Is the Bible Inerrant? Part Deux

Yesterday I established that I have some serious issues believing in the inerrancy of the Bible. But what does that mean? How does this affect my faith, my world view, my perception of existence and our relationship to a higher realm?

Theologians have proposed another way around the issue. There is a school of thought that believes the Bible is infallible and holds that the Book is inerrant on issues of faith and practice but not on issues of science and history. Does that mean God can make mistakes? That He didn’t understand the scientific workings of the universe which he created? That He was unable to divinely inspire his authors to get the historical facts straight?

If you ask me, this is blasphemy. One could argue that man’s misconceptions about history and science are at fault. True, the men who wrote the Bible didn’t have the understanding or technological advancements that we enjoy now, but think about what this argument is really saying. It’s saying that these men were incapable of understanding the science and history of the world around them, and should not be expected to have such a capacity, yet they were able to, without error, decipher the Divine Mystery. They were able to comprehend the Nature and Will of God, fathom the unfathomable vastness that is the Creator of the Universe, and envision God’s Kingdom as He would see fit. I doubt it. This theory doesn’t give God the credit He deserves. It is arguing that the complexities of earthbound affairs are more difficult to grasp than the infinite complexities of its Creator. Not an assertion I’d be willing to make.

Then again, maybe I’m the blasphemer.

Since I have such difficulty accepting the nature of the Bible as inerrant, and since I find the theory of infallibility to be an implausible detour, I guess I have just one question left to ask myself: Does it matter?

Can I call myself a Christian and question the Bible as much as I do? That’s a difficult query, and I’ll answer it by saying: no with a maybe and yes with a but…

If I were to define Christianity as a “religion” in the traditional sense of the word, then my skepticism and my Christianity would most likely be incompatible. Christianity as a formal religion is heavily steeped in doctrine drawn from the Bible and leaves little room for questioning.

So it’s lucky (convenient?) for me that I don’t define Christianity as the church. My quandaries with Biblical inerrancy don’t necessarily inhibit my ability to shape my life as a man of God. I don’t doubt the existence of God, nor do I doubt His awesome power, boundless nature, or infinite graciousness. I believe the Bible is a valuable teaching tool that ought to be used as a guide to morality and righteousness. I believe we should all strive to model our lives after the life of Jesus and uphold his appeals to care for the “least of these.”

But do I accept the Bible at face value, as the absolute Word of God? I don’t know anymore…

Maybe I just lack the courage required of true faith.

Thanks for reading.


P.S. Thanks to all for their comments on the “Is the Bible Inerrant?” post. As always, they were insightful and have helped me immensely in the gestation process.

Drew-bee, I’ve gotta say I’m envious of your faithfulness. It’s not always easy to believe.

P Corcs and Late Night Cassel, I think you two represent counterpoints that, intentionally or not, demonstrate interesting dichotomies on the issue of Biblical inerrancy. P Corcs, you take the all or nothing approach. Either A) the Bible is the divine, inspired Word of God, in which case it must (by definition) be inerrant, or B) the Bible is a religious work created by man, in which case it is subject to error.

Your justification for the either/or approach is strong, and admittedly a little scary. If we took the stance that some of the Bible is inspired and some isn’t it would be easy to pick and choose which parts we followed and which parts we ignored. Such a stance holds some potentially ghastly consequences.

But I think Late Night Cassel has proposed a third option in his “Bible as metanarrative” interpretation. Perhaps the Bible is a divinely inspired story, designed to give us a glimpse of the nature of God, to give us the experience of resurrection, to show us that throughout history God has been at the side of His Creation without fail. So while the specific text may not be inerrant, the story is.

Or maybe we’re all way off and God is laughing at us as we type.