Inerrancy vs. Liberalism

These are good comments from Joel Hunter! They seem to be somewhat at odds with other perspectives on inerrancy and the Bible given here at Biologos, but I welcome this balanced perspective nevertheless. Scripture must be allowed to correct our interpretation of science, and science must be allowed to correct our interpretation of Scripture-it is a “hermeneutical circle” if you will…

I thought his comments were good too, Steve. 

Should the concept of inerrancy be rescued from literalism——Joel seems to say so here as opposed to other essays that throw out the whole concept as altogether flawed.  Is this what you have in mind when you see Joel’s views at odds with other Biologos essays?

Feel free to elaborate.

—Merv

Well I think he nailed it.
The Bible IS INERRANT….......BUT FIRST YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE REAL FACTS ARE!

Somebody had a quote form St. Augustine on here a few blogs back that said the same thing.

Those people in the 18th century who believed “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth”,...... could not have envisioned the Big Bang.
They thought the Garden of Eden arrived firs I think.

BUT AFTER THE WORK OF EDWIN HUBBLE WE KNOW HOW TRUE THE BIBLE IS.
.......AND THE REAL WORLD IS EVEN MORE AMAZING THAN ANYONE IMAGINED.

    BUT THE BIBLE WAS SPOT ON!!!!!!!

    Uh let me correct myself. THE BIBLE WAS MORE CORRECT THAN .... ANYONE,.....IN THE BRONZE AGE,.......COULD….... HAVE IMAGINED.

  Myth writers were not creative enough to preempt the story of the creation ,.. the way scientist tell us that it actually happened.

    [Now Horney, I am shouting again! ]

    BECAUSE I WANT YOU TO LISTEN TO ME!

  And BTW have a good day in the Lord.

We live in a wonderful day in which we CAN know that the Bible is inerrant IF YOU STUDY THE SCIENCE.
BUT COSMOLOGY AIN’T EASY AND THAT IS WHAT YOU NEED TO BEGIN WITH.

  I laughingly told a friend of mine a few days ago that I was on this board because I consider myself a missionary.
But actually that is a bit too harsh.
I really meant that I hope people who are steeped in religious doctrine could also study science and see God’s beauty in both,....AND THE MIRACULOUS WAY THEY .REITERATE THE SAME MESSAGE.

And friends to do that you need to drop Charles Darwin for a while.
HE gave opinions about animal species.
Whether his opinions are right or wrong THEY DO NOW APPLY UNTIL THE FOURTH DAY OF CREATION.
  Meanwhile the cosmologists and the physicists have been shaking hands with God and being ignored.

When George Smoot finished his work he said “I have seen the face of God.”,..... and in England that statement was reverberated in the press,..... but in this country,..... na-da.
No one even mentions Smoot,...BUT WE HAVE 10,000 DISCUSSIONS OF CHARLES DARWIN.
 
The newly discovered REALITY fits the Genesis story PERFECTLY.
BUT FIRST YOU HAVE TO STUDY IT.
Literal interpretation IS BACK!

Oh and BTW when Arno Penzias won HIS Nobel prize…... [ for finding the ancient photons created when God said “let there be light!”]....... he said in an interview the best instruction book he ever read on cosmology was THE OLD TESTAMENT.

We ignored that.

When Fred Hoyle said nucleosynthesis required an act of God….... we ignored that.

Sir Fred was later denied his rightful share in a Nobel award and he thought it was because he HAD mentioned God.
We should be supporting these people.  BUT YOU MUST STUDY.

  ‘Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman who needeth not to be ashamed, rightfully dividing the word of truth.”

Steve, your comment exemplifies the problem that arises before we can even begin discussing inerrancy and liberalism.

What exactly does a high view of scripture even mean?

Conrad seems to believe that inerrancy means that the biblical authors somehow tapped into some metaphysical revelation that revealed modern science entirely to their comprehension. That the words of scripture are its best attempt at explaining what is scientifically accurate, thus keeping it true.

You seem to think that a “balance” means that scripture (read: theology) should have just as much weight in determine scientific truth as science should have in crafting systematic theologies. To do so would mean you also seem to agree with conrad (please correct me if I’m wrong).

Whereas I, for example, think that inerrancy refers, not to the aspects of human knowledge in scripture, but to the underlying theological meaning behind each and every passage. So: dates, natural observations, explanations for human behavior, historical facts and people, none of that need be necessarily true except where it pertains to the one true and ultimate message of the Word, the veracity of Christ’s God-manhood, his redemptive death, and his resurrection.

So, before we can even begin discussion how Inerrancy and Liberalism are part of a spectrum, and reconcilable, wouldn’t we need to reach some sort of consensus of what each means? Is that even possible, especially in our post-Reformation theological landscape?

Biophilos that is EXACTLY WHAT I BELIEVE.

But I didn’t start out believing that.
It is the steady march of scientific findings that i have seen over my lifetime that made me believe that.

Biophilos   Sir Fred Hoyle and I went through the same spiritual path.

  Literal interpretation is the correct approach but you may still be puzzled until science shows you HOW the Bible is correct.
THEN YOUR FAITH ZOOMS UP TO HIGHER LEVELS.

I thought as much conrad.

A thought experiment:  what happens if cosmology and quantum physics ever truly reveal the existence of a multiverse? An infinite, eternal universe that recycles universes, or simply creates new ones from time to time (a possibility still, for all of our findings). The big bang would certainly remain in place, as the beginning of our universe, but not necessarily as the beginning of all creation. This eternal multiverse would seem to be at odds with literal readings of Genesis, wherein all created things begin with God.

Isn’t it true that you’d be left with a dilemma? To either lose your faith, which has rested on literal readings and scientific knowledge, or stretch and contort your interpretation of Genesis to make it “fit” the new scientific paradigm.

Neither of those sound particularly appealing. My point in this exercise of course, is to point out the flaw in trying to build a faith based upon human knowledge, even a scientific one. Our science isn’t “truth” per se, but our best approximation of it, an asymptote, if you will. It works within our paradigms, but is always subject to revision as new evidence arises. But faith in Christ is a gift, not the result of rationalizations, and not subject to revision.

The irony, of course, is that our interpretation of our faith, i.e. theology, is yet another form of human knowledge. While God’s truth is truth, not an approximation, our way of understanding it is. So, you see, it becomes impossible for me to believe you when you say that science can show HOW the bible is correct. The bible is correct because of the veracity of God, and we know this through our faith, not our reason (interpretation). Our reason is supplemental to our faith, is FOUNDED on our faith, on the rock of Christ, the risen God-man, not on the shifting sands of scientific, theologic, or any other form of human knowledge.

BIO,..... OLD FRIEND,....... OLD BUDDY
  WE ALREADY BELIEVE IN A PARALLEL UNIVERSE…. HEAVEN!

Where is the dilemma?
 
Showing you “how” is a big job.
For starters , what did you imagine in your little minds eye for universe “without form and void”/

Many people imagine a dark earth covered with water, a sort of “mud ball earth”.
But there is a flaw in that picture.
It HAS FORM!    [It has the form of a mud ball.]

A better picture of something ‘without form” is the Planck epoch and the Grand Unified Epoch.

  There even the atoms were not formed.
Even the quarks were not formed.
  Photons of light were not formed. [Until God formed them at the start of the electroweak epoch]

IT IS A MUCH BETTER ACTUALIZED “UNIVERSE WITHOUT FORM” THAN THE MUD BALL.

When I learned these facts from cosmology MY FAITH SOARED.

Conrad, a parallel universe you say? How interesting, hadn’t quite thought of it that way before.

And please don’t patronize me, old buddy, it really doesn’t become you =).

Of course, however you wish to interpret scripture is entirely your prerogative, but I note you ignored my point altogether, which I thought quite rude. I’ll forgive you though, and point out that the particular details of my thought-experiment were irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that you have no certainty of what tomorrow might bring. The future is God’s, and we cannot see it. If your scientific paradigm is one day overthrown, which, again I remind you, you can never know, then the basis for your “soaring” faith will come crashing down with a resounding din.

I merely prefer to rest my faith on something a bit more, shall we say, sturdy.

PS - That’s crazy, those ARE interesting ways of modeling a good metaphor for what an actualized universe without form might be like. Thanks!

And Bio ,....“In the beginning” does NOT apply to the beginning of God.”

We know He has no beginning.

It means the beginning of TIME ....[for this space-time continuum] and the beginning of our universe.

The Bible makes that perfectly clear.

I do not anticipate ANY scientific discovery shaking my faith.

Of course not. Such is the fervor of zealous faith.

Not that there’s anything intrinsically wrong with that. I agree with you in fact, I don’t anticipate any scientific discovery shaking my faith either.

The difference between us, I think, is that science can’t shake my faith, because it plays no role in the formation of my faith. On the other hand, science can’t shake your faith, because you believe that your current scientific paradigm is the only correct one, and can’t imagine it ever being overthrown.

Forgive me for overstepping, but that sounds a bit too much like hubris to me. I prefer a humble faith well over a brazen one.

I’m afraid we won’t find resolution. Which only reiterates my point, we two can’t even agree on how to interpret the Bible, and what inerrancy even means. How then can we find a balance of any sort?

Bio,.... you give me such GREAT OPENINGS!
 
[Can I hire you as a “straight man”]

  “PS - That’s crazy, those ARE interesting ways of modeling a good metaphor for what an actualized universe without form might be like. Thanks!”
 

  “MUD BALL EARTH” IS A TERRIBLE METAPHOR!
It has confused and misled generations of seekers-after-truth.

  WE NEED TO GET RID OF IT!
First of all it is contradictory in that it conjures a vision of a WELL FORMED object.
Sloppy and dirty and cold perhaps but definitely well formed.
  But earth is definitely in that picture.

SECOND IT SCRAMBLES THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS.
So the mud ball PRECEDES THE LIGHT ?  and yet the sky which is created on Day two.
 
And thirdly it puts believers squarely into opposition with science.
HAVEN’T WE BEEN LED DOWN THAT SORRY ROAD ENOUGH ALREADY WITH THE EVOLUTION SAGA?

Scientists tell us that heavy elements in earth were not made in the Big Bang.
They were made through nucleosynthesis in massive stars and supernova.
The material for making earth [with plate tectonics] was not available until “sky” was produced on Day two.
We had to await a supernova collapse to have the thorium for a tectonic earth.
Earth came later.

sorry, I wasn’t clear, I was actually admiring your model based on Planck’s Epoch and the Grand Unified Epoch. My bad =P

Bio
Oh well!
My misunderstanding still gave me an opportunity for my speech [or rant or whatever you call it.]

NOW SEE!

“God works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform’”

That’s all the preaching I have time for today.
See you tomorrow.

Joel H, you said:-

“The ‘inerrancy’ vs. the ‘liberal/low’ view of scripture is a spectrum rather than a choice.”

“‘Inerrancy’ implies that the scripture itself is revelatory – from God, but it does not imply, and should not imply, that the person interpreting it is inerrant…The inerrancy grows with our interpretation because the superintendant understanding of [the] Spirit grows with our understanding of how God operates in other fields…as well as through scripture.”

And I thought those comments are great.  So I wrote them down.

I know I can get so worked-up about whether I’m thinking the ‘right’ things that I have forgotten that it is only by the gracious opening of my eyes by God’s Spirit that I could ever know the truth.  Shocking really.  Thanks for the reminders.

How convenient. So are you going to keep devaluing the scriptures until you can fully reconcile yourselves with the reality of it’s being invalid? When will you start working on subsuming god and the creator to appease those you really oppose? Pathetic.