Channeling Jim West on Inerrancy

Jim West:

Zwingli’s appeal to Scripture as source must always be seen in the light of his conflict with the radical reformers on the one hand and the Catholics on the other. Scripture is arbiter of belief in contrast to the whimsy of the Radicals (and their dependence on the ‘inner light’) on one side; and the appeal to tradition and council (by his Catholic foes) on the other. In this context, then, the Scriptures are certain guides for faith and practice (instead of following one’s inner light or the teachings of the Magisterium).

Zwingli actualized for today:

A Zwinglian appeal to Scripture today is ideally suited to countering the tendency among contemporary Christians to drift about with only the surf of modern political correctness of the right or the left beneath them. It is also suited to serving notice to traditionalists of all stripes, especially those who claim not to draw from a tradition, that Scripture, not tradition, is the arbiter of belief par excellence for those who wish to remain faithful to the truth contained in their tradition. Zwingli used the language of inerrancy and infallibility to this end, and we should as well. As the reformer of Zurich said:

[T]e word of God is to be held by us in the highest honor  . . . and no word should be accorded the same faith as this one. For it is certain, it cannot err, it is clear, it does not let us go errant in the darkness, it is its own interpreter and enlightens the human soul with all salvation and all grace.

Jim West:

When Zwingli, then, speaks of ‘unerring’ texts this is simply in contrast to the errant tendencies of inner guidance and council / creed.

Zwingli actualized for today:

The language of inerrancy and infallibility needs to be carefully qualified, as Zwingli did, and as Augustine, Thomas, and Luther did before him. Inerrancy and infallibility language is suited to Scripture with respect to that which it affirms pro nobis, that is, with respect to our salvation. The Word of God is inefficacious, as Zwingli knew, without the concomitant work of the Holy Spirit:

[B]y word of God is alone meant, what comes from God’s Spirit.

Let me disclose a secret. Jim West’s refusal to refer inerrancy and infallibility to Scripture has everything to do with intramural spats among more-conservative-than-thou and less-conservative-than-thou Baptists, and nothing to do with Zwingli.

Zwingli delighted in using the most exalted language he could muster to describe Scripture. Insofar as West refrains from doing so, he places himself beyond the pale of Zwingli’s adherence to classical Christian positions.

Comments

[Matt]

Excellent post....and boker tov!

[Peter Kirk]

I'm sure Zwingli would have had Jim West burned at the stake for his attitude to Scripture, if he hadn't first had him drowned for being a Baptist.