of the Holy Spirit, as you say)? 

Or, do you merely mean that there are things recorded that are untrue? (e.g. the words of Satan in Genesis 3, "you will not surely die") These NO inerrantist would deny.


----------



## CalvinandHodges (Dec 8, 2009)

toddpedlar said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> > Hi:
> ...



Thank you, Todd, for that kindly reply.

I fail to see how the words of Satan in Matthew 4:6 can be considered anything but wrong. I know that you are not suggesting that Satan is teaching orthodoxy in that passage. But if such is problematic for you, then consider Paul's "senior moment" in 1 Cor 1:14-16.

If the Scriptures are promoting an "inerrantist" view of itself, then Paul would have been able to list all of those of whom he baptized right away. Instead he says:

_I thank God that I baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius:_

He then continues his remonstration of the Corinthians in verse 15. Then in verse 16 he says:

_And I baptized also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not whether I baptized any other._

This section of Scripture is problematic for those who hold to "inerrancy." I believe that the Holy Spirit is showing us the human element in Scripture. Paul's "senior moment" or "error" if you wish is controlled by the Spirit of God for His Own Purposes.

Or, consider this "error": What did Jesus really say?

_Mark 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel._

Or,

_Matt 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand._

Did Jesus use the term "Kingdom of God" or "Kingdom of Heaven"? One of these has to be an "error." (I put the word "error" in quotes because, according to the rationalistic position of the inerrantists these passages become problematic.)

If you consider, though, that the Holy Spirit is using the human personality of the writers in the above examples, then their "errors" can be accounted for in a reasonable fashion. From a rationalistic and scientifically technical perspective the above mentioned incidents are "errors" - including the "error" of Satan.

I have been up all night - so it is to bed I now go - good night, and,

Blessings!

-Rob


----------



## toddpedlar (Dec 8, 2009)

CalvinandHodges said:


> toddpedlar said:
> 
> 
> > So let me be very plain, because your excess verbiage eludes interpretation.
> ...



You're welcome... I hope you'll answer the questions I asked that you didn't answer yet. Thanks...



CalvinandHodges said:


> I fail to see how the words of Satan in Matthew 4:6 can be considered anything but wrong. I know that you are not suggesting that Satan is teaching orthodoxy in that passage.



I don't see how this can be construed as "an error in the autographs" since Satan's words are faithfully represented, though they be lies. They are NOT errors. To posit this as an "error" is, as I've already said, a complete misunderstanding of the doctrine of inerrancy. Your examples of Paul in 1 Corinthians (Are you serious with that one? You really think that has anything to say contra inerrancy?) 



CalvinandHodges said:


> Or, consider this "error": What did Jesus really say?
> 
> _Mark 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel._
> 
> ...



Why must we assume that Matthew and Mark are reporting exactly the same instance of speech? Do you think there was only one time at which Christ spoke before choosing Simon? Why do you assume these are direct quotations a la "Peter said 'Christ died and rose again on the third day'" as opposed to "Peter said Christ died and rose again on the third day", a distinction not made in the autographs (or I believe in Koine). 

If you think these are "errors" that give problems for those who hold to inerrancy, it's clear you don't understand the doctrine, but have adopted some kind of caricature of the doctrine of inerrancy with which modern liberal scholars tar and feather people who hold to it. 

I look forward to hearing your response to the questions I asked earlier, because they get at what you really believe vis a vis inerrancy (the real doctrine thereof, not the liberal scholars' caricature of it).


----------



## Wayne (Dec 8, 2009)

Rob:

You have stated that you are a student at RPTS. I have to ask then, is what you've been relating here on the Puritan Board consistent with what you have been taught there in class? I highly doubt it, but have to ask.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Dec 8, 2009)

Some helpful reviews of McGowan's book: 

Is Inerrancy Unbiblical, Rationalistic and Presumptuous? A critique of A.T.B. McGowan's proposal for evangelicals to reject inerrancy - Reformation21

http://www.knoxpcea.org.au/index.ph...of-scripture-creed-and-confessions&Itemid=119

Banner of Truth Trust General Articles

Andrew McGowan, The Divine Spiration of Scripture (Nottingham: Apollos (IVP), 2007)


----------



## TimV (Dec 8, 2009)

> Mark 1:15 And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye, and believe the gospel.
> 
> Or,
> 
> ...



It's like the different inscriptions on the cross. The gospels don't always report a whole sermon or the whole of a specific dialogue. They were both said and just parts were recorded in different places.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 8, 2009)

Here is Gill on Matthew 4:6. 


> Mat 4:6 And saith unto him, if thou be the Son of God,.... He addresses him after the same manner as before; if, or seeing,
> 
> thou art the Son of God, show thyself to be so; give proof of thy sonship before all the priests which are in and about the temple, and before all the inhabitants of Jerusalem;
> 
> ...



Satan is a distorter of truth. I may not be understanding your point Rob. But I see no problem for the person who holds to innerrancy here. Truth can be spoken in a way that can make it a temptation. Especially partial truth. Notice Satan didn't quote the entire passage. 

And the 1 Corinthians 1:16 passage concerning Stephanus is mute in my opinion. Stephanus is not originally from Corinth so Paul adds him to the list as a secondary issue. Stephanus is originally from Achaia. 1 Corinthians 16:15. So Stephanus isn't originally one of the Corinthians. 

BTW, who is denying the human element in scripture in the camp that believes in innerrancy? 

And who is denying that the Spirit of God can't bare men along and use general synonymous language to teach truth? Why can't Jesus have said both the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God? I am not so sure you are understanding innerrancy? Is it possible that you are developing too wooden of an attitude in defining things?

BTW, I believe you are on dangerous ground. I have seen many in my 28 years start on this path you are on who swerve off into all sorts of bad doctrine. That is my experience. I pray it isn't so with you.

Addition to original post because this was brought to my attention....

Jesus in Matthew 19:23,24 used the terms God and Heaven synonomously and together even. 



> (Mat 19:23) Then said Jesus unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven.
> 
> (Mat 19:24) And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.


----------



## P.F. (Dec 8, 2009)

A couple points:

1) Rob: you don't seem to understand what the doctrine of inerrancy claims. One helpful place for you to start is by reviewing the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy: THE CHICAGO STATEMENT ON BIBLICAL INERRANCY 

2) This thread was really aimed at inerrancy in historical theology, not a general defense of inerrancy. So far we have seen that Augustine and Theodoret held to a view of inerrancy. We also learned in the previous thread that the same can be found in Gregory of Nazianzen (Oration 2, Section 105):


> I remembered the days of old, and, recurring to one of the ancient histories, drew counsel for myself therefrom as to my present conduct; for let us not suppose these events to have been recorded without a purpose, nor that they are a mere assemblage of words and deeds gathered together for the pastime of those who listen to them, as a kind of bait for the ears, for the sole purpose of giving pleasure. Let us leave such jesting to the legends and the Greeks, who think but little of the truth, and enchant ear and mind by the charm of their fictions and the daintiness of their style.
> 
> *We however, who extend the accuracy of the Spirit to the merest stroke and tittle, will never admit the impious assertion that even the smallest matters were dealt with haphazard by those who have recorded them*, and have thus been borne in mind down to the present day: on the contrary, their purpose has been to supply memorials and instructions for our consideration under similar circumstances, should such befall us, and that the examples of the past might serve as rules and models, for our warning and imitation.



There are many more here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f15/innerancy-church-fathers-24121/

And, additionally, folks have pointed out some resources from Muller and Gaffin.

Perhaps it would make sense for me to try to locate statements about inerrancy from other specific Reformers besides Whitaker.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 8, 2009)

Human beings are perfectly able to speak without error. Is everything that comes out of our mouths false? 

So the humanity of the Bible is not impaired because God ensured it was without error.

The humanity of the Bible is in fact enhanced, because it is like the unfallen humanity of Adam before the Fall or like that of Christ.

Remember that all the words of Scripture - including the OT - come through our Prophet Christ.

Are the errantists saying that Christ was capable of speaking error and thus making Him a sinner ?

I agree with Adam, Rob, that some of your points are childish. Because e.g. Eve misquotes God in Genesis 3:3, and Satan contradicts God in 3:4, and God's Word accurately records that, does that mean the Bible is full of error?

To ask the Q is to answer it. If God's Word had recorded that Eve had not misquoted God, and that Satan had agreed with God, would you then say it was not in error at this point?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 8, 2009)

This thread is going to take a break. Rob doesn't need everyone to gang up on him. He needs to respond to Todd's questions.


----------

