John Hobbins — fundamentalist, Calvinist, inerrantist
John Hobbins confesses to being a fundamentalist inerrantist, as he has previously to being a five-point Calvinist. Of course, being John, he immediately offers an interpretation of these terms which is entirely different from anything anyone else commonly means by them. He is, in other words, a Humpty-Dumpty type of inerrantist Calvinist: his words mean precisely what he intends them to mean, and nothing else.
In the comments on his post, he says that by rejecting these words “infallible” and “inerrant”, I “put myself in a corner by myself”:
You deprive yourself of core common vocabulary you might have shared with, for example, contemporary Catholic Christians, as in Roman Catholic, and evangelical Christians of many varieties. You might have argued about how best to use that vocabulary, how best to contextualize it.
Okay, first of all, I accept that a whole range of mainstream theology has used language similar to what John quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
“God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. “To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.” The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”1
There is, of course, quite a get out here: the only respect in which the Scriptures are without error are about “that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to” them. Generally such classic statements of inerrancy have included similar provisos. The question is whether, even with such provisos, the language of inerrancy is helpful today (even when appropriately contextualised).
I don’t think it is.
- I note that John can’t really appeal to Rome for this statement, unless he also wishes to accept the context within which Rome makes that statement. The right interpretation of these inerrant Scriptures is a Church which guided by them also teaches without error in respect of faith and morals. Their “inerrancy” is inherently communal. Many of us who remain outside the Roman fold do so at least in part because of our inability to accept this.
- The mainstream of patristic treatments as well as those of later Catholic and Orthodox tradition that teach this kind of limited inerrancy teach it about more books than John (denominationally) accepts as Scripture. It is an odd thing to seek to maintain their teaching about the Scriptures, while not accepting some of the books they teach it about. Indeed, the question of the Canon (about which John knows a great deal) throws up a significant problem for any teaching about inerrancy. Whose inerrancy, and which books?
- The problem for Protestants of every stripe is a multiplication of the Roman solution. In practice a vast many people identify their interpretation of Scripture with Scripture itself. Asserting the inerrancy of scripture is all too often a way of asserting one’s own infallibility, or the infallibility of one’s own tradition, often denying that interpretation or tradition have got anything to do with what is plainly (!) the inerrant teaching of Scripture.
- Finally, and in the end most significantly (for all of the previous problems could, I think, be more-or-less adequately addressed) words depend for their meaning on usage. Here, the clear everyday meaning of “inerrant” has been taken over by a late-Enlightenment “scientific” attitude to facts and data by the fundamentalists, to interpret Scripture not as a literary text but as a mix of encyclopedia and almanac, which offers an alternate “science” based on an entirely different set of “facts” of revelation. This construction of Scripture is diametrically opposed to those traditionally associated with the idea that they do not err when guiding us towards salvation, because it has stripped out all the communal and relational aspects of reading them.
John quotes St Augustine as saying:
I dare to believe that none of them has erred in writing; and I do not doubt that if I come upon anything in them which seems contrary to the truth it is nothing but either a faulty codex or that the expounder has not comprehended what has been said or that I have not understood it.
However, Augustine, like the other fathers, had in his armoury a whole range of interpretative method, not the least of which was allegorising, which allowed him to perform all sorts of subtle moves with the text which brought it into line with what could be plainly known of the world through philosophy and the science of the day. Many of our own forms of literary criticism may allow us to do the same. In doing so, however, we often do precisely the opposite of what those most fond of the language of inerrancy believe should be done.
This suggests that the language of inerrancy serves no purpose which may not be equally, or indeed better served, by using words like authoritative, trustworthy, normative and inspired. Or indeed, the one that is used in Second Timothy: “useful”. These say something about how we relate to Scripture, relying on it, wrestling with it, discerning ourselves and our world by it, and living in the light of its story. That seems to me a lot more sensible than holding on to an older vocabulary which has so changed its meaning that it serves as little more than a badge of obscurantist inclusion and exclusion.
At the end of the film Wargames Joshua (the computer that has nearly blown up the world by playing what it “thought” was the game Thermonuclear War) says: “A strange kind of game. The only winning move is not to play.” That is exactly how I feel about John’s challenge to contextualise the language of inerrancy.
Notes- Pt 1, Sec 1, Ch 2, art 3 107-8 — The quotations are from Dei Verbum [↩]
December 15th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
You are exactly right that inerrancy and infallibility language referred to Scripture, classicly speaking, come with important provisos. It’s worth pointing that out, carefully and patiently, as then using it all the same.
I’m not going to let late Enlightenment corruptions of classical language prevent me from recovering its authentic sense. It’s not Humpty-Dumpty’s use of this language that interests me. It’s the use that Augustine, Trent, and the Reformers put it to, each in different ways, along with a common core. Today, if we choose to follow them in referring the language of infallibility and inerrancy to Scripture - I think the consequences of not doing so, in the long run, would be quite negative - we will do so in a different way again.
Pretty normal situation, if you ask me. How does this situation differ from talking about virtually everything theological?
But let me state the reason I think - in fact I know - some people wish to steer away from infallibility and inerrancy language today. That’s because people they have deep disagreements with have trademarked the language, and they bow to that as an unalterable fact.
Okay. But is that the path that Thomas Aquinas took? Did he not baptize all language, theology, and philosophy he could, including infallibility and inerrancy language referred to scripture, in a truly sweeping metacatholic synthesis that still makes a great read today?
December 15th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
John,
If I may ask, what is the nature of inerrancy exactly? We cannot deny the reality of haplographic errors, myriad redactions, incomplete textual records of numerous texts, disagreements among different authorities, etc. With all of these text critical problems what does inerrancy really mean? Unless there are no real text critical problems which seems to be a very difficult path to weave through the evidence, I find the argument of inerrancy, even in terms of “original letters” which are not available in any complete form from the hand of, say , Matthew himself a bit of a straw argument.
So come rational justification of the grounds of the position are certainly forthcoming.
Another justification seems to be in demand of your claim for “recovering its authentic sense”. Are scholars who would not subscribe to any form of inerrancy or infallibility not doing the same?
Finally, perhaps the need “to steer away from infallibility and inerrancy language today” is that it is made of straw as well and has no real rational basis itself? Or from my view, it has no pragmatic use for teaching the Gospel of Christ’s redemptive revelation and work for us?
December 15th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
John, what precisely is it you think is gained by using the word “infallibility” that is not conveyed by the words “authoritative, trustworthy, normative and inspired”
December 16th, 2007 at 4:10 am
[...] in which I have been participating over on Dr. Jim West’s blog. It also spills over into Doug Chaplin’s Metacatholic blog. Jim posted a challenge to fundamentalists: So, again, fundamentalists of all stripes; present one [...]
December 16th, 2007 at 4:14 am
Doug,
That’s precisely the point. The necessary connection between any doctrine of infallibility or inerrancy to legitimate authority, trust, veracity, etc. has not, and I would argue, cannot be legitimately affirmed. The argument lacks the substantive evidence and we must therefore reject it as highly improbable at best. If Hobbins can disprove this null hypothesis, then I would be very eager to see how. But I am skeptical that the methods he will bring to bear to do so will heavily presuppose the conclusion before building the case.
December 16th, 2007 at 7:32 am
Drew and Doug,
infallibility and inerrancy language is worth recovering because the great tradition (the Fathers, Aquinas, the Reformers) makes use of it, and it goes back to Scripture itself. Check out Isa 55. Or think through 1 Kings 22 or Isa 6 theologically, in which God leads into error, but, it is clearly understood, does not err in so doing.
In short, infallibility and inerrancy language is about such things as God’s word not failing to accomplish its purpose, about God not lying to us, about the awful possibility that God speaks to us in order to provoke our complete rather than only half-hearted rejection of his will, so that, once we taste the consequences of that rejection, we might whole-heartedly return to him. God truly does not lie, even and especially in the midst of his “strange work.” This is a theme in Luther, and it is a powerful one. It doesn’t work though if one’s mind is clouded over with questions about whether x or y people are reported to have been killed in a certain battle, and whether God should have ensured that 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles agreed on all of these details, at least in the autographs. Useless speculation. If that is what inerrancy language was about in the great tradition, yes, we could safely set it aside. But it’s not. Some post-Enlightened moderns break into a sweat about these things, and the matter has to be dealt with carefully and pastorally, but Thomas, it seems to me, already handled the issue well when he said: Any knowledge which is profitable to salvation may be the object of prophetic inspiration, But things which cannot affect our salvation do not belong to inspiration.’
As the formula of Thomas shows, it’s language that poses questions even as it supplies answers (just like the language around the two natures). When the Lausanne Covenant says that Scripture is without error in all that it affirms, that poses a question, doesn’t it? What does Scripture affirm? It’s a good and helpful question, not a bad one.
It was hard for the ancients to allow for the possibility of any kind of error in Scripture. But it’s possible to say that Scripture is clear, it does not err, it does not lead into error, it does not fail to accomplish its purpose, and still think it natural that scripture contains errors of many kinds. I presume it’s not too difficult to imagine how a two-tiered analysis of the kind I suggest works in detail, but if not, keep at me.
December 16th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
So John,
Therefore infallibility is worth recovering due to tradition? This is hardly satisfactory. There was also a tradition in scriptural literalism that rejected people of color in the US and rejected equality of women and so forth. There is a tradition that says that slavery is quite acceptable as well among other things. Surely you are not saying that just because it is a tradition it is worth it. So let’s probe the root of this argument further since on the surface it is quite made of straw.
Just to be clear. If scripture is not infallible it raises the probability that God is a liar. Moreover you are again arguing for the necessary connection of inerrancy with authority without offering an argument for why they must be connected. It seems that the notion of God is a liar is that connection. Tradition aside this is your argument.
How does this account for the myriad of textual problems that the text still gives us? Is the low probability of the authenticity of a passage like John 8 a suggestion therefore evidence that God could be a liar? That there are errors in the text is as clear as the water off the Florida keys. Therefore, inerrant does not work as a hermeneutic to understand the text nor does it work as a foundation for its authority.
It sounds like the speculation over the condition of these supposed original autographs is a speculative assertion at best and therefore a straw basis for faith. Please clarify why this is not so.
It sounds like you are making an argument either without good evidence to support its necessity or are arguing something in spite of the evidence we have in terms of the text critical problems in the canon.
December 16th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
[...] Chris Tilling has given a few more nuanced points on what he believes fundamentalism is, while Doug Chaplin has chimed in as [...]
December 16th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
That’s right, Drew.
My doctrine of scripture is tied to my doctrine of the church, and it takes spiritual discernment to figure out what part of the church’s tradition is worth holding onto, and what not.
I’m not interested at all in logical necessities nor, except as a momentary distraction, am I interested in the tiny god of analytical philosophy.
In any case, you fail the understand the first thing about my position. Scripture contains many errors of the kind you mention. Yet I wish to affirm that God did not err in allowing scripture to contain them. It is constitutive of human communication that truth of the deepest sort comes wrapped in ambiguity and error of a kind that enhances the miracle of the communication of truth that nevertheless takes place.
The example of the pericope of the adulterer is an excellent one. Why on earth am I supposed to be upset that this passage was not originally in the gospel of John or, most likely, in any other of the gospels in the New Testament? Are you telling me that, based on the witness of the rest of the canonical gospel tradition, you cannot ascertain that the passage in question speaks of the same Jesus who speaks in the same voice as we find elsewhere? Are you unable to recognize that voice?
I’m sorry I cannot spout a syllogism to prove to you that the same voice can be heard. I take that back. I am not sorry that such cannot be proven syllogistically.
December 16th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
I am not looking for a syllogism nor am I looking for any God of the philosophers. I am looking for the justification of your assumptions here. So let’s see where we are…
That God allowed errors to exist in scripture means that scripture is, in fact, errant. Unless you want to maintain that a text that has errors is still in errant which is fine, but it seems unnecessary at best.
What makes the text “inerrant” is not the text itself but the will of God discerned through a common “voice” in the text that we discern. On what grounds do you discern this voice since this is the true source of inerrancy and not the text. This is what you are arguing and I hope you can see this. Whether you intend to argue something else is up to you to articulate, but this is clearly the position you are arguing based on what you have written here.
December 16th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
[...] have discovered how to encourage people to read this blog in a hurry. Insult someone in the title of a post. I do not, in fact, believe that John Hobbins is a fundamentalist, nor an inerrantist, nor a [...]
December 16th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
John, in your last comment you move from the inerrancy of scripture to the inerrancy of God, which is different. See the previous trackback link for a somewhat more detailed comment on why I don’t wish to confuse you with others, and why I resist your willingness to embrace the language.
December 17th, 2007 at 5:15 am
[...] Chaplin just couldn’t sit idly by so he decided to take Hobbins to task and challenge his language of inerrancy suggesting that words like authoritative, trustworthy, normative, inspired, and useful would [...]