Derek Rishmawy, writing at the Gospel Coalition, reflects on this issue.
I recently ran across a couple of different writers raising questions about the value of affirming inerrancy or infallibility for the Bible, both of which hinged on the link between the text and interpretation. One wondered aloud at the coherence of claiming an infallible text when you’re a finite sinner, whose faculties are limited, likely disordered by sin and self-will, and whose interpretations must therefore be flawed. The other, a little more boldly, claimed the doctrine unnecessary, only serving human arrogance by lending added weight to the claimant’s own fallible pronouncements.
Have you ever heard these two objections to the Bible’s inerrancy?
- Fallible people aren’t qualified to judge the Bible to be infallible.
- Only arrogant, condescending people would claim that their holy book is without error.
Rishmawy very helpfully distinguishes between inerrancy/infallibility of the interpreter and that of the text itself. In other words, fallen people don’t necessarily make the book erroneous. This distinction is critical as we learn to study the Bible. We submit to the text; we don’t use it to have our own way.
Rishmawy surprised me with his closing discussion of submission to the text. He demonstrates that those who believe in the text’s inerrancy are most likely to wrestle with it and submit to it. If we believe it’s full of errors, we can minimize or disregard whatever doesn’t sit well with us. I rarely see discussions of the Bible’s inerrancy get this personal.
Check it out!
Leave a Reply