We all have seen many definitions of the inerrancy of scripture. But, sometimes it is just as important to explain what inerrancy is not. In The New Dictionary of Theology (IVP 1988) J.I. Packer gives a succinct one paragraph summary of all that inerrancy can mistakenly entail.
Some evangelicals who affirm that Scripture is infallible, never misinforming or misleading us, will not call it inerrant because they think that word tainted by association. They see it as committing its users to: 1. rationalistic apologetics that seek to base trust in the Bible on proof of its truth rather than on divine testimony to it; 2. a docetic view of Scripture that obscures its humanity; 3. unscholarly exegesis that lacks semantic soundness and historical precision; 4. unplausible harmonizing, and unscientific guesswork about textual corruption where inconsistencies seem to appear; 5. a theology preoccupied with peripheral details and thus distracted from Christ, who is the Bible’s focal centre. (338)
I would hope that all who hold to some definition of inerrancy can say amen to this caveat. But, why is it that most people I know who affirm inerrancy fall into one of one or more of the categories listed by Packer?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment