One Little Nail
Puritan Board Sophomore
I most certainly DO believe in verbal inspiration. Furthermore, I do not have a private definition for either "inerrancy" or "infallibility." Let me state as succinctly as possible the issues at stake when one chooses to use the word "inerrancy" rather than the historic orthodox word "infallibility" (let's not confuse the issue at this point with extraneous material such as the Chicago Statement).
There are seven reasons why the word "inerrancy" cannot be used by anyone who considers themselves orthodox. They are as follows:
1) Inerrancy as a word is not a theological term; nor was it ever used as a theological term until the late 19th century. What are the implications of this:
2) Inerrancy as a word is an innovation of the faith, just as anyone who wanted to introduce a different word other than homoousios ("of the same essence") into the Nicene Creed would be introducing an innovation in the definition of historic orthodox Christology.
3) Inerrancy as a word is unnecessary because everything it attempts to say in a non-theological way, has already been invoked by the historic orthodox word of "infallible."
4) Inerrancy as a word has no connection to the notion of inspiration, that is, it does not require verbal inspiration to be true, since inspiration is not required to obtain "inerrancy." Any humanly produced document can be inerrant.
5) Inerrancy as a word is a defection from orthodoxy because it locates final inspired authority in the autographic form of the text alone.
6) Because the autographic form of the text does not exist, "inerrancy" is a dangerous word, because in its definition it demands the application of naturalistic New Testament text criticism; that is, it assumes that ALL extant editions are corrupt to one extent or another, while claiming that ONLY text criticism can "restore" a lost "inerrant," autographic archetype, the only inspired and authoritative form of the Biblical text.
7) Hence, it was the use of the word "inerrancy" by B.B. Warfield in the 19th century (a non-theological innovative terminological alteration to the language of Biblical authority), that resulted in the "quest for the historical text" i.e., the endorsement of the Westcott and Hort edition of the Greek N.T., (which assumes the extant text is corrupt), which in turn evolved into the quest for the historical Jesus and the Jesus Seminar, the most blatantly arrogant project of unbelief presently active on this planet. Moreover, his use of the word at Princeton was a major contribution towards that Institution going liberal in 1929.
Infallibility, on the other hand, is what the Church has always said the Bible was, in existing editions, and was defined as follows in the Latin (and here I give you an excerpt from a discussion list to which I recently made the following contribution):
Allow me to say that many have been confused by my advocacy of the word "Infallible," and my pronounced dislike of the modern term "inerrant," because the former word is the word always used by Luther, Calvin, and the Westminster Divines, in its Latin form, "infallibilitas." On this please consult Richard Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), s.v. "authoritas Scripturae." There you will see the meaning of "infallible"contains the sense that Scripture is "without admixture of error...historically true in its record of words, deed, events, and doctrines." As for the word "inerrant," it has no pedigree as a theological term until late in the 19th century and because when it arrived in a new context (its original context was as an astronomical term), it always and only had reference to the "autographic" form the text, a sweeping revisionism of the WCF which taught a preserved "infallibility," not a lost "autographic inerrancy." I trust this makes clear that the earlier accusation about me was intended to suggest not that I actually have a historically more grounded statement of Scripture (via the WCF), but that somehow I have a weaker view because I choose to hold to the WCF's language and content on this issue (because, with this standard my own Lutheran orthodox view is in complete agreement).
Please keep in mind that any document is capable of attaining "inerrancy." Only Scripture, however, is always "infallible" on all that it speaks, as saith the WCF.
Theodore P. Letis, Ph.D.
Director
The Institute for
Renaissance and Reformation
Biblical Studies
P.O. Box 870525
Stone Mountain, GA 30087
There are seven reasons why the word "inerrancy" cannot be used by anyone who considers themselves orthodox. They are as follows:
1) Inerrancy as a word is not a theological term; nor was it ever used as a theological term until the late 19th century. What are the implications of this:
2) Inerrancy as a word is an innovation of the faith, just as anyone who wanted to introduce a different word other than homoousios ("of the same essence") into the Nicene Creed would be introducing an innovation in the definition of historic orthodox Christology.
3) Inerrancy as a word is unnecessary because everything it attempts to say in a non-theological way, has already been invoked by the historic orthodox word of "infallible."
4) Inerrancy as a word has no connection to the notion of inspiration, that is, it does not require verbal inspiration to be true, since inspiration is not required to obtain "inerrancy." Any humanly produced document can be inerrant.
5) Inerrancy as a word is a defection from orthodoxy because it locates final inspired authority in the autographic form of the text alone.
6) Because the autographic form of the text does not exist, "inerrancy" is a dangerous word, because in its definition it demands the application of naturalistic New Testament text criticism; that is, it assumes that ALL extant editions are corrupt to one extent or another, while claiming that ONLY text criticism can "restore" a lost "inerrant," autographic archetype, the only inspired and authoritative form of the Biblical text.
7) Hence, it was the use of the word "inerrancy" by B.B. Warfield in the 19th century (a non-theological innovative terminological alteration to the language of Biblical authority), that resulted in the "quest for the historical text" i.e., the endorsement of the Westcott and Hort edition of the Greek N.T., (which assumes the extant text is corrupt), which in turn evolved into the quest for the historical Jesus and the Jesus Seminar, the most blatantly arrogant project of unbelief presently active on this planet. Moreover, his use of the word at Princeton was a major contribution towards that Institution going liberal in 1929.
Infallibility, on the other hand, is what the Church has always said the Bible was, in existing editions, and was defined as follows in the Latin (and here I give you an excerpt from a discussion list to which I recently made the following contribution):
Allow me to say that many have been confused by my advocacy of the word "Infallible," and my pronounced dislike of the modern term "inerrant," because the former word is the word always used by Luther, Calvin, and the Westminster Divines, in its Latin form, "infallibilitas." On this please consult Richard Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), s.v. "authoritas Scripturae." There you will see the meaning of "infallible"contains the sense that Scripture is "without admixture of error...historically true in its record of words, deed, events, and doctrines." As for the word "inerrant," it has no pedigree as a theological term until late in the 19th century and because when it arrived in a new context (its original context was as an astronomical term), it always and only had reference to the "autographic" form the text, a sweeping revisionism of the WCF which taught a preserved "infallibility," not a lost "autographic inerrancy." I trust this makes clear that the earlier accusation about me was intended to suggest not that I actually have a historically more grounded statement of Scripture (via the WCF), but that somehow I have a weaker view because I choose to hold to the WCF's language and content on this issue (because, with this standard my own Lutheran orthodox view is in complete agreement).
Please keep in mind that any document is capable of attaining "inerrancy." Only Scripture, however, is always "infallible" on all that it speaks, as saith the WCF.
Theodore P. Letis, Ph.D.
Director
The Institute for
Renaissance and Reformation
Biblical Studies
P.O. Box 870525
Stone Mountain, GA 30087