This week I've been contemplating the inerrancy of scripture.
Here's how Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation describes it:
Since, therefore, all that the inspired authors, or sacred writers, affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred Scriptures.After doing a bit of reading on the subject, it appears that some Christians believe that this inerrancy applies only to the original manuscripts, while others contend that it has been passed along through all the duplications and replications and translations.
An interesting argument, but I'm not going to take on either side of that debate. What I've been thinking about is what "without error" means.
Yesterday DiDi and I read scattered parts of 1 Corinthians, which prompted this thinking. Here we have Paul writing to the new Christians in Corinth, who have found themselves fractured between teachers with differing sets of rules and behaviors and interpretations they are to follow. You can almost hear Paul sighing as he writes, frustrated at the state they are in and their lack of teeth for chewing spiritual meat. Pouring out milk in the form of verbal slaps, periodically sweetened with a sprinkle of encouragement.
He undoubtedly writes what is true. He tapped into the mind of Christ which he mentions in Chapter 2, and passed along what he thought the Corinthians needed to hear.
But just as I believe that some people confuse the Bible with God Himself, I think that some people confuse the inerrancy of scripture with the inerrancy of the individual writers.
Clearly they are not without error. In the case of this letter, Paul tells us that he himself is not innocent. In chapter 7 Paul admits several times that he is voicing his opinion rather than something that was given to him by the Lord. He is so convinced that the end is coming soon that he urges people not to marry (though he acknowledges that some of us are so weak that we can't help indulging and therefore better get hitched). And of course, we are still waiting for Christ to come again, thousands of years later. Paul believed that it was much better to live as he did, alone, celibate.
Are these things inerrantly true? For the purposes Paul tried to accomplish I would say yes, they were.
Are they the fullness of truth? No.
As the Vatican II document states, they were without error for that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided.
A subset of truth, those truths which God desired to be confided.
The letters were penned by people who did their best to channel the mind of Christ, to people who they assumed wanted to do the same. But those people were not perfect, at either end.
Imperfect people writing to imperfect people about perfect truth. Writing at that time, for that time, without error.
And now here we are, millenia later, reading Paul's words in chapter 11 about eating food which has been sacrificed to idols, and about how it is a disgrace for men to have long hair, and for women to pray with their head uncovered. Things which we disregard, believing them to be relics of the past, which no longer apply. Then we continue reading in the same chapter, words of the institution of the Eucharist, beautiful words which most Christians believe to be timelessly applicable.
Truth. Inerrant truth for specific purposes. Each word, each sentence completely without error, while not being globally true for every situation at every era.
Inerrant scripture yes, but delivered by errant messengers.
