Rethinking Inerrancy so as to Take Account of All the Errors in the Bible:

Hopeful Theism used to be an agnostic, however these days he seems to have converted to some sort of High-Church Christianity; possibly Roman Catholicism. I cannot understand this conversion. I engaged with him a number of times in his comments section. He said that he remains “critical” of apologetics, and yet here he is allowing Mike Licona to redefine ‘inerrancy’, in an Orwellian fashion, without any pushback.

Inerrancy must be defined in dishonest post-hoc ways because the Bible is littered with errors. It is difficult to imagine a book more erroneous than the Bible. Thus, The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978) defines only the original manuscripts as inerrant. These original manuscripts certainly don't exist today, and the late great Hector Avalos (1958–2021) would have argued that they never existed. Avalos would employ the analogy of his own College Lectures so as to disprove the idea that a discrete set of “original manuscripts” existed. Which version of a hypothetical lecture by Avalos would have been the “original” one? His first draft? An edited and corrected version? If Avalos should depart from his script whilst giving his lecture and ex-temporise, then would the transcript of an audio recording of this lecture then be the “original” version of this lecture? Similarly with books of the Bible. As regards the composition of the books of the Bible, in all likelihood, there would have been a period of open textuality; a period of correction and redaction; a period of insertions and deletions; in which numerous versions of the “original” Biblical Book existed simultaneously.

Avalos discusses the topic of inerrancy, and the concept of there being “original manuscripts” in his The End of Biblical Studies (2007).

The Chicago statement on Biblical Inerrancy had to limit the definition of ‘inerrancy” in this sneaky ad-hoc fashion, because the manuscripts of the bible that have come down to us are full of errors.

However, in our day, people can see through the deceptiveness of the Chicago Statement, and so a seemingly more sensible ad-hoc definition of inerrancy is called for, and Mike Licona is all too happy to provide this new improved ad-hoc definition of inerrancy. Licona was similarly discussing a revised definition of ‘inerrancy’ with Michael Jones of Inspiring Philosophy, a while back. I was looking for a clip of Jones and Licona discussing inerrancy, and I could not find one, however, on Jones’s channel he relates conversations that he had with Licona on this topic. I think that Jones has come to the conclusion that the term itself should be discarded as unhelpful and meaningless. However, the term, ‘inerrancy’ is not unhelpful or meaningless. As a term: ‘inerrancy’ is extremely helpful and meaningful. The only problem is that the Bible does not satisfy the definition of an ‘inerrant book’.

Frank Turek has an interesting way of defining inerrancy: when the Bible gets something right, then it “affirms” this thing that it got right. Whenever the Bible gets something wrong, then it never meant to “affirm” this thing that it got wrong, and so inerrancy does not extend to this thing that the Bible got wrong. What Frank Turek’s definition of Biblical Inerrancy amounts to is that the Bible is inerrant when it’s right!

Inerrancy is not a doctrine of Christianity to be “rethought”, but is a doctrine to be abandoned. Inerrancy has been tested and disproven. The Bible is obviously not free from errors, and if the word ‘inerrancy’ is to mean anything, then it should mean: ‘free from error’. The only reason why ‘inerrancy’ has to be redefined in divers ad-hoc fashions is because inerrancy has been disproven.

Video 1: A video on rethinking inerrancy with Mike Licona and Hopeful Theism.

Video 2: In this video, Mike Jones seems to feign an inability to comprehend the definition of ‘inerrancy’.

Update:

Video 3: Another video of Licona’s trying to rethink inerrancy. Licona proposed “limited inerrancy” i.e. the Bible is limited to “its message” or what it gets right! Licona’s view of inerrancy is scarcely different to that of Turek’s. The stuff that the Bible gets right is a part of its “message”. The stuff that the Bible gets wrong is not a part of its “message” and so inerrancy does not extend to it! Licona also brings up the point that according to the Chicago Statement, inerrancy only extends to the “original manuscripts”. According to Mike Licona, in this video, the Bible ‘… is inerrant in all that it teaches …, and so if the Bible gets something wrong, then it never meant to teach that thing that it got wrong!

What Licona says above is kinda like a retreat from key Protestant doctrines such as sōlā scrīptūrā, the Perspicuity of Scripture, and the Sufficiency of Scripture.

It is now up to the priests of the Evangelical scholarly guild to tell the Protestant in the pew just where the scribal errors are; what topics the Bible addresses sufficiently “as part of its message”; and what topics the Bible addresses in an erroneous manner, as those topics were never—supposedly—a part of its message. The necessity of a guild of scholars, like Licona, overthrows sōlā scrīptūrā. Limited Inerrancy overthrows both the Perspicuity of Scripture and its sufficiency. It is evidently not plain to non-scholars which parts of the Bible are a part of its message, and which parts are not. A high priest of the Evangelical scholarly guild, like Licona, needs to tell the non-scholars in the pew which parts of the Bible are a part of its message and which parts aren’t. Licona’s attempt to rethink inerrancy has inadvertently landed him upon a much more Roman Catholic view of Scripture! Under Licona’s view, a Teaching Magisterium of Evangelical scholars, such as himself, is very much required! Licona, in my view, has inadvertently overthrown many of the key tenets of the Protestant Reformation in his attempt to rethink and limit inerrancy!

---

Ciarán Aodh Mac Ardghail (Ciarán Mc Ardle) is a digital creator from Ireland. Here is his linktree. Here is his YouTube Channel. Here is his LinkedIn. Here is his Instagram.