Fuller's Statement of Beliefs

I thought it might be helpful to discuss an excerpt from Fuller Seminary's  statement entitled What We Believe and Teach:

We recognize the importance that the word inerrancy has attained in the thinking of many of our scholarly colleagues and the institutions which they serve. We appreciate the way in which most of them use the term to underscore the fact that Scripture is indeed God's trustworthy Word in all it affirms. Where inerrancy refers to what the Holy   Spirit is saying to the churches through the biblical writers, we support its use. Where the focus switches to an undue emphasis on matters like chronological details, precise sequence of events, and numerical allusions, we would consider the term misleading and inappropriate. Its dangers, when improperly defined, are: 1) that it implies a precision alien to the minds of the Bible writers and their own use of the Scriptures; 2) that it diverts   attention from the message of salvation and the instruction in righteousness   which are the Bible's key themes; 3) that it may encourage glib and artificial harmonizations rather than serious wrestling with the implication of biblical statements which may seem to disagree; 4) that it leads those who think that there is one proven error in the Bible (however minor), to regard its whole teaching as subject to doubt; 5) that too often it has undermined our confidence in the Bible by a retreat for refuge to the original   manuscripts (which we do not posses) whenever problems cannot otherwise be resolved; 6) that it prompts us to an inordinate defensiveness of Scripture which seems out of keeping with the bold confidence with which the prophets, the apostles and our Lord proclaimed it.

When  discussing a topic such as inerrancy, it is important to define the term. Some evangelical scholars prefer to still use the term, but in a very qualified sense. Millard Erickson would be an example of this:

"The Bible, when correctly interpreted in light of the level to which culture and the means of communication had developed at the time it was written, and in view of the purposes for which it was given, is fully truthful in all that it affirms."

I'm not saying I buy into that definition. I'm merely demonstrating that the term can be used in different ways. My position is that the term is inadequate and misleading for many of the same reasons that Fuller's statement lists. Unfortunately, when people hear that a person or institution doesn't believe in the inerrancy of the Bible they often come to unwarranted conclusions. Denying the inerrancy of the Bible DOES NOT mean that:

1. the Bible is full of errors
2. the Bible is untrustworthy
3. the Bible is not authoritative

What do you think of Fuller's statement? Why is inerrancy important (or not important) to you?

********************
Links to the rest of this series: Understanding Scripture, Jesus and the Old Testament, Prophecy, What Counts as Scripture?, Fuller's Statement of Beliefs, How Was Scripture Written?, The LXX, What If?, Conclusions 

Comments

[Laura]

I'm a Talbotian at heart, so Fuller's statement makes me nervous. It seems that this statement argues against a level of precision that the 'conservative scholars' I've read are not intending. Inerrancy does not involve 21st century precision, but the level of historical/scientific/etc precision accepted in the culture of the writer. IOW, I lean more toward Erickson's definition. Inerrancy, honestly, probably has a lot in common with the practice of rounding in stats/math. Rounding causes apparent errors that are not errors because they are within accepted limits.

Inerrancy is important to me because if the bible cannot be trusted with simple facts, then how can it be trusted with deeper truths? If the writers were loosey-goosey with mundane things how do we know they were not so with spiritual things?

On the other side, I can certainly see where those in my theological box respond to a denial of inerrancy without listening to the holder of the position and understanding what they are claiming. This happens a lot and it is unfortunate.

[Bill]

Your comments are helpful, Laura. Your view of inerrancy (and Erickson's) is not what I normally associate with the term. I'm used to people who claim that the Bible is absolutely factual in every way possible (i.e. scientific and historical) and from a standpoint of 21st century precision. It sounds like we agree that this is an inappropriate standpoint from which to approach the Bible.

[Laura]

Indeed. Too bad more biblical theologians and exegetes forget that all important maxim: context, context, context.

[Carl]

I wonder why they felt the need to write this at all. The subject is not biblical inerrancy at all. They are stating that they do not find everybody's interpretation of end time events to be inerrant and that quite possibly the scriptures do not give the full picture with complete timeline of the end times.

While I find that refreshing I wonder why they lumped it together with inerrancy.