The Unsettled Christianity Podcast is NOW on iTunes, where you will now find it NOW.
In this episode, Josh (author of ]]) and I begin with a brief discussion of ]] and then move into inerrancy.
Now, some of you may not agree. I tried to be mindful of that — because I’m at a point in my own journey that I have no need to disparage inerrantists as I understand them BECAUSE I recognize the value of inerrancy.
[tweetthis]The Unsettled Christianity Podcast, Ep 2 – Biblical Inerrancy[/tweetthis]
However, I am not an inerrantist. As a Christian, I am an infallibilitist although I’ve heard that described as a functional inerrantist. In other words, I affirm that Scripture contains all things necessary for salvation and is without error in what it teaches — i.e., doctrine, nature of God, revelation of God, etc…
The early Fathers held that the Bible was inerrant. The Catholic and Orthodox Churches affirm this as well. However, this is the case only when the Bible is properly understood, interpreted by the Church. This is inerrancy by ancient standards and not modern, fundamentalist standards. The early Fathers did not think that minor contradictions rendered the Bible errant, nor did they insist all stories were meant to be interpreted literally. For instance, the creation stories were often allegorized, interpreted in ways so as to prefigure Christ, or interpreted through the lens of the science of the day (or all three!). Thus St. Augustine could say each day in the Genesis creation story was equal to a thousand years, or that the science of the day should shape our understanding of the creation stories, without ever denying the divine inspiration of the Scriptures. So when a Catholic affirms the inerrancy of Scripture, the idea has far less baggage than the fundamentalist understanding.
Some may disagree with this on all fronts. That’s fine.
But, I am interested in your thoughts.