I’ve stopped using the concept of inerrancy in discussions about the Bible; mostly because the way I describe the Bible’s authority and God-givenness do not require me to make reference to inerrancy. It just isn’t a question I am forced to ask. Even for people who do talk about inerrancy, usually to affirm it, it is not an essential doctrine; that is, it is required only in conjunction with particular arguments for the authority of the Bible.That being said, and in light of this, I ran across a couple of interesting passages in the fourth chapter of Schmitt’s “Political Theology” that casts the relationship between inerrancy and authority in a new light:
Infallibility was for [De Maistre] the essence of the decision that cannot be appealed, and that the infallibility of the spiritual order was of the same nature as the sovereignty of the state order. The two words infallibility and sovereignty were ‘perfectly synonymous.’
And,
In practice, not to be subject to error and not to be accused of error were for him the same. The important point was that no higher authority could review the decision.
For myself I have taken to using the word “normative” to describe the Bible’s authority, as in, “when we say that the bible is scripture we are making a claim about its authority for our community.” But I think what I am trying to get at is that last point; that there is no higher authority to which we might appeal. This distinction between capacity for error and being subject to criticism is an interesting one, is is sustainable?
Entries (RSS)