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!