When I interviewed to teach theology at Bethel College and Seminary in Minnesota in 1984 I balked at signing a statement of faith that included that the Bible is “without error in the original autographs.” My mentor, a Bethel theologian who had taught me theology in seminary, showed me a two page essay by John Piper entitled “Comments on the “Affirmation of Faith.” (That was and is the title of the college’s and seminary’s statement of faith and is also the title of the identical statement of faith of the Baptist General Conference (now called “Converge”). The BGC then controlled the college and seminary.
I was satisfied with Piper’s definition of inerrancy and signed the Affirmation of Faith. Piper was himself hired even though his essay was probably not what Harold Lindsell, who wrote the BGC and Bethel Affirmation of Faith, meant by “without error.”
Years later the open theism controversy broke out and one accusation made against my open theist colleague Greg Boyd was that he violated the Affirmation of Faith because his open theism conflicted with “without error.” In other words, one could not be an open theist and with good faith sign the Affirmation of Faith. Around that time the Evangelical Theological Society began to make noise about expelling open theists because open theism is allegedly incompatible with inerrancy. Members of the ETS must sign a statement affirming biblical inerrancy.
I dug out Piper’s essay which I had kept in my files. I crossed out his name and sent the essay to Carl F. H. Henry, the “dean of evangelical theologians” (according to Time magazine). I told him it was written by a candidate for hiring to teach in the Biblical and Theological Studies Department of Bethel. I asked him if he thought the writer’s definition of “inerrancy” was adequate.
Henry wrote back and said, in his letter, that he believed the author of the essay “meant well,” but that his definition of inerrancy was inadequate and insufficient. The “gist” of his letter was that the candidate should not be hired.
Piper was, of course, a leading member of the ETS.
My point is not to say that Piper did not/does not believe in inerrancy. My point is that affirmation of “inerrancy” does not mean much. Nor does denial of it mean much. The word itself should be scrapped whenever it is not accompanied by an essay such as Piper’s. And it should not be used as a shibboleth for membership or hiring. I agree with Piper’s definition but I believe it is a definition of “infallibility,” not “inerrancy.” To the average lay Christian as well as to many pastors “inerrancy” rightly implies something different than that.
*Note: If you choose to comment, make sure your comment is relatively brief (no more than 100 words), on topic, addressed to me, civil and respectful (not hostile or argumentative), and devoid of pictures or links.*
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In