Is Inerrancy a Heresy? Part 2

For Part 2 of my look at Rodger Cragun's The Ultimate Heresy (TUH), which claims that the doctrine of inerrancy is heretical, we first look at examples in which he supposes he has shown that what is found in the text is incompatible with inerrancy. As we have noted last time, however, while what Cragun presents would cause problems for a hyper-fundamentalist view of inerrancy, it would have little bearing on a contextualized understanding of the doctrine. He also presents far fewer arguments than I expected him to provide -- in fact, what he offers amounts to three broad arguments:


  • Jesus broadened or sometimes placed restrictions on the law. This shows that he didn't consider it inerrant.
  • Cragun offers multiple examples of how Jesus either broadened or narrowed the OT law, but Cragun could have saved himself the trouble, and spared the reader pages of irrelevant examples. As we have noted in numerous contexts, the OT law was didactic, which means that it was never meant to be understood as a wooden, "follow to the letter", procedural handbook. Within that context, the adjustments made by Jesus (and rabbis, as Cragun notes) to the OT law are within the proper bounds of understanding that law as inerrant.


    That Cragun fails to understand the didactic nature of the law is shown when he complains that, e.g., Deut. 22:13-22 does not consider that an unmarried girl might have a ruptured hymen for reasons other than that she had sexual intercourse before marriage. A didactic code leaves it to the discretion of local judges and officials to make such determinations.


  • The NT misuses OT texts like Is. 7:14 as prophecies of Jesus.
  • Yet again, Cragun unwittingly imitates the worst sort of atheist critic with this charge, and also unwittingly adopts his own fundamentalist hermeneutic of the text. As we have also pointed out in numerous venues, the NT's use of the OT is perfectly in accord with Jewish exegetical methods of the period, in which a text like Is. 7:14 is not seen as a prophecy of the future, but in which present events are seen as a re-enactment of Is. 7:14. That means that the NT is not using texts like Is. 7:14 "out of context," because the idea is that only that single verse is being re-enacted.


  • There were a lot of different ideas about what should be in the canon.




  • Again, like some of the worst atheists, Cragun appeals to "specter of diversity" arguments as though they have any relevance or merit, which they do not. All they would mean is that humans may not have recognized the contours of what was inspired as inerrant but not that the texts themselves weren’t inerrant. The contours of the canon would have no bearing on the matter, whether the text was inerrant or not.


    And that, oddly enough, is all Cragun has to offer before he once again returns to the prior non sequitur routine e.g., "inerrancy is a heresy because it has led to divisions." He also offers what he presents as a survey of the historical development of inerrancy as a doctrine, but even if it is 100% correct (and it may well be), it would still be a non sequitur to raise it as though it had any bearing on the truth of the matter.


    In contrast to the above, I would raise a point of agreement with Cragun. I would agree that 2 Tim. 3:16 would not really bear the exegetical weight put on it by some inerrantist commentators. Cragun spends a great deal of time on this verse, but as far as my views are concerned, all that he offers is moot.
    We will close with a look at places where Cragun professes to find "loud dissent" with inerrancy within the text of the Bible itself. His first example, which he alleges to be "most decisive and destructive," fails to produce anything but another massive non sequitur. He notes that in Acts, after his vision of a sheet from heaven, Peter acknowledged he was wrong about something; namely, Gentiles in the Kingdom. From this Cragun concludes that he has demonstrated that Peter "could be in error." Oh? By that rubric, if I find one mistake in Cragun's text, we have thereby proved that he could never produce any text without errors -- no matter how short it is, or no matter what the conditions are. Indeed, by that logic, even if he writes "2 and 2 is four" he is immediately under suspicion of error. Cragun's error is again typical of the "all or nothing" mentality of the very fundamentalism he decries.


    Cragun's next argument is that because some prophets like Jonah were able to resist their prophetic call, they were only human. What bearing this has, again, on inerrancy, and on specific conditions associated with producing an inerrant text, is hard to say, but it would once again place Cragun under suspicion, even if he told us the sky was blue.


    Third, Cragun points out that some pagans, like Balaam, were inspired. Yet again, we're not sure what the point is. Apparently, Cragun thinks the only way someone could produce an inerrant text is if they were being inerrant on everything 24/7. I know of no one, not even a fundamentalist, who believes such a thing.


    Fourth, Cragun delivers some arguments against a mechanical view of inspiration. Since I don't hold to such a view, there is nothing for me to address, though there may be something there requiring an address by some fringe fundamentalists.


    Fifth, Cragun argues that church fathers did not "idolize" the Scriptures, but that is not really the point. What he needs to show is that the church fathers thought Scripture erred. As it is, he can come no closer to this than e.g., Jerome discussing problems in the text (such as Matthew referring to the "thirty pieces of silver" passage in Zechariah -- an issue, by the way, that is easily resolved under Jewish exegetical and citation procedures). Although Jerome discusses the problem, he does not say, "this is an error." What Jerome does do is suppose that e.g., Matthew might be charged with "falsehood" for such things as adding, "I say unto thee" to the translation of "Talitha cumi." But as Cragun admits, this sort of thing comes more of Jerome's perceived neurotic compulsion for detail than from any real problem.


    Thus concludes our look at Cragun, and all in all, he could have spared us the trouble of what amounted to his own exercise in neurotic compulsion.

    Comments

    hey this great JP,good article, I'm glad to see the Church thinking about these issues, This has very important application to apologetic because so many atheists try to impose a hyper-fundie view point on the faith because it's easier to criticize.
    BK said…
    I agree with Joe. Good points. However, I would approach the Acts text (where Peter acknowledges that he was wrong about salvation being available for Gentiles) a little differently. I would point out that those of us who support inerrancy do not claim that the authors of the Bible were perfect people. In fact, David, who wrote many of the Psalms, and Solomon, who is believed to have written much of Proverbs and Lamentations, both were very incredibly flawed people who made wrong decisions repeatedly in their lives. What those who support inerrancy argue is not that the authors never made mistakes, but that the books of the Bible say exactly what God intended them to say, and that they are accurate in what they say. Was Peter wrong about the Gentiles? Yes, and the Bible accurately notes that.

    So, the better analogy would not be saying that I shouldn't trust Cragun if I find one error in his text (no matter how short), but it should be that I shouldn't trust Cragun if he ever made an error anywhere in his life.
    Through dialectic we are hitting upon a good point. In the more sophisticated version of inerrancy there's a lot more lea way than people realize.I hope in better thought out versions o liberalism fiber for belief than people realize.
    Jason Pratt said…
    You meant Ecclesiastes, Bill, not Lamentations. (Though it's understandable, since Eccl features a lot of grim lamentation. {g} )

    JRP
    BK said…
    Yes, of course you are correct. Silly error. Now we all know that I am not inerrant.

    Popular posts from this blog

    How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

    The Bogus Gandhi Quote

    Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

    Discussing Embryonic Stem Cell Research

    Revamping and New Articles at the CADRE Site

    Tillich, part 2: What does it mean to say "God is Being Itself?"

    A Botched Abortion Shows the Lies of Pro-Choice Proponents

    The Folded Napkin Legend

    Exodus 22:18 - Are Followers of God to Kill Witches?

    A Non-Biblical Historian Accepts the Key "Minimum Facts" Supporting Jesus' Resurrection