manuelkuhs
Puritan Board Freshman
Theodore Letis and Richard Muller (PRRD 2:414) claim that Warfield's view of inerrancy departed from the historical view of infallibility in restricting infallibility to the lost autographs. It is the concern of many in the BP/MT/TR/KJV camp(s) that this leaves the church without an infallible extant bible.
In his book, "The King James Version Debate", D.A. Carson (defending reasoned eclecticism) makes the following comment regarding this concern (location 1114, emphasis mine):
A page later, he gets to this "third point":
The reference is to chapter 1 of "God's Inerrant Word", edited by John W. Montgomery, 1974. A quick look at the authors and occasion suggests the book plays a critical part building up towards the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy (1978) and may shed light on the thinking behind it (I would be happy for someone with more knowledge of the connection to correct/improve this sentence).
Thankfully the work by Montgomery referenced is available online: http://www.ccel.us/godsinerrantword.ch1.html
First, (p.35) Montgomery agrees with Carson in restricting inerrancy to the (lost) autographs:
Then comes the shocking conclusion (p. 38):
Carson actually quotes part of this quotation and explicitly agrees (location 1143):
I hesitate to use strong language in case I am misunderstanding Carson/Montgomery(/Warfield?) at this point. However, this seems the logical conclusion of naturalistic textual criticism (as science can only give probability, never certainty), and it seems to be explicitly stated here.
Granted, Montgomery specifies that he is discussing evidence "whether viewed from the angle of Textual Criticism or from the more general perspective of Apologetics", which might leave open theological evidence that gives full certainty. Carson, however, explicitly applies this to epistemology, i.e. how do we Christians know (if I understand it correctly).
If so, this seems to be astoundingly shocking and an attitude of unbelief. Our certainty that the Scriptures are inerrant based on Scripture's own testimony thereto is technically only a "probability", albeit an "extremely high probability"?
Surely faith begins with receiving the extant Scriptures as the Word of God, and finds therein the claim to infallibility, and then believes this claim with absolute certainty? I am aware of the circularity of this reasoning, which I think is my point - we know the Word of God is the Word of God because it claims to be, and we believe it. This, however, is not truly circular because ultimately it is a work of the Spirit in us, giving us this (complete) certainty regarding the (extant) Scriptures.
In his book, "The King James Version Debate", D.A. Carson (defending reasoned eclecticism) makes the following comment regarding this concern (location 1114, emphasis mine):
Now both of the above statements, the Ligonier Statement and the shorter one I offered before it, stress the fact that inerrancy, infallibility, or any other similar term or phrase, obtains in the original documents, the autographs. It is a simple fact that we do not possess these autographs. Does this mean we are lost in a sea of uncertainty? Does it mean we possess nothing but a relatively inspired Bible after all? These questions bring me to the third point, which I shall take up in a moment
A page later, he gets to this "third point":
Third, to concede that total inerrancy or verbal inspiration is restricted to the autographs does not mean we have no sure word from God. This point is well discussed by Montgomery.38
The reference is to chapter 1 of "God's Inerrant Word", edited by John W. Montgomery, 1974. A quick look at the authors and occasion suggests the book plays a critical part building up towards the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy (1978) and may shed light on the thinking behind it (I would be happy for someone with more knowledge of the connection to correct/improve this sentence).
Thankfully the work by Montgomery referenced is available online: http://www.ccel.us/godsinerrantword.ch1.html
First, (p.35) Montgomery agrees with Carson in restricting inerrancy to the (lost) autographs:
If the Bible is inerrant, where is that inerrancy to be located? Not in translations of the text, since these are but approximations of the original; not in printed texts, for these are but representations of manuscript copies, subject to correction by comparison with them; not in the manuscript copies themselves, since they likewise endeavor, with greater or less fidelity, to reproduce the manuscripts on which they are dependent. Unless, therefore, one wishes to maintain that a given stream of transmission or translation was kept inviolable by God (and Scripture itself nowhere gives ground for such an affirmation), inerrancy must be said to reside in the original manuscripts written by the biblical authors, i.e., in the autographs of Scripture.
Then comes the shocking conclusion (p. 38):
Evidence for biblical inerrancy (whether viewed from the angle of Textual Criticism or from the more general perspective of Apologetics) is never itself inerrant, but this by no means makes the inerrancy claim irrational. Warfield (like Fuller) is perfectly willing to admit that his case is a probability case, yet (unlike Fuller) he affirms the inerrancy of the Bible in all matters to which it refers — not just to those "germane to salvation" (whatever they may be!). Why? because, as he correctly observes, the evidence that Christ (God Himself incarnate) held to exactly this inerrancy view of Scripture "is about as great in amount and weight as 'probably' evidence can be made" and thus warrants conviction on our part.
Carson actually quotes part of this quotation and explicitly agrees (location 1143):
On the epistemological question—a subject too vast to be adequately probed in this paper—I agree that the “evidence for biblical inerrancy … is never itself inerrant, but this by no means makes the inerrancy claim irrational.”40
I hesitate to use strong language in case I am misunderstanding Carson/Montgomery(/Warfield?) at this point. However, this seems the logical conclusion of naturalistic textual criticism (as science can only give probability, never certainty), and it seems to be explicitly stated here.
Granted, Montgomery specifies that he is discussing evidence "whether viewed from the angle of Textual Criticism or from the more general perspective of Apologetics", which might leave open theological evidence that gives full certainty. Carson, however, explicitly applies this to epistemology, i.e. how do we Christians know (if I understand it correctly).
If so, this seems to be astoundingly shocking and an attitude of unbelief. Our certainty that the Scriptures are inerrant based on Scripture's own testimony thereto is technically only a "probability", albeit an "extremely high probability"?
Surely faith begins with receiving the extant Scriptures as the Word of God, and finds therein the claim to infallibility, and then believes this claim with absolute certainty? I am aware of the circularity of this reasoning, which I think is my point - we know the Word of God is the Word of God because it claims to be, and we believe it. This, however, is not truly circular because ultimately it is a work of the Spirit in us, giving us this (complete) certainty regarding the (extant) Scriptures.
Last edited: