It’s Saturday evening, so it is time to highlight posts from other bibliobloggers. First up is John Hobbins’ post on inerrancy. He begins:
That Scripture leads into all truth, that Scripture leads out of error and away from error, that Scripture achieves the purposes God foreordained for it – these are typical, essential assumptions that underlie all exegesis in the Jewish and Christian traditions up until the period of the Enlightenment.
He goes on to write that Scripture teaches “solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.”
He goes to quote Zwingli,
… our understanding is this: that the Word of God is to be held by us in the highest honor – by “Word of God” is alone meant, what comes from God’s Spirit – and no word should be accorded the same faith as this one. For it is certain, it cannot err, it is clear, it does not let us go errant in the darkness, it is its own interpreter and enlightens the human soul with all salvation and all grace …
But, in all of his post – and he has a lot written which you should read – I agree with this:
It is a mistake to bring to the biblical text modern anachronistic expectations, expectations which amount to assuming that the authors of scripture do not bring us treasure in earthen vessels, but treasure in vessels made of transparent plastic produced in a modern laboratory. It is time that evangelicals stop abusing Scripture by reading it against its own grain.
That is the sort of thing that I would agree with – that is the sort of inerrancy I would agree with – that Christian Tradition would agree with.
Henry has a response to Hobbins‘ view, with something to say about the word.