Inerrancy in Historical Theology

[P.F.]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[P.F.]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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]

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]

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.]

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?"

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]

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]

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

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]

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

Why?

Is it the same reason many claim for the KJV?

 

[DTK]

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]

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]

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!

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]

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.]

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]

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]

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.]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.