Theopneustos (”God-Breathed”): The Stakes of Inerrancy
Recently, I read a blog wherein an Aussie fellow was talking about how the inerrancy of the Bible wasn’t really necessary, that there were texts that were hard to reconcile, that we don’t have the original manuscripts anyway, and we have the basic truth of the Gospel, so what’s the big deal, does it really make much of a difference, zippy-dee-doo-dah, yada yada yada, ad infinitum. Gutlessly, I guess, I didn’t respond by commenting; I repent in sackcloth and ashes, because the response that I should have written can be summed up in one very succinct word here on The No Kool-Aid Zone:
Hogwash.
I’ve begun a series on the work of the Holy Spirit; feel free to take a listen if you choose. I’m talking this coming Sunday about the Spirit’s work in relation to the Word of God, about such things as revelation, inspiration, and illumination, about the role the Spirit plays in each of these, and some of the entailments pursuant to these truths. I’ve just finished writing in my notes about how we are on the horns of a disastrous dilemma if we jettison inerrancy, because we are faced then with two equally-dreadful possibilities: one, God can inspire error—but of course that makes God a liar, and if He is, then I’ll see you down at the pub next Sunday morning, and every one after that, because hey, let’s eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die and get the chance to call Him a liar face to face, theoretically (and I say “theoretically”, because if He’s a liar, we can’t trust Him about anything, right? That’s what lies do: they destroy trust.). Or two, this whole theopneustos thing (”theo” = God; “pneustos” = breathed) is a bunch of junk, but again, we’re faced with a God Who is lying to us, or at least Paul is lying to us, because he uses that term, and if Paul’s wrong there, then maybe he’s wrong in a dozen other places, and if Paul’s wrong, then maybe John and Luke and Moses and David are all wrong, and if they’re all wrong, then…well, see you at the pub!
The other thing I should have said, after I said, “hogwash!” to the Aussie, is that I should have said that if he calls himself a preacher (and I think that he did), well, sorry, but what he does and what I do are as different as apricots and antelopes, as barbecue and bingo, as being an undertaker and being an electrical engineer. I don’t give a flying rip if the term “preacher” is used to describe each of us. Further, what my church, Fellowship Community Evangelical Free Church of Mercer, Pennsylvania, does is completely different from what a church does that teaches that the Bible has errors in it. Completely different. We’re night and day, vanilla and chocolate, black and white, thesis and antithesis different, and it doesn’t matter if each of us invite folks in on Sunday mornings to sing and listen and take communion, if each of us have small groups and “youth ministry” and missions trips; it just doesn’t matter. If you believe that the Bible has errors in it, then we’re just not trying to accomplish the same purpose; sorry.
Theopneustos: it’s that important.
Unique visitors to post: 13
This phrase comes from the 1978 "Jonestown massacre" in which most members of the Peoples Temple cult, blindly following their leader Jim Jones, committed suicide by drinking cyanide-laced Kool-Aid.
Osborne: A Contrarian's Guide to Knowing God
Schlossberg: Idols For Destruction
27 Responses to “Theopneustos (”God-Breathed”): The Stakes of Inerrancy”
Thanks for the good word. I love to read your posts.
Vigilius ~ May 1, 2006 at 5:12 pm
Lovin’ and agreein’ with all you’re sayin’ here!
But not to be nitpickin’…
Are you aware of what the Hebrew word yada means?
Just curious…
joythruchrist ~ May 1, 2006 at 7:15 pm
No, I didn’t take Hebrew; enlighten me!
Byron ~ May 1, 2006 at 11:24 pm
The name “Jada†is found in 1 Chronicles 2:28 & 32 and means “He knows.†I’m no expert, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night.
Don ~ May 2, 2006 at 12:45 am
http://www.purefreedom.org/yada.htm
Check it out…
joythruchrist ~ May 2, 2006 at 4:13 am
Isn’t THAT interesting! Thanks!
Byron ~ May 2, 2006 at 7:11 am
Always happy to share!
Blessings to you!
joythruchrist ~ May 2, 2006 at 1:26 pm
Good stuff, Byron. My point is one you alluded to — if the Bible is wrong in one location, how can we even pretend to believe the parts we like are accurate?
It’s a matter of foundation. Take away inerrancy and you take away the foundation.
rev-ed ~ May 3, 2006 at 7:48 pm
Before I get climbed on again…I’m not about to agree with the pastor you’re speaking about here, Byron.
What I am about to say is that I think some things were changed in the translation. Not the major things–I do believe in the inerrancy of the bible, but not in the version we have now in English. There are certain words that I believe were mistranslated.
I don’t believe the way some do, that the miracles described were overhyped (no, I don’t believe Christ was just suffering hypoperfusion and his body healed itself–I can tell you there’s no way he would’ve survived that kind of massive trauma). I still believe that all of the major events described happened the way they are told. But certain words, I believe (and it has been accepted by many well-known biblical linguists), were indeed mistranslated and I think we’ve based some of our current ideas on those simple words.
Mel ~ May 5, 2006 at 10:01 pm
Well, without getting into the details with you (unless you want to offer a “for instance”), what you’re talking about isn’t an issue of inerrancy, because understood correctly, inerrancy refers to the original manuscripts. If those manuscripts aren’t inerrant, then it’s not GOD’S Word in the first place. The task of translators has always been to work with the best extant manuscripts in order to try to best translate those manuscripts into English, or whatever language is in question. We can say “the Word of God is inerrant”; we cannot technically say that any given version/translation of the Word of God is a perfect translation—but that said, it seems clear that most of our current translations are remarkably accurate.
Byron ~ May 6, 2006 at 7:39 am
IIt is a quantum leap to deduce that the presence of errors on the trivialities of Scripture means there may be errors in the essentials. Since the biblical gospel is true the Bible therefore is generally trustworthy unless proven otherwise. I believe the biblical gospel not because the Bible is inerrant but because the Spirit of God gives me the conviction that the biblical gospel is true.
While the divine nature and origin of Scripture is indisputable Inerrancy obliterates its human dimension. In fact the divinity of Scripture is manifest in and thru the inconsistencies and contradictions in the details. If the gospels and Samuel/Kings-Chronicles agree in every detail I will suspect the compilers were in collusion! As it is their integrity is impeccable BECAUSE of the disagreements. So what if Paul’s metaphor (morphothe) in Gal 4.19 is an ‘impossible’ mix and his illustration from grafting in Rom 11 is equally ‘impossible’ in the physical world? We understand his point all right.
So what if the Last Supper was not a Passover meal (according to John) and the synoptics got it wrong? Praise the Lord for the compilers’ childlike faithfulness (though erroneous) to their sources!
If an inerrantist has the Spirit of Christ (Rom.8.9) I will gladly partake the Lord’s Supper and engage in serving the Lord with him/her. ‘In essentials unity; in non-essentials diversity; in all things love’- Martyn Lloyd-Jones. ‘for we know in part’ 1Cor.13:9,12
Peace!
Wan Chee Keong ~ Apr 16, 2007 at 12:45 pm
Thanks for responding thoughtfully! Our disagreements would be several, my friend.
First, what you claim is a “quantum leap” is something I find simply logical. If there are errors in “trivialities” (your word, NOT mine) of Scripture, why would we not assume that there are errors in more “substantial” things? To me, that represents at least an equal “quantum leap”; why should we trust that the Bible is true in the “biggies” if it isn’t completely true in other things?
Second, you make what I consider to be a “leap” when you say, “since the Biblical gospel is true”. On what basis, if not the basis that the Bible in its entirety is without error?
Third, you make another logical leap when you say that “inerrancy obliterates (the Bible’s) human dimension”. Sorry, but how so? And why so? If Paul errs in some facet of history, say, because he is “human”, then what’s to say he might not have erred in some other way, involving, say, the importance and reality of the resurrection? I mean, isn’t the slippery slope obvious here? At least it is to me.
Your point about “agreeing in every detail” is a good one, but to not “agree in every detail” does not of necessity entail contradiction at all. As I write this, a terrible tragedy has taken place on the campus of Virginia Tech, the shooting of dozens of innocent people—our prayers go out to them. Four eyewitnesses to the shootings might well give different details, emphasize different things, but not necessarily be wrong in their memories nor contradictory in their stories. To be sure, some seeming contradictions in Scripture, some seeming errors, are thornier than others to unravel, but history teaches us that some “certainties” of the past in regard to a supposed “error” in the Bible have proven to be nothing of the sort. For the fact that there are so relatively few such supposed inconsistencies in the Word, I’m sure willing to hold onto inerrancy rather than jettisoning it, understanding historically the terrible toll that such has taken on the church and its witness.
As to your final point, I appreciate your spirit and congeniality; I believe that the quote you mention goes back well beyond the time of Lloyd-Jones, and it is a “statement of ethos” of the Evangelical Free Church, of which I am an ordained pastor. I agree with it—but count the inerrancy of Scripture to be an absolute essential, not necessarily to an individual’s salvation/standing before God, but to cooperation in ministry for the cause of the gospel. It is, in fact, contained in the very first point of our doctrinal statement, and must be held to by every ordained pastor within the EFCA. While in no way passing judgment upon anyone’s standing before God, and while recognizing that God is the ultimate Judge and not I, I could not in good conscience with knowledge share ministry with a person who would not subscribe to it.
That said, again, thanks for posting your comment!!!
Byron ~ Apr 16, 2007 at 1:50 pm
It is with great sadness that I learn of the tragedy at Virg. Tech. May the Lord grant comfort and healing to all those affected.
Thanks Byron for your kind words in the midst of debate.
Actually a greater and more serious ‘quantum leap’ is from theopneustos to inerrancy. The deity of our Lord was in perfect tandem with his human limitations before His resurrection. He could not for instance be at Capernaum and Bethany simultaneously. Likewise the divinity of Scripture is consistent with contradictions in trivialities (levicula).
Your first and third points are I believe the epistemological argument. The correct way as I see it is to work frm the ‘biggies’ to the levicula not the reverse. The gospel is kerygma plus didache, the essentials. Since these are true so are the levicula unless proven otherwise.
Wan Chee Keong ~ Apr 18, 2007 at 2:11 am
No missionary or evangelist in his right mind would preach Biblical Inerrancy to the ‘heathen’. He preaches the gospel (in a nutshell, 1Cor.15:2-8 and Romans 3:21-26). Those who believe do so because of the ‘inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in (their) hearts’ (Westminter Confession of Faith cp. 1 , V, in this case the Word as preached.
The gospels are NOT eye-witness accounts. They are compilations of a mainly oral tradition deposited in the various churches. Hence the discrepancy of the chronology of the Temple Cleansing. Either the Lord cleansed the Temple at the beginning (John) or at the end of His ministry (Synoptics). Not likely two cleansings. Since inerrantists hold that we have recovered a text which is substantialy that of the original autographs either John or the Synoptics is wrong. But does it really matter? The Lord DID cleanse the Temple. That’s what matters.
Wan Chee Keong ~ Apr 18, 2007 at 2:24 am
As to the slippery slope argument it has been three decades since Linsell’s Battle for the Bible. Fuller Theological Seminary is still orthodox and evangelical in spite of its rejection of Inerrancy. So am I.
The Inerrancy advocates Paul D Feinberg is uncertain of the epistemological and slippery slope arguments while Steven L Andrew reject the slippery slope and historical arguments.
It is disastrous, to say the least, trying to learn embrology from Gal. 4.19 or cosmology from Genesis 1.1-2.4. The latter is a theology of creation cast in poetic form. (I do hold however to a literal Eden, Adam and Eve, Fall and Flood). The Scriptures teach Faith and Conduct not history or science.
Wan Chee Keong ~ Apr 18, 2007 at 2:35 am
Paul knew he was using a mixed metaphor in Gal. 4.19. The Spirit of God taught him this ‘erroneous’ mataphor because it is the most effective figure of speech to convey Paul’s care and anxiety for growth ‘in Christ’ in the Gallatians. An ‘error’ is not a lie.Was Paul lying? Was the Spirit of God lying?
The doctrine of Inerrancy does give a sense of security. ‘Trembling hands welcome handcuffs’. It is however a false sense for the doctrine is neither explicit (as inerrantists admit) or implicit (as I have tried to show) in Scripture and therefore untenable. Teaching Inerrancy to young Christians will backfire when they become aware of the minute errors in Scripture.
Shalom!
Wan Chee Keong ~ Apr 18, 2007 at 2:45 am
My apologies for sunmitting in parts other wise I get disconnected for lack of activity.
Wan Chee Keong ~ Apr 18, 2007 at 2:49 am
IMy comment on the gospels need clarification. The role of the prophets in the early Church was very important. Their ‘Thus saith the Lord Jesus (risen)…….’ were incorporated into the gospels. The gospel compilers did not distinguish the words of the Lord on earth and the words of the risen Lord thru the prophets. The other component of the gospels consist of apostolic recollections handed down orally. In the process minor errors crept in. Further the compilers did their editing on the material according to their theological stance. The main facts of our Lord’s three year ministry, the passion and the resurrection however are very clear and indisputable.
Even inerrantists admit many instances we do not have the ipsissima verba of our Lord. So they find an escape in the idea of ipssisima vox!
Wan Chee Keong ~ Apr 19, 2007 at 10:58 am
Wan,
I didn’t receive nearly all of these comments through my email, so I thought you’d only posted a couple; some kind of glitch in the system. Your many words are a bit overwhelming to me, so let me deal with them one at a time, and confess that my time is limited these days, so I’ll get to them as I’m able.
Comment 15 above is yours, and I’ll deal with it first. Your illustration of Christ’s humanity doesn’t seem to me to hold, and for this reason: yes, being human, He did experience all the things we have, YET WITHOUT SIN. Certainly He was limited in some senses; this is obvious, and yet it was demonstrated by His life that being human didn’t necessarily entail error. To me, this is the correct parallel; further, what is to say that, on the one hand (from my perspective), a God Who could so inspire human authors that they were 100% correct in the “biggies” couldn’t do the same to ensure that they were equally correct in all the rest? I fail to follow that logic.
Turned around, again, why not, if there are errors in the less-than-biggies, could there not be in the “biggies”, and beyond that, we can surely agree that, as long as we’re classifying various Scriptures by importance, there aren’t two categories, but rather a spectrum of importance. The deity of Christ might be “Category 1″, and some genealogical disparity might be “Category Last”, but where would the present-day usage of tongues be? Or the role of women in the church? Or 1001 other more “mid-range” items in rank of importance? And where is the cutoff? And mightn’t something that we’d rank as unimportant turn out at some point to be more important than we once thought?
And finally, does God breathe (theopneustos) error? Again, seems to me that the few difficult instances for inerrantists is more than outweighed by the difficulties posed by adopting something less than inerrancy. More to come, friend!
Byron ~ Apr 19, 2007 at 12:32 pm
I think the ‘giggies’ are those regarding the Faith and Conduct (incl. Church life). Luke-Acts puts the locus of the Resurrection and sequels in Jerusalem. Mk , Matt. and John in Galilee. There is a discrepancy. But htis is not that important. Tongues and the role of women are ‘biggies’ being under Conduct. I think my view is what they call Infallibility or Limited Inerrancy. Inerrantists very often regard Paul’s command that women are not to teach men and to wear head covering when praying or prophesying in public worship as culturally and historically conditioned and so not relevant now. It is kind of a double speak for all their putting the Scriptures on a high pedestal.
Wan Chee Keong ~ Apr 20, 2007 at 9:19 am
By the way I do pray in tongues in my private devotions. I also hold to faith-healing. The Lord was WITHOUT SIN as a man. Whether he made minor errors on mundane matters we will never know. Even if He did not , the deity/humanity of our Lord is only an analogy of he divinity/humanity of Scripture.
Church government is somewhere between essential and trivial. I think denominations are the Lord’s solution to hermeneutical differences inevitable when it is the Spirit who is the supreme Interpreter giving us the freedom from the authoritanism of human interpreters be it an individual or a committee. That is why the ecumenical movement was destined to fail.
Shalom!
Wan Chee Keong ~ Apr 20, 2007 at 9:32 am
I think you miss the point that the gospel ‘authors’ were primarily compilers and editors but GUIDED by the Spirit not INSPIRED like the prophets. Their theological tendencies can be discerned in how they handle the Lord’s saying on ritual purity. Mark says ‘Thus He declared all foods clean’. Matthew does not draw this conclusion.
My point is the divinity of Scripture is manifested in and through the humanity with its discrepancies, contradicitons, textual uncertainties and all. That’s what so remarkable!
Wan Chee Keong ~ Apr 20, 2007 at 9:49 am
The KJV rendering of theopneustos is worth examining. The translators were not merely scholars of high calibre but devout men. ‘Given by inspiraton of God’ implies Scripture is God’s gift. It also implies its divine nature. Its ultimate authorship is God Himself. In a way all things have their origin in God the Creator. But does it imply inerrancy? This is highly questionable.
Wan Chee Keong ~ Apr 20, 2007 at 11:56 pm
Actually church govt comes under Practice and is therefore a ‘category one’ essential. But because of the ambiguity of Scripture on this matter it gave rise to denominationalism. ‘Even though these differences (in church govt) do not involve fundamentals of the faith, they are not matters of indifference. Every Christian is obligated to practise what he believes the Bible teaches.’ Church History by Bruce L Shelley.
Wan Chee Keong ~ Apr 22, 2007 at 3:59 am
God-breathed is the literal rendering of theopneustos. But what exactly does God-breathed mean? The Hebrew equivalent of breath is NESHAMAH, which ‘is often used wih reference to God’s breath. It identifies God as the source of life (Gen.2.7; Job 27.3, 33.4; Dan.5.23)’ – Holman Bible Dictionary. The OT context (which is all-important) therefore suggests the meaning of ‘life’ and God as the ’source’ of this life. What Martin Lutherr said of the words of the apostle Paul, that they are living creatures, and have hands and feet, is true of all Scripture. Tyndale Publishers are indeed biblical when they call their translation ‘The Living Bible’. Life and divine origin do not however imply Inerrancy.
Wan Chee Keong ~ May 2, 2007 at 12:59 am