Inerrancy & Humility

Excellent quotes from Tim Keller (HT: Kevin DeYoung):

On inerrancy and the untenable combination of biblical authority and errancy:

Just for the record: I have no problem at all talking about inerrancy. As a pastor if I actually say to someone, any layperson–if I believe in the authority of the Bible but not the inerrancy of the Bible, they’re going to say, “what’s the difference?” And as soon as I begin to explain it, their eyes glaze over. And they’re going to think of it as a distinction without a difference. If I say it’s not authoritative in all its parts and it’s not inerrant, they understand that. And if I say it’s authoritative and inerrant, they understand that. But to say it’s authoritative and not inerrant, I’ve never in 35 years of working with people been able to get that.

On distinguishing epistemic humility and spiritual humility:

I’ve heard people talk about epistemological humility saying that you have to admit that it’s hard to judge what the Bible says because there are so many interpretations. It’s hard in a postmodern situation to get people to take your seriously. [So] I think you need spiritual humility. As a sinner, I know I have prejudices. And I know you do too. And there are things you want the text to say and you don’t want the text to say. So we have to be really careful about being too quick to say this is what it says.

Basically, being spiritually humble [does not mean] talking about how difficult it is to figure out and judge all the various interpretations and figure out the culture distance; instead if they see me just being spiritual humble about it and asking them to do it, then they’ll follow. I don’t think it’s an epistemological humility [we need], saying the text is indeterminate and I really don’t know what it means. I think a spiritual humility along with a clear interpretation of the scripture is what has taken me through. And it’s New York. It’s not a backwater place.

May I say, hallelujah and amen, brother.

Comments

[Johnnie]

The Rand McNally Road Atlas has weight of authority. It is highly reliable, but not inerrant.

[Richard Romano]

"The Rand McNally Road Atlas has weight of authority. It is highly reliable, but not inerrant."

Non-sequitur par excellence. It's great not having to deal with the substance of the post, huh?

Well done, Jonnnie.

[Johnnie]

"But to say it’s authoritative and not inerrant, I’ve never in 35 years of working with people been able to get that."

So what substance of the post did I not deal with?

[Newbietu]

Johnnie,
Authoritative doesn't mean "reasonably accurate," it means "must be obeyed."
I challenge you to go up to any of the significant authoritarian leaders in the world and tell them you consider their orders to have the authority of a road atlas :)

[Johnnie]

From Wikipedia (which might not be "authoritative"):

"Adjective: authoritative (comparative more authoritative, superlative most authoritative)

1.Arising or originating from a figure of authority
The authoritative rules in this school come not from the headmaster but from the aged matron.
2.Highly accurate or definitive; treated or worthy of treatment as a scholarly authority
This book is the world's most authoritative guide to insect breeding habits.
3.Having a commanding style.
He instructed us in that booming, authoritative voice of his."

If there are degrees of authoritativeness, does that mean there are degrees of obligations to obey?

[Newbietu]

I don't see where you are getting "degrees of authoritativeness"
It looks like you were using definition 2 while Melinda and I were using definition 1. Since that is the case, what do you think of Melinda's point, that if Scripture is accepted as authoritative, it must also be believed to be inerrant?

[Johnnie]

If we use definition 1, I would not say that if Scripture is authoritative, it must also be inerrant. That is because authority does not have to be inerrant. In regard to obedience to authority, we obey God not because he is good, or because he is inerrant, but because he is God.

[Perry Shields]

I believe it is naive to believe that anything involving human interaction can ultimately be trusted as being inerrant. However, that is not to say that truth cannot be communicated though inerrant things. If the collection of books we call The Bible contains errors, it is not to the detriment of the message. Its authority can remain solid. I like the Road Atlas analogy and do not believe it to be a non-sequitur. The Bible is considered a guide, as is a road atlas. The comparison is straight across. In both cases, small errors, should they exist, can be surmounted by the surrounding context.

[Peter Tschantz]

The problem with believing that the Bible is not the inerrant word of God, is determining which parts are, and are not, in error.

I find likening the Bible to a Road Atlas to be troubling. For example, the Road Atlas by definition requires updates to remain accurate. And regardless of the desires of some, attempting to do the same with the Bible leads rapidly from the narrow path to the wide.

[Johnnie]

What would prevent new canons of Scripture from appearing?

[Perry Shields]

"The problem with believing that the Bible is not the inerrant word of God, is determining which parts are, and are not, in error."

We already do this; for example, the last part of Mark, and several verses which appear in print in modern Bibles but which are footnoted as being spurious.

By calling it "the inerrant Word of God," we forget that it is a collection of texts for which we do not have the original copies. We can say "inerrant in the original autographs," but we are making a guess based on documents we have never seen.

I find that the quest for certainty leads to rigidity, and I prefer an ongoing dialogue whereby I am constantly learning new things and challenging my assumptions.

[Marshall]

I'm sure Tim Keller believes in the authority of the Bible we have and read today, even though he apparently limits complete inerrancy to the original documents that were lost to time.

So, I hope he continues to work on explaining that difference between authority and inerrancy to others, since it would seem to be a distinction that he holds to as well.