RE: [asa] Question on inerrancy

David H:

In answer to your question of can scripture be profitable but possibly in
error:

[Isa 55:12] "For ye shall go out with joy, and be led forth with peace: the
mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all
the trees of the field shall clap their hands." - Aside from the minor
biological error of trees not having appendages with digits, this is clearly
a poetic statement of praise at God's goodness and provision. Profitable, I
would say, regardless (or perhaps because of) the imagery employed.

[1 Chr 16:30] Fear before him, all the earth: the world also shall be
stable, that it be not moved. (also Psa 93:1; 96:10) - This is one of a
category of scriptures used to argue for the geocentric model. A relatively
minor astronomical error, in that the earth does move, not to mention a
clear contradiction with other scriptures that say the earth can be moved or
even removed (Isa 24:19-20; 2Pet 3:10; etc.). But the verses which say that
the earth cannot be moved are still profitable, in that they declare and
convey a spiritual truth of God's sovereignty and that He can be trusted,
and that His justice is sure toward His people. That was the purpose of the
verse, doctrinal and instructional, not astronomical.

St. Augustine, who has been quoted numerous times as saying that the seven
days of creation were not literal 24-hour days (because he believed in an
instantaneous creation), nevertheless considered the passage profitable in
conveying God's truth about His action in creation. Others who hold
different interpretations of Genesis 1 (non-literal interpretations,
considering the passage to be not accurate scientifically or historically)
also find the passage to be profitable in a number of important ways. (I'm
currently reading "In the Beginning", by Henri Blocher, and have read
something else recently, both of which give examples of how the first two
chapters of Genesis are extremely deep and profitable doctrinally, apart
from their technical accuracy or inaccuracy.)

Let's now take a more radical example, the book of Jonah. I understand that
Biblical scholars consider that the story of Jonah contains at least a
number of historical inaccuracies (the size and population of Ninevah, for
instance), and some even consider it completely mythical. I'm not trying to
argue the merits of that point, nor am I comfortable relegating the story to
the status of myth, but your question was "whether" a passage could be
inspired and profitable but yet in error. So for sake of argument, let's
say that some technical details of the story of Jonah are in fact erroneous
(due to what factors we need not specify). Can it still be profitable for
doctrine, instruction, etc.? I would argue, absolutely yes. It tells of
God's concern about sin, God's mercy to the humble repentant souls of even
Israel's pagan neighbors, and is a cautionary tale against the righteous
being too self-absorbed to recognize God's mercy to others, not to mention
being a parallel (parable?) and prophecy of Jesus' death and resurrection.
If you found that Jonah indeed contained some technical errors, would you
cut it out of your Bible?

So how could Jesus' quotation of the story of Jonah be prophetic or
inspired, if the original story was in error, or even completely
non-historical? Let's now assume the worst - that Jonah was completely
non-historical. Does Jesus' use of Jonah's three days in the whale to
prophesy of his own three days in the grave make Jesus' statement false, or
uninspired, or unprofitable? I would challenge anyone to reasonably argue
how it could. Jesus' prophecy of His own death was true, regardless of the
fact that He referred to (arguably) a non-historical Jewish tradition (c.f.
Jude's reference to the book of Enoch, or Paul's use of the Unknown God and
poetry of the pagans to refer to the one true God, Acts 17). It would be no
more unprofitable or untrue than me telling a wayward teenager that he is
like the Prodigal Son in turning away from God, yet God still loves him and
longs for and welcomes him back, just like the prodigal's father. A
reference to a parable to make a theological point is not unprofitable, or
even inappropriate in scripture. Now, as I said, I'm not trying to argue
that Jonah is unhistorical; I don't personally believe that, but I'm just
trying to give an example with significant ramifications in answer to your
question.

To add to examples of a different sort given earlier: When Paul said "to
the rest speak I, not the Lord" (1Cor 7:12), or "I have no commandment of
the Lord, yet I give my judgment" (1Cor 7:25), or "...after my judgment, and
I think also that I have the Spirit of God" - will you claim that these
passages are inerrant, when Paul himself doesn't even seem to claim it about
his own writings? Compare with "I command, yet not I, but the Lord" (1Cor
7:10) and "If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him
acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of
the Lord" (1Cor 14:37).

Sincerely,

Jon Tandy

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of David Heddle
Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2008 12:35 PM
To: David Opderbeck
Cc: ASA
Subject: Re: [asa] Question on inerrancy

David O,

My question is not "show me the error." Let's grant for the sake of argument
that the passages you site are in error, even in the original autographs. In
what sense would an erroneous teaching of cud-chewing rabbits be "god
breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for
training in righteousness." How can teaching an error be profitable?

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat May 17 17:15:57 2008