Book Review: Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy (J. Merrick and Stephen J. Garrett are editors) by Jacob
Book: J. Merrick and Stephen J. Garrett editors, Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, December 2013).
The book that is the subject of our study is the "Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy" edited by J. Merrick and Stephen J. Garrett (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, December 2013). The book presents a contribution of the 05 theologians on the question of biblical inerrancy. The participants were invited to treat and develop their position on four topics namely: (1) God and His relationship to His creatures, (2) the doctrine of inspiration, (3) the nature of Scripture, and (4) the nature of the truth.
In addition to that, they were all invited to comment on three supposedly problematic texts and how their particular interpretation of inerrancy speaks to these texts. These supposed texts raise three different types of problems of inerrancy: problems of fact and history, problems of canonical coherence and problems of theological coherence. The problematic biblical texts that were on the agenda are as follows:
1) Joshua 6, "because the current archaeological and historiographical evidence questions the details of the narrative of the text".
2) Acts 9: 7 and Acts 22: 9. “The two texts describe the conversion of Saul. The first said that his fellow travelers "heard the voice but saw no one", while the second said that they "saw the lights but did not hear the voice of the speaker" (NRSV).
3) Deuteronomy 20 and Matthew 5. "How is it that Deuteronomy 20 asks Israel that the complete extermination of the enemies of God is a matter of Israel's purity before God and obedience to him, while Jesus later says that loyalty to God demands non-retaliation and sacrificial love from enemies (Matt. 5: 38-48)?
The conference looks something like this: the contributor exposes his point of view on inerrancy, with regard to the Chicago declaration on biblical inerrancy (CSBI), then comments on the texts of the problem, then the other four contributors write a short response to the main contributor. The five contributors are, among others, Al Mohler, president of the Southern Seminary; Peter Enns, Affiliate Professor of Biblical Studies, Eastern University; Michael Bird, lecturer in theology at the Ridley Melbourne Ministry and Mission College in Australia; Kevin Vanhoozer, research professor of systematic theology at the Trinity Evangelical Divinity School; and John Franke, professor of missionary theology at the Yellowstone Theological Institute in Bozeman, Montana.
1. "When the Bible Speaks, God Speaks: The Classic
Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy" by R. Albert Mohler Jr.
Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy" by R. Albert Mohler Jr.
Mohler has a fairly classic approach to inerrancy. He addresses three arguments to explain why ''total scriptural inerrancy'': The Bible itself, the tradition of the Church, and the function of the Bible within the Church.
In the first point, he emphasizes that inerrancy is a consequence of inspiration rather than a requirement of it. This is why he will conclude by saying that inerrancy and inspiration are nothing more than summary assertions of what the Scriptures claim. He appealed by warning Bible students against liberalism in favor of conservatism. He argues that inerrancy is the only issue that truly distinguishes evangelicalism from liberal Protestantism. He frequently insists that inerrancy is a matter of fidelity to the gospel itself.
In his second point, Mohler seems to equate the Chicago Declaration on Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI) with the faithful doctrine of the Scriptures. He uses the Chicago Declaration as a standard to guide his interpretations. To be faithful to the Scriptures, he says, evangelicals must affirm their declared affirmations and join the Chicago declaration. In other words, this statement should be viewed as a belief and not a confession.
Mohler's third point is that the church needs the Bible, and therefore the inerrancy must be true. He t is based on the need of the Church to define Biblical inerrancy.
In general, the critic that can be made to Mohler is related to his last 02 points. First, it focuses on the Chicago Declaration on inerrancy to define fidelity to biblical inerrancy. So, if the inerrancy of Scripture is anchored in the infallibility of the Chicago declaration, what about all those in history who have tried to be faithful to the Scriptures without the Chicago declaration? What about everyone else in the world right now who has never heard of it and yet maintains that Scripture carries the authority of God? Secondly, he asserts that it is because that the Church needs the Bible that it is inerrant. But what inerrancy is he talking about? what about faithful Christians who had lived before the printing and full translation of the Bible?
2. "Inerrancy, However Defined, does not
Describe what the Bible does" by Peter Enns
Peter Enns values the descriptive approach to present his thematic of inerrancy. He rightly points out that inerrancy has been a central element of evangelism for its entire history and a response to the challenges of superior biblical criticism of modernism and postmodernism. For him, inerrancy is part of the gray substance of evangelism. He also suggests that the opening lines of the Chicago Declaration on inerrancy were designed precisely to discourage and neutralize the interaction and critical self-criticism that is so clearly evident within evangelicalism.
He believes that the insistence of inerrancy on scientific and historical truth escapes any real conversation between science and faith and any historical argument aroused by archaeological discoveries. The inerrancy prematurely stops rigorous investigation of what the truthfulness of the Bible means. When using his treatment of problematic passages, Enns approaches the incarnational model to explain these passages.
The problem that we have with Enns and that he values scientific inerrancy rather than biblical inerrancy. He often has problems with the definition of inerrancy. He portrays inerrancy as an exclusively modern interest. And this plunges us into total fear to the point where his willingness to accept an inerrant Bible will ultimately undermine not only his unity, but also his authority and reliability.
3. "Inerrancy is not Necessary for
Evangelism Outside the United States" by
Evangelism Outside the United States" by
Michael F. Bird criticizes many aspects of the doctrine of inerrancy, in particular the statement of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. Among other things, he shows how inerrancy developed in the United States of America. But personally, he is against the notion of an inerrant Bible by claiming that it is an American tradition and should only be taught in America, but not outside of America. If not, it would be theological colonialism, he says. He says that the international council is an American Bible-conserving company. This is why he welcomes the idea of another international council on scripture doctrine, unlike the Chicago Council. He shows that this global and broader vision of the truthfulness of the Scriptures has its roots in the history of the Church.
For me I would say that Bird has more of a liberal vision than he takes on these statements. Otherwise, the biblical truths, it is God himself who teaches us. God does not need to gather all Christians on earth to send them a truth about his nature. If not, how will we explain the teachings of the Reformers? Even the biblical references he relies on to support this idea do not fit into the context of the International Council of Biblical Inerrancy. For me and for the majority of conservatives in general, inerrancy is not a geographic matter, but rather a universal matter.
4. "Augustinian Inerrancy: Literary Meaning, Literal Truth and Literary
Interpretation in the Economics of Biblical Discourse" by Kevin Vanhoozer
For Kevin Vanhoozer, inerrancy is a subset in the doctrine of biblical infallibility, but is necessary because in our context the term infallible has become diluted. He believes that inerrancy should be a test of evangelical coherence rather than evangelical identity. Furthermore, he argues that the Bible itself must ultimately determine truth and error, rather than our expectations.
Kevin also makes a distinction between an inerrant of the cross and an inerrant of glory. For him, these categories seem to serve mainly to distinguish natural theology from revealed theology, with their respectively different criteria of truth and perfection. He also brings a wealth of literary and hermeneutic skills and meanings to his treatment of inerrancy by reminding us of the importance of distinguishing literary truth from literal truth and what the Bible says from what the Bible says.
Kevin Vanhoozer is relevant in his speech. But these certain statements often seem obsolete among his readers like me. I would like for example that it brings even more arguments on the notions of test of the coherent inerrancy and the identical inerrancy within evangelism.
1. "Reconstructing Inerrancy: The Bible as Witness
to Missionary Plurality" by John Franke
John Franke's essay on inerrancy is described as an experiment in post-conservative or progressive evangelical theology with emphasis on a mission section. He analyzes inerrancy from the point of view of the doctrine of God, emphasizing his missionary love and his tri-unity. He wants to emphasize the truth of the Word of God as an event, related to the presence and work of the Spirit. He also draws attention to the eschatological nature of all true knowledge, the importance of the Christian community and missionary plurality.
He also accuses the International Council of Inerrancy for its strong epistemological nationalism which, according to him, has been deeply discredited in philosophical circles. He accuses these inerrantists of being dependent on foundationalism and therefore calls to begin to approach the Bible in a different way like them.
But the problem is that when he accuses them of being dependent on foundationalism, we do not know exactly in what sense the International Council is fundamentalist? Conservatives, yes. But fundamentalist? In which way? In substance or in form?
Conclusion
Inerrancy is an important and topical biblical theme in evangelical circles. But despite the advancement of modernist theology and natural theology, it is going through a lot of controversy today. This book that we have just studied traces the boundaries of the debate about, while teaching us how we must understand the Bible that defines who we worship and how we worship.
Basically and in final, I find that inerrancy is a scriptural doctrine. A noble and important doctrine which, when properly surrendered, protects the authoritative role that the Word of God is said to have in the lives of His people. It is a most relevant and urgent doctrine for the faith and the life of the church. It guarantees that we remain judged, not judges, in our relationship with God and the truth.
Read also
Canon Biblique: 07 Raisons de Rejeter les Apocryphes dans les Écritures
De l’Opportunité d’une Emphase sur l’Intégration des Soins Spirituels aux Malades by Dr Yves Mbende
Une Evaluation Historique et Théologique de l’Interprétation des Ecrirures by Jacob
© Copyright 2020 All rights reserved by Jacob Aguimesheo
Commentaires
Enregistrer un commentaire