Hermeneutics And Inerrancy

Hermeneutics and Inerrancy. I just could not avoid looking at the issue of Inerrancy, there’s so much waffle going on about it these days. I promise I will get back to hermeneutics with some examples soon. Remember In my blog about hermeneutics I stated that The context can make all the difference can’t it? I remember hearing Dr Edwin Orr many years ago talking about Science and the Bible and saying that different explanations are evoked by different contexts. So that if you were at his house and asked him “Dr. Orr why is the kettle boiling?”, he might reply “because of the heat due to the flame under the kettle causing the water molecule to agitate and bump against each other with kinetic energy etc etc”, or he might merely reply “because my wife is making me a cup of tea!” Both are valid explanations, and both can be true, but the required explanation depends on the context. Now this has a very important implication which I didn’t address but is important in today’s discussions about inerrancy and the so called issues surrounding the question of the infallibility of the Bible and inerrancy. I stated that context has big implications for the meaning of a person’s statement, or even in a text the context has to be considered as to it’s intended meaning. When you talk about Hermeneutics I think you need at some time to consider the whole issue of infallibility and inerrancy. I am not saying they are such things that are questionable, but rather given so many are confused on the issue of inerrancy and there’s so much debate about it, then it is worthwhile to associate hermeneutics and infallibility and inerrancy. A long time ago Homer C. Hoeksema wrote a little book, so it’s easy to read  called “In the beginning God..” He wrote this in 1966 and he nicely addresses the confusion then that people had about infallibility and inerrancy. He points out on page 24 how in 1961 the synod of the Christian Reformed Church { in America } made a report which left unaddressed and remained for most purposes silent about the reports statement that “what is seen as inaccurate from a merely historical point of view is recognised as wholly accurate for the reporting of sacred history.” Pg 25 They were saying that the Bible could be in error as to history but not in regard to scared history. What is amazing id that you have the same statements being said today. And without any idea that maybe an answer has already been given, as it was back in 1966. How is the apparent inconsistency answered then? Well you must first know where you are standing as a Christian. What is your foundation? Read Hoeksema’s book, it’s well worth it and has more gems than I could summarise. But his main point is that after he has spoken of Scriptures

infallibility, because clearly it is God’s word primarily, that in the most basic sense Scripture is Authored by Him, not by men, but that men as moved by the Spirit said what God wanted said, having been prepared by all their life to say what God wanted said in words, not thoughts but words that God wanted made clear. His main point is that the Church - Christians are built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets Eph 2:19-20. In the sense that it’s built on their teaching, which is the Scripture ( and it’s Scripture we are to listen to since they are dead ). Hoeksema says “if you chip away at those Scriptures, you are chipping away at the very foundation of the Church.” Pg 23 I would add not only in chipping away at the Scriptures, by calling into question their authority and infallibility, this endangering the foundation, but notice in Ehp 2:19-20 part of that very foundation is Christ Jesus who is the corner stone. Once the foundation is undermined then the cornerstone is also pushed aside so is it no wonder that a consequence of questioning the Scriptures is to also question Who Jesus is? To eventually deny him by redefining him? Just as some do again today in saying Jesus wasn’t God but just more enlightened about Who God was. Christ and His word can not be torn asunder without the Whole foundation of Christianity being made nonsense Hoeksema says again “[all the attacks on the foundation ] have one element in common, that they exalt man’s subjective judgment above the Word of God. Man, then, decides what is the Word of God and what is not, what is accurate and what is inaccurate, what is truth and what is error.” Wise words. Then he says “Every thought must be in submission to the Scriptures, the only infallible rule.” What are we doing in regard to this foundation? Are we contending for the faith once for all delivered? Jude 3. That’s my responsibility, and that’s your responsibility. Let me end by saying here one more gem from Hoeksema about the Scriptures and their being inspired. Some quickly want to assert that it is the original autographs which were inspired and that we no longer have these! So we need to ask what this means for us today? Well Hoeksema says ”while we do not have the autographs, that makes no real difference for us..[ for several reasons ]” which he expounds. Pg 11. Get his book and read them they are thought provoking. But one reason he gives is how Timothy in Paul’s time, when Paul says he had been trained from childhood in the Scriptures, we need to know that he certainly wasn’t trained with the original autographs and yet Paul could proclaim as he did in 2 Timothy 3:16 that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God..” Ask yourself why Paul would bother to say that if the

Scriptures that were available, that is all those copies, were not the autographs. I would add some even more to the point Scriptures from the Lord Jesus. Such as John.. where Jesus say have you not read what Moses said…. Jesus knows they don’t have the originals, but that doesn’t matter. What they do have is just as Authoritative!