![\"University](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/40\/2016\/07\/University-Church-ds.jpg\")
<\/a>We can turn to the church.<\/strong><\/em> In this view authority is vested in the institutional church and our faith is founded on the inerrancy of church tradition and church hierarchy. This is the rock upon which we stand. The search for authority drives many converts from evangelicalism to Roman Catholicism (See Scot\u2019s book Finding Faith, Losing Faith: Stories of Conversion and Apostasy<\/a><\/strong><\/em>). But when the church fails \u2013 and it often has and still does \u2013 this undermines the foundation of faith.\u00a0 Examples of greed, corruption, and sexual abuse from those who \u201cshould\u201d be the most trustworthy, who have supposedly given themselves wholly to the service of God, can be devastating. An occasional bad apple can be explained, but systematic protection of the bad apples and failure to admit a problem hints to the presence of deeper problems. These problems are not limited to Roman Catholicism, of course.\u00a0 Similar examples are found within Protestantism, often with devastating effects for faith. But it is worse when the church is the foundation and authority.<\/p>\nIn essence, an over-dependence<\/em> on the church in any branch of Christianity is a dependence on (always faulty) human construction.<\/p>\n This is something of a caricature I admit, but the image I am often left with is a house of cards faith. We have a construct built by taking the pages of scripture and assembling an understanding of the faith and church. If any page, any card, is removed the whole structure is shaky and may collapse, some would say will collapse. The foundation of faith is Scripture \u2013 but more than this, the foundation of faith is every jot and tittle of scripture. It leads to ever increasing attempts to fence Scripture.<\/p>\n Formerly all that was necessary to affirm one\u2019s belief in full inspiration was the statement, \u201cI believe in the inspiration of the Bible.\u201d But when some did not extend inspiration to the words of the text it became necessary to say, \u201cI believe in the verbal inspiration of the Bible.\u201d To counter the teaching that not all parts of the Bible were inspired, one had to say, \u201cI believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Bible.\u201d Then because some did not want to ascribe total accuracy to the Bible, it was necessary to say, \u201cI believe in the verbal, plenary, infallible, inerrant inspiration of the Bible.\u201d But then \u201cinfallible\u201d and \u201cinerrant\u201d began to be limited to matters of faith only rather than also embracing all that the Bible records (including historical facts, genealogies, accounts of Creation, etc.), so it became necessary to add the concept of \u201cunlimited inerrancy.\u201d Each addition to the basic statement arose because of an erroneous teaching<\/em>. (emphasis added)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Well, Ryrie viewed them all as equally erroneous anyway. The issues couldn\u2019t be discussed on their merit. Properly constructed fences could dispense with the need to wrestle before God. Ryrie continues (also p. 76) \u2026<\/p>\n The doctrine of inspiration is not something theologians have to force on the Bible. Rather it is a teaching of the Bible itself, a conclusion derived from the data contained in it.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n I agree with Ryrie \u2013 inspiration is not something theologians have to force on the Bible and I believe in the inspiration of the Bible. But most of the subsequent refinements (responses to what Ryrie considered erroneous teachings), that define exactly what is meant to some people by \u201cinspiration\u201d culminating in \u201cunlimited inerrancy,\u201d do have to be forced on the text. These are not really something the Bible teaches of itself as a whole or conclusions that can be derived from the data contained in it. In fact they lead to a great deal of cognitive dissonance as many come to fear (or realize) that the text does not live up to the pronouncements.<\/p>\n In essence, an over-dependence<\/em> on the Bible in any branch of Christianity is a dependence on (always faulty) human interpretation and construction.<\/p>\n Aren\u2019t we better served by a third view <\/strong><\/em>\u2013 our faith is founded on God alone. <\/strong><\/em>The rock on which we stand is God alone \u2013 and his work in this world, including the atoning work of Christ. Scripture illuminates God, his nature and his interaction with his creation.<\/p>\n In this view we require that scripture is reliable (the lamp must give off light) \u2013 but we do not require that scripture be inerrant in the common evangelical use of the term (it is not the foundation of knowledge). A reliable scripture is consistent with the evidence and not demolished by modern biblical scholarship. And we can use modern biblical scholarship to help us better understand the text and the message. Mark Roberts\u2019 book Can We Trust the Gospels?<\/a><\/strong><\/em> is an excellent readable discussion of one aspect of scripture along these lines. The Gospels are reliable. N.T. Wright\u2019s book on Scripture Scripture and the Authority of God<\/a><\/em><\/strong> is also good (as is the his earlier, shorter book The Last Word<\/a><\/strong><\/em>).<\/p>\n And to go back to the notion of authority vested in the Church. The church is on the rock, but it is not<\/em> the rock on which we stand. In this view the Church, the traditions, are not foundational, but paths blazed before us on the rock. We do well to take with utmost attention the wrestlings and opinions of those who have gone before us and those who stand alongside us, but we also do well to consider when and where the Church as institution has and does go astray.<\/p>\n Concern with inerrancy changes our focus.<\/strong><\/em> There is a serious consequence with the Protestant focus on inerrancy. Harmonizing strategies used to achieve concord between science (including archaeology) and the Bible transform our understanding of the message of scripture. This isn\u2019t just true for questions of science. Harmonizing strategies within scripture also tend to fall into the same trap \u2026 strategies reconciling the details of the differing accounts of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 and even Job; the histories in Samuel, Kings and Chronicles; the details in the Gospels (there are differences both between John and the synoptic gospels and between incidents within the synoptic gospels \u2013 as with the fig tree for example: Wither the Fig Tree, Whither the Wandering Saints<\/a><\/em>); Paul\u2019s account of his post Damascus journey with the account given in Acts; and this isn\u2019t a complete list. The harmonizing strategies that we use transform the notions they seek to unite<\/strong><\/em>. At the very least harmonizing strategies draw attention away from the core message of passages they seek to defend.\u00a0 We shouldn\u2019t transform Scripture \u2026 we should be transformed by the message.<\/p>\n The alternative<\/strong><\/em>. When it comes to scripture the alternative to inerrant isn\u2019t errant. I do not believe the bible is errant. But \u201cinerrant\u201d (at least inerrant as it has come to be defined in evangelical Christianity) is simply not a useful term to describe what scripture actually is or what it testifies about itself. We have to take the bible as we have it, with poetry, story, proverbs, history, prophecy, apocalyptic imagery, satire, ancient Near Eastern myth, anachronisms, \u2026 with all of the trappings. Here we have a faithful transmission of God\u2019s work in his world, his law, his character and more, recorded in forms shaped by experience and context of the people involved, including both authors and editors. It is foolishness (the wisdom of the world) to force it into a mold (unlimited inerrancy) of our own making.<\/p>\n<\/a>We can turn to Scripture.<\/strong><\/em> Here, common in the Protestant church, authority is vested in scripture and our faith is founded on scripture. Scripture is the rock upon which we stand. In the context of modernist thought this foundation is only secure if scripture is inerrant. If any piece of scripture is questioned and found wanting \u2013 all is open to question and we start down the slippery slope \u2026 Our belief in the historicity of the resurrection depends, for example, on the complete historicity of Noah or the Exodus. No distinction is possible.<\/p>\n<\/a>Charles Ryrie\u2019s statement on biblical inspiration (p. 76 of Basic Theology<\/a><\/strong><\/em>) provides a great example of this impulse to build fences.<\/p>\n\n
\n
<\/a>In this view our questions about scripture do not shake the foundation. The idea that the story of Gen 3 tells important theological truths in mythic form; the suggestion that the story of the exodus from Egypt may (likely does) have elements that are not exactly historical in the modern sense of literal \u2013 factual reporting, the conquest of Canaan including the fall of Jericho likewise, even the redaction of Matthew and the authorship of 2 Timothy \u2026 these are ideas, questions, suggestions that we can consider and discuss without fear, but with reverence.\u00a0 We are not looking for errors in Scripture \u2013 but rather digging down to try to understand the message.<\/p>\n