Troubling passage from my Bible Doctrines text

I'm supposed to be studying for a Bible Doctrines test I'm having tomorrow. This test is mainly over the text, called Basic Theology by Charles C. Ryrie. Reviewing it brought to mind something that I'd intended to share with you earlier, but hadn't taken the time to. A little background first; this passage is from Chapter 14, entitled "Problem Passages." The author has just finished defining the concept of inerrancy of the Scriptures. In short, it means the original texts of the Bible contains no errors of any kind (and therefore, no contradictions). By way of definition: An errantist is one who does not believe the preceding doctrine, and an inerrantist is one who does. Ryrie is an inerrantist.

The following passage starts on page 107; any spelling errors are my fault, I'm sure:

No one denies that there are passages in the Bible that contain problems of one kind or another. The inerrancy question does not involve interpretative problems or debates concerning the best text type. But problems of apparent discrepancies, conflicting numbers, differences in parallel accounts, or allegedly unscientific statements do concern the question of inerrancy.

Errantists and inerrantists both have access to the same facts concerning each of these problems. Both have capable minds to use in interacting with those facts. Both can read the conclusions of others. But they do not come to these problems with the same basic outlook. The errantist's outlook includes not ony the possibility but the reality of errors in the Bible. Therefore, when he studies these problems one of his possible conclusions is that one or another of them is actually an error.

The inerrantist, on the other hand, has concluded that the Bible contains no errors. Therefore, he exercises no option to conclude that any of these same problems is an example of a genuine error in the Bible. His research may lead him to conclude that some problem is yet unexplainable. Nevertheless, he believes it is not an error and that either further research will demonstrate this, or he will understand the solution in heaven.

In short, Ryrie says he will continue to hold the position that the Bible is without error without regard to the evidence. I cannot begin to tell you how much this bothers me. Is it not written in one of our best-loved hymns, "The Bible stands every test we give it for its Author is divine"? If the Bible is true and inerrant, then it will stand up to our tests; if it is not, then it will not.

Perhaps anticipating my reaction, Ryrie attempts to explain himself with the following illustration:

If a happily married man comes home unexpectedly one day to find his wife waving good-bye to a handsome man about to get into a car, what will he think? If his confidence and trust in his wife is total and unwavering because of their years of satisfying experiences together, he will assume that she had a good reason for seeing that man. Though he may be curious, the husband will not doubt his wife's loyalty. Perhaps it will not be until later that he learns that the man he saw was delivering a special present his wife had ordered for him.

But if his confidence in his relationship with his wife is even a bit shaky, his thoughts will wander him into all kinds of paths including unfaithfulness on her part. Because of his insecurity, his wife will forever be branded an adulteress in his eyes.

The analogy is clear, isn't it? If I come to the Bible with confidence that its words were breathed out from God and therefore without errors, and if that confidence is buttressed by years of proving the Bible totally reliable, then I won't be shaken by a problem, and I will certainly not conclude that it is in error. But if I think there can be errors in the Bible, however few or many, then I will likely conclude that some of those problems are examples of errors. An even if there is only one, I have an errant Bible.

The problem with the analogy is that, regardless of the mindset of the married man, there is the very real possibility that his wife did have an affair. The evidence of years of faithful marriage beforehand are not necessarily meaningful; she could have been having affairs without his knowledge. Carrying that over from the analogy, just because I'd never noticed an error in the Bible doesn't mean that it wasn't there all along, regardless of how many years I missed it.

Now, following the illustration, the man's first thoughts aren't likely to be that she'd had an affair, but he'd probably ask his wife who the other man in the car was. If she couldn't provide a satisfactory answer, a red flag might go up, and he'd investigate further, and he might come to the (possibly accurate) conclusion that his wife was cheating on him. Likewise, in approaching the Scripture, it's likely that any perceived errors are explainable in some way; if there isn't a good explanation readily at the mind, the student of the Word should dig deeper, ask teachers and pastors, and find one. If there is no explanation to be found, then it's possible that the Bible might just be in error.

But I most certainly will not ignore evidence that the Bible is untrue simply because my ideology says that the Bible must be true; it's the mental equivalent of plugging one's ears and shouting until the problem goes away. To borrow an another analogy, this one from essayist Bill Whittle (his emphasis):

We need a map. Several are for sale. How do we choose?

Well, it seems like a good idea to choose the map that best conforms to the coastline we see unveiling before us. We choose the map that best fits the territory. We choose the map that best matches reality – the objective, external, indisputable reality of bays and promontories, capes and gulfs and rivers and shoals.

We can, indeed, lay out competing philosophies on the table, and see where each conforms to reality and where it does not. No maps are without distortions; none of these are likely to be, either. And one map may conform perfectly to the coastline in one area, and be dreadfully amiss in another. We can cut and paste them as we wish. This is too important for us to be arguing about who is right – all our energies must go to getting it right.

And before we start, we must agree to one thing, and one thing only: we will never be so full of arrogance and blinded by pride that we dare confront a place where the map does not match the coastline, and proclaim that the coastline must be wrong.

That said, and a good half an hour gone, I leave you for my studying. Be back later.

Posted by Blog Jones at September 23, 2004 08:55 PM | Category: Religion