Why I Trust the Bible

In the margins of John 1 in my worn ESV Bible I have written, "True inerrancy" with an arrow pointing at the capitalized "Word" in verse 1. Last year, when I really started to wrestle with the doctrine of inerrancy, this verse was my life raft. It has kept me afloat through a year of prayer, seeking, and doubting and it is the verse that I hope underlines everything written in this blog post."In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1I understand why those who canonized the Scriptures and put the books in order placed John fourth in the Gospels. It was the last written and the only Gospel to be written out of the synoptic scope. But sometimes I wish they had placed it first. In the beginning was God, was Christ, was Word, was Spirit hovering over the tumultuous waters of that which was created. It is the necessary beginning for understanding both the Old and New Testament and the paradigm that needs to frame any conversation had about biblical inerrancy and authority.So to begin with my conclusion, I trust the Bible because I trust Christ.Two weeks ago, I asked the question: Is biblical inerrancy necessary for biblical authority? I am sorry it has taken me so long to write a follow up, but I didn't want to rush this. I deeply appreciate the comments by people on the blog and conversations had outside of this blog concerning the topic and I hope that this post can be a continuation of that conversation, not a conclusion.One of the biggest problems surrounding the discussion is a misunderstanding of biblical inerrancy by both it's opponents and the popular but thoughtless biblical simpletons.What Biblical Inerrancy Is Not...Biblical inerrancy does not mean that everything in the Bible is to be taken literally regardless of genre and scientific developments. You don't have to be a six day, young earth creationist to hold to inerrancy. It also doesn't mean that the biblical writers were in a Holy Spirit trance while writing it. Unfortunately, a lot of people mistake biblical literalism with biblical inerrancy. There are certainly things in the Bible that are meant to be taken literally, but not everything. As a result of this misunderstanding, most of the attacks on inerrancy are actually misplaced and should be directed at biblical literalism, a position held by only a very small minority of the Christian community.So What is Biblical Inerrancy?In a book put out by Master Books, called How Do We Know the Bible is True? compiled by Ken Ham and Bodie Hodge, biblical inerrancy is defined by Brian Edwards like this:"The Holy Spirit moved men to write. He allowed them to use their own styles, cultures, gifts, and character. He allowed them to use the results of their own study and research, write of their own experiences, and express what was in their minds. At the same time, the Holy Spirit did not allow error to influence their writings. He overruled in their expression of thought and in the choice of words. Thus they recorded accurately all God wanted them to say and exactly how He wanted them to say it in their own character, styles, and languages."For the most thorough definition of biblical inerrancy, read the Chicago Statement on inerrancy, something I alluded to in my previous post. Biblical inerrancy was a term first coined in the mid nineteenth century and came into popular discussion in the mid twentieth century amongst evangelicals as a guard against biblical liberalism, a movement that used higher criticism to rip apart the dating, authorship, and intentions of the Bible.So What's the Problem?The doctrine of inerrancy is built around the verse 2 Timothy 3:16 where it says that all Scripture is God-breathed. That along with the way the New Testament writers use the Old Testament, including the way Christ uses it is the foundation for the doctrine of inerrancy. Brian Edwards' chapter in the above mentioned book is a great explanation of the basic tenants and arguments for Biblical Inerrancy and is worth getting if you want a thorough but not too technical explanation.With that being the basis, that all Scripture is God breathed, inspired, and authoritative, many people call it into question because the seeming presence of discrepancies and contradictions throughout the Bible. There are stories that seem to include different details. There are quotations that seem to be attributed to the wrong prophet. There are sometimes different values proposed in the Old Testament than in the new. How can the bible have these things and still be God breathed and without error?Furthermore, the doctrine of inerrancy only holds true to the original autographs of Scripture (the original writings), which to our knowledge, don't exist.Now, these are not the things that bother me about inerrancy.I am aware of what people consider contradictions and I think many of them are just as easily explained by either different perspectives, them being similar stories but not the same, or other things like that. The quotation standards of the day are different from now and many of the Old Testament quotes are a thing called "pearl" stringing. Also, there is no reason to believe that because we don't have the original autographs that the ones we have are tainted or different.I don't disagree with a high bibliology that trust's all of Scripture as God's word. However, I think we can accomplish those ends without making all the claims of biblical inerrancy. These are some issues to consider:1. Auto Legitimating Truth - This is when you say something is absolutely true with no need for outside attestation or legitimation. I don't believe knowledge or truth works this way. (I know this sounds very postmodern). The appeal to biblical inerrancy is one of those truths that's true because it needs to be, not because it can be proven beyond doubt. This might seem like a finite point, but it poses a serious problem to the insistence on biblical inerrancy for biblical authority. We don't have the autographs, nor do we have adequate answers for every issue brought up in biblical criticism, let alone questions of canon development and theological progress through the Bible. So we don't claim that biblical inerrancy is true because we have the smoking gun to prove it, but because we thinks its' necessary in order to trust the Bible. This brings me to my next issue.2. The Modernist Epistemology - In the Modernist epistemology, something must be absolutely true before it can be fully trustworthy. This is why people insist on the absoluteness of biblical inerrancy. But can we ever know anything absolutely? Is there any set of data that does not pass through a person's interpretive lens? This does not mean that truth doesn't exist (as postmodern philosophers suggest) but just that we can't know them absolutely. Everything known is known by faith, so the insistence of biblical inerrancy as a necessary metanarrative informing our biblical hermeneutic is only necessary with a modernist epistemology. I find this incredibly problematic, not for those who trust the Bible completely, but those who claim biblical inerrancy as absolute truth is necessary to do so.3. Wording over Word - As I mentioned earlier, I trust the Bible because I trust Christ. I think the overemphasis of the wording of God is the greatest problem to arise from the absoluteness of biblical inerrancy. The Bible is a witness to the intersection of God and man. It is Michelangelo's Finger of God and man reaching across the sky to each other. The Bible is the inspired revelation of God to men who wrote what they witnessed. But it is not divinity. The Bible is not the fourth person of the trinity, it is merely the historical witness of the Trinity in the world. If we put our faith in the wording of God just as much or more than the Word of God, Christ, we fall prey to idolatry.I believe the Bible is fully truthful, fully authoritative, fully inspired, but not because of my faith in the absolute inerrancy of the Bible, but my faith in Christ, the inerrant and Divine Word. This distinction is critical. A trust in the Bible placed in the Bible assumes that the Bible can have any effect on a person a part from the will of the Father, the justification by the Son, and the regeneration through the Spirit. That is not to say that there aren't a lot of textual, historical, reasons to trust the Bible. There are. But it's not a smoking gun.So...You might be asking where I stand. So here it is:I am a Christo-Inerrantist who has complete trust in all of the wording of God because of the Trinity God's intersection in my life and the corporate witness of the Church, indwelled by the Spirit, to the Bible over history. At least that's what I am for now...