Why I am a fundamentalist, an inerrantist, and a Calvinist

I really am happy to be labeled all three. You are also welcome to label me a charismatic. I won't even object if you label me a Communist (the partito comunista italiano is the only party I ever joined, if only for a brief period).

In the hands of those who use these terms pejoratively, we all know what purpose they serve. They are designed to smear the character of an abominable “other.”

Labels like these are designed to define who is “in” and who is “out.” As already noted, they are used to give someone, literally, a bad name. They acquire more content when used in terms of a historical dichotomy, such as fundamentalist/modernist, Calvinist/Arminian, and communist/capitalist.

The terms are not designed to start a conversation, but to end one, unless, of course, you are among friends, and you want to explore differences with an open mind. In that spirit, I accept the labels and the animus that goes along with them. Now it’s my turn.

If a fundamentalist is someone who feels comfortable using infallibility and inerrancy language in reference to the word of God, including the word of God inscripturated, then I am a fundamentalist. Of course I use the language in the same way that Augustine, Thomas, Luther, and Zwingli used it, with escape hatches built in. Of course I use it in the same way that the Talmud uses it in reference to Torah, that is, as a way of describing the perfections of teaching whose meaning or application necessarily changes from one generation to the next.

There is nothing odd about this. It differs not one wit from the way we theologize and appropriate past ethical construction in general. When we use the language of providence, or of wrath, or of love, in reference to God, escape hatches are always necessary, or we quickly fall into self-contradiction. When we appropriate and seek to continue a tradition of ethical construction, the positions we take in some instances will be diametrically opposed to those of precedent, because that is, in a changed situation, the most responsible way to remain true to tradition.

The real issue is not about referring inerrancy and infallibility language to scripture. The real issue is about using that language, any language, in a crude and simplistic fashion, as opposed to a discerning fashion, in accord with the riches of the object it describes.

I adore the way Zwingli refers the language of inerrancy to Scripture:

[I]t 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 suggests that Zwingli’s inerrancy language doesn’t make sense in our day because the historical context has changed. Not at all, my friend. The fact that you avoid that language is a symptom of the extent to which you have allowed your more-conservative-than-thou southern Baptist friends to monopolize language that remains as descriptive of Scripture in our day as it was in Zwingli’s.

Doug Chaplin points out that I refer inerrancy and infallibility to scripture in a way unlike that of Theopedia. He’s right. Theopedists subscribe to a notion of inerrancy that I do not accept. They come to scripture with a different set of expectations than I do. They think it's important that when the biblical writers conveyed the way forward and truth of the matter as they saw it, they also got their mundane facts right, and more generally, were not subject to the kind of limitations we are subject to when we write about anything, no matter how careful we are, and no matter how much we try to deliver the truth of the matter without error mixed in. For my part, I think it's important that in fact they did not get their mundane facts always right, and that they were subject to the same kind of limitations we are, even as they conveyed the way forward and the truth of the matter.

The fact convinces me that revelation remains a possibility in my world and yours. If infallible truth and inerrant revelation is able to poke through the errors and mist to which the biblical writers were subject, maybe, just maybe, it is able to make its way to the doorstep of my contradictory, error-filled being.

Someone may object that I overlook the imperfections of scripture, and give an unbalanced picture by praising its supposed perfections. Got me there. But that’s what one does in confessional speech. That’s what one does when one speaks the language of love and commitment. A believer, even and especially a believer who feels called to approach the text with a full panoply of critical methods, will do so with the following words in his heart: “With all that I am and all that I have, I honor you.”

This post is long enough. I can’t wait to see the “John Hobbins is a Communist” posts that are sure to follow. I would enjoy explaining why I see myself as a fundamentalist more than as a modernist, a Calvinist more than as an Arminian, a communist more than as a capitalist, a conservative more than as a liberal, and a charismatic more than as a brain on a stick - even though I am a theistic evolutionist, in love with the Wesleys more than with the great Reformed divines of Westminster Assembly, an owner of stocks and bonds, a bleeding heart for illegal immigrants, and a person who buries his head in a book 24/7.

Maybe next time.

I call the reader’s attention to posts by Jim West, Doug Chaplin, Chris Tilling, Jim Getz, Nick Norelli, Andrew Compton, Brian L, Drew, Steven Harris, Tim Ricchuiti, and the Trainee Pastor, They form the background to this post. Yes, Nick, presuppositionalism is not the be-all and end-all its supporters think it is, and your Placher quote is spot-on. Yes, Bryan, you’ve hit on the Achilles heel of Protestant orthodoxy falsely so-called. As for Jim West who censors comments he doesn’t cotton to, well, he sets himself up for a fall.

Comments

[J. K. Gayle]

John,
Some of us feel your pain. Sticks and stones, they say, . . . but words.
Kurk (aka "J.K. Gayle," the "feminist," the "male," the "postmodernist," the "Christian," the mere "literary translator," the "academic," the "blogger," the "student," the "infamous," the "egalitarian")

[Phil Sumpter]

The fact convinces me that revelation remains a possibility in my world and yours. If infallible truth and inerrant revelation is able to poke through the errors and mist to which the biblical writers were subject, maybe, just maybe, it is able to make its way to the doorstep of my contradictory, error-filled being.

I feel like this statement is touching onto something profound that I wish I could grasp better. There's an interlocking of heaven and earth in biblical faith which is both shockingly offputting and deeply attractive. I find that Childs, Seitz and NT Wright are helping me best to come to terms with this.

[JohnFH]

Kurk, I'm betting everyone knows what it's like to be insulted, and to trade insults. Some of us also enjoy the pursuit of truth for its own sake. I am happy to converse with anyone who does, no matter how much we might not see eye to eye.

Phil, you have picked some excellent Bible scholars and theologians to listen to. And don't forget the great tradition on which they build. It's work to read Luther and Calvin's Latin, German, and French, but it's deeply worth it. Beyond them, there's Thomas, and before his synthesis, amazing authors of all kinds. Irenaeus and Augustine, the Cappadocian Fathers. But you know this already, from Childs and Barth.

[Iyov]

I'm with Doug Chaplin on this one. I do believe that you feel your faith is "Calvinist", "Fundamentalist", "Inerrant", "Pentecostal", and "Communist" but you have redefined those terms in such a way that those adjectives are not particularly useful in understanding your belief system. For example, you have suggested in a previous exchange that you are Calvinist in the sense of the writings of John Calvin (the truth is -- I don't think my life is long enough to ever make it all the way through the Institutio Christianae Religionis (not even in translation, were I to succumb to such a crib) -- and I suspect that if I did, your own understanding of Calvin would show a number of idiosyncrasies that separate it from a consensus reading. (I also don't the juxtaposition of Calvinism vs. Arminianism helpful, since the vast majority of Christendom falls into neither category.)

Now perhaps your membership in the Communist party is more conventional, since that is an actual entity that you joined (with a particular platform) but you also mention you only joined it for a brief period, suggesting that you did not subscribe to at least some of their fundamental tenets.

In short, your use of identifiers here is more of a tease than helpful -- so maybe it would be better to simply explain to us what you do believe, without labels.

I become a bit annoyed when anyone labels me -- partly because my personal views do not affect the validity of my arguments, partly because the terms carry baggage that I may not accept, and partly because my personal beliefs are personal. I note you have held back on describing your Pentecostal beliefs, which suggests to me that you may partly agree that some beliefs are simply personal and there is no obligation for one to enumerate them in public discourse. (An exception perhaps may be made for practices that are illegal and truly dangerous -- e.g. handling poisonous snakes.)

Regarding Jim West: Your remarks are accurate (although they show too much restraint, in my opinion: I am surprised that West has cowed so much of the blogsophere into accepting his intolerance and hateful statements).

[JohnFH]

I don't particularly like the Calvinist/Arminian binomial pair either, but that has dominated the discussion. It hardly worries me that my Calvinism might not be of the "consensus" variety - and who gets to define that? Theopedia?

Calvinism is a broader tradition than many non-Calvinists - and Calvinists - know. It includes people as varied as Charles Simeon, George Whitefield, Jonathan Edwards, Abraham Kuyper, Herman Dooyeweerd, Karl Barth, Jurgen Moltmann, and Nicholas Wolterstorff (now at Yale). Iyov, I think you have a far too narrow view of what constitutes Calvinism.

If you want to read Calvin, start with his 1545 Genevan catechism in Latin. Believe it or not, Calivin's gift is lucid brevity. Then go on to the 1536 edition of the Institutes. Leave the bulky final edition to Fachleute.

It's a blast to read early Calvin - he was a great humanist. His commentary on Seneca's de Clementia prefigures his later thought, but in a way that will be more palatable to most. He also had a real exegetical gift, which is why his commentaries continue to be read, reprinted, and translated anew in many languages.

In my opinion, the finest short introduction to Calvinist thought was not even written by Calvin. It's the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), a limpid and graceful document, to be read in German or Latin if at all possible, but there are decent English translations. CCEL provides a German-English diglot online, part of Philip Schaff's magnificent "Creeds of Christendom."

So I'm serious about being a Calvinist, just not a "school" Calvinist.

Whether people label me a Communist or a capitalist, a conservative or a liberal, you're right, I don't much care. Like you, I find labels only marginally helpful. On the issue at hand, whether or not inerrancy and infallibility are referable to scripture or not, and in what sense, I trust I have made myself clear.

[Drew]

Still easier and more intellectually satisfying, not to mention defensible, to say the text is indeed errant, but the God it reveals is not. That seems to be what you want to say, but you seem to have to hold onto the doctrine. I am not sure why the doctrine is all that important here.

If you said that it was in fact not inerrant, what would that do to your faith? To your understanding of the authority of scripture? Just curious.

[JohnFH]

If the God scripture reveals does not lie, is trustworthy, and is full of grace and truth, and the chief content of scripture is the revelation of that God and that God's will for humankind, it is natural to speak of scripture itself as something that does not lie, as trustworthy, as a unique and irreplaceable source of the truth to which it bears witness.

And that's tantamount to saying that as far as its chief subject matter is concerned, Scripture does not err, and does not lead into error. Right, Drew?

And if, besides all that, scripture is also errant in a weak sense, that is, if its language presupposes ancient rather than modern notions of cosmology, if it is not completely consistent on details, if its authors erred in any number of ways according to the nature of all human authorship, does that undermine the authority of scripture as I understand it?

Not at all. Paradoxically, it strengthens it.

I don't think I'm using language in an odd way. Let me try to exemplify. I don't know what fields of study you enjoy. Let's say physics. What if I were to tell you that Feynman's lectures on physics are a splendid, trustworthy, and irreplaceable introduction to the subject, a solid work that will not lead you astray in all that it affirms, and in all that it is careful not to affirm? Would you reply, Feynman may have understood physics perfectly, but his lectures contain inconsistencies, and are problematic in various ways?

Well fine, we would both be right. But the positive evaluation of the Lectures is of greater importance. The negative evaluation applies to all treatments of physics, and for that reason, need not be highlighted at all.

[Stephen (aka Q)]

I am reminded of Walt Whitman:

"Do I contradict myself?
Very well, then, I contradict myself;
(I am large — I contain multitudes.)"

A favourite quote of mine. Sometimes it's best not to smooth out the wrinkles. Something is inevitably lost when the wrinkles are smoothed out — that's my opinion.

Which is to say: If you want to affirm the doctrine of inerrancy while also acknowledging that the Bible contains errors, I don't see why that should be grounds for controversy. "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" — another worthy quote.

[Jim Getz]

I have a hard time believing that John McArthur and St. Augustine mean the same thing by inerrancy.

You might try and counter that they're not and when we should get back to what Augustine meant, but languages change and words develop new meanings. I'm pretty sure that Augustine wouldn't have been able to sign the Chicago Statement.

[JohnFH]

We agree, Jim, except that I'm not willing to let John McArthur types monopolize infallibility and inerrancy language about scripture. He's responsible for his use of the language. I am for mine.

Huge chunks of vocabulary are consistently misused in today's religious culture. Am I to stop referring to Jesus as Lord and Savior because I can't get through the week w/o hearing someone talk about Jesus as 'my personal Lord and Savior' - a borderline oxymoron at best, a total mis-emphasis at worst?

I want to distinguish my position from that of, say, the Theopedists, but I prefer to do it by recovering the language of Augustine, Thomas, Luther, Zwingli, Lausanne, and Dei Verbum with their qualifications intact (hermeneutic of love; inspiration applies to the subject matter of salvation; was Christum treibt; what comes from the Holy Spirit; in all that it affirms).

I also want to differentiate my position from that of those who fail to discern transcendence in the text. From those whose ears are attuned to hear only what they're sure they can dismiss in the text.

[Identity Mixed]

Saying that something has errors and saying that something leads one into error are two different arguments you not only fail to connect but refuse to connect as well. That's where your argument continues to fail. Simple stuff really.

I at least know that some readers here know what I am talking about. Q makes the same point for one.

Finally, let's look at something else in physics that is more in line with the argument here. Something more specific. Einstein was right about general relativity. He was dead wrong about quantum mechanics. What you are arguing is that because he was right in the first case of general relativity (the bible has errors), he is right in the second case (but it is inerrant on another level of analysis) by virtue of the first case. If you are making that claim, and you clearly are, then you need to justify it rather than just glory in such a useless paradox.

If scripture has errors, it does not necessarily mean that we must err. God does not have to be a liar because scripture is not inerrant. Sounds like you are conflating a lot here without any basis whatsoever.

[JohnFH]

Identity Mixed,

let's continue your thought experiment a bit further. How does the Bible compare with Einstein in their respective fields of interest?

What I confess as a believer is that the Bible gets things right about both God and humankind, who God is, and who we are in relation to God. At the same time, I have no problem with the fact that the Bible also contains errors of the kind every human artifact is known to contain.

I might be wrong; I might be right, but it is ludicrous to accuse me of using language or of thinking in a way that is out of the ordinary. You don't have to have read Wittgenstein to get this.

Einstein, on the other hand, though he is the greatest student of physics who ever lived, was only half-right. I claim much more, with respect to its chief subject matter, for the Bible. So have Jews and Christians generally, for two millennia.

You are free to chuck all of that in the trash. But it would be foolish of you to dismiss the classical religious stance to scripture based on a misapplication of syllogistic logic.

I appreciate your call for specificity. Theory can be airy-fairy. Apparently you think the Bible gets things all wrong about God, or about human beings, or both. Please explain.

[Drew]

First, the Einstein case was saying that because something is a certian way on one level of analysis does not therefore mean it is a certain way on another level of analysis. That gap is the issue and you have resisted any means to close it to make your argument for inerrancy ring true.

Second, by saying that the bible contains errors means that it is not inerrant. Period. Why? Because the first argument has yet to be addressed as noted above.

Third, you are not being "accused of anything". You are just making two separate arguments and conflating them. That is what the issue is. Saying that something is inerrant and then admitting that it has errors is not a good position because it is so irrational.

Not sure what the fourth paragraph even means. Not sure you can say Einstein was half right. I mean, with respect to what? Muddle.

Tell me how this is a misapplication of logic:

It is inerrant.
It contains errors.
It is therefore not inerrant.

Hello?

Finally, if a theory is "airy-fairy" it's a bad theory. This is what inerrancy is to me - a bad theory because it does not meet the need for veracity of its foundations. But my penchant is for rationality. Feel free to adhere to irrational ideas if that is what floats your boat.

I have not claimed that the bible gets anything "all wrong about God". That is made up. But the bible has errors. Therefore it is not inerrant. That is the only claim I have made and have offered the rational grounds for that assertion. You have yet to offer rational grounds for the assertion that it is inerrant yet has errors.

[JohnFH]

Slow down, Drew. Did you read the post I was responding to? If so, it doesn't show.

As far as I can see, you are the one who insists on conflating two levels of analysis.

You continue to address a rich and complex subject matter with childish syllogisms. You said somewhere else that you yourself have a confessional approach to the Bible. Out with it. I doubt you will express it in terms of QEDs.

If Einstein got relativity theory right and quantum mechanics wrong, per the post I was responding to, that makes Einstein half right. What's so hard about that?

Let me ask you a question: does the Bible get anything important right? A God fellow figures pretty prominently in its pages. This God fellow seems to ask questions more than provide answers. Such as (to Adam and Eve, after they run from His presence): "Where are you? "Where is your brother" (to Cain, after he killed Abel) "Who do you say that I am?" (Jesus to his disciples). Do at least the questions make sense to you?

With all due respect, there is something obnoxious about your response to what I say about the Bible. I have not hidden the fact that I am using the language of love and commitment with respect to the Bible. Catholics go so far as to speak of venerating Scripture.

Now, if we were friends, and I fell in love with someone, and I told you, "she's perfect," and "she means everything to me," and you were to respond, "what do you mean, don't you see that zit on her left cheek?" "There are a thousand like her where I come from," you know as well I do the appropriate response to such comments.

A good punch to the gut.

[Drew]

Let's cut the nonsense out of that reply and focus on the issue - which you continue to avoid.

First you said it was a misapplication of logic. Now you say syllogisms are childish. No matter, this avoids the case completely.

What the Bible gets "right" is not the issue here. The issue, again is this: how is something inerrant that has errors? The text itself. An appeal to the inerrancy of God is a different argument. I really do think that you are creatively avoiding this argument. I am not just looking at the errors here and saying that the bible has not got it "right" about God whatever that might mean. That's a different hermeneutical issue albeit tangentially related.

But it is the presence of errors that makes the text not inerrant. Might want to address the argument rather than distract from it.

But I see rational argument is childish according to what you have written above. You said it yourself with the comment about syllogisms as if that is all the issue I am arguing is about.

BTW - The whole idea of "two levels of analysis" was your idea and I was just debunking that as well. You missed that too.

[Jim Getz]

I guess I'll take up the language if the fight is creedal in nature (e.g. the three persons but one essence of the Trinity) but have a harder time when it's not.

Also, lumping Augustine in with Luther, Calvin and Zwingli always makes me cringe. But, that could be because I'm not a Protestant....

[JohnFH]

Drew, I'm not sure where to point you to. Perhaps you would find Wittgenstein of help here. My criticism of your approach boils down to this. You want people to speak in syllogisms, but they don't.

For example, if I listen to a film review by Siskel and Ebert, and they say, "two thumbs up!" and go on to say that even the film's weaknesses contribute to its greatness, are you going to debunk them, too? Be my guest.

Or, are you familiar with other theological formulae, such as Jesus who is said to be fully God and fully man? Sink your syllogistic teeth into that one. Or Luther's simul iustus et peccator. You at least owe it to the readers of this thread to explain why your logical approach to inerrancy language referred to scripture succeeds in showing it holds no water, whereas the language of Chalcedon and Luther works fine.

Still, I wish to thank you for commenting here. There are plenty of people who think they resolve issues like this by applying the sledgehammer of stringent logic. I am still waiting to hear your confessional take on Scripture. If you've posted it elsewhere, let me know. I'd be happy to interact with it.

[JohnFH]

Jim,

Actually, the commonalities between Augustine and Luther are enormous. After all, Luther was an Augustinian. The historian who has done the most to highlight the continuities between the Reformers' thought and the Great Tradition, is, I think, Heiko Oberman. I highly recommend his scholarhip. Or check out the collection of essays in his honor, Augustine, the Harvest and Theology. It is an eye-opener.

Have you ever read anything by the Catholic theologian, Otto Herman Pesch? His comparative study of Aquinas and Luther is extremely insightful. He is representative of a sympathetic mode of understanding the connection between the Reformation and precedent Catholic tradition - from the Catholic side (Pesch is an O.P.). I read a lot of Pesch in seminary back in the days. If they don't teach Pesch this side of the pond, it's a shame.

As for the language of inerrancy and infallibility referred to Scripture, I don't want to compel people to use it. My purpose is twofold: to show that it has been and still is used (Dei Verbum) in nuanced and acceptable ways, with emphases at odds with those who use it, say, as the Theopedists do, and that the language is compatible with the simultaneous admission that the writers and tradents of scripture were subject to the same limitations we all are.

[Drew]

Once again you completely avoided the argument John. The application of "sledgehammer of stringent logic" as you call it was a bit more of a simple call for justification of foundations as any analysis would ask.

The appeal again to other formulae such as Chalcedon or the like is what is again, called a logical fallacy. This time it is a red herring.

There is absolutely no need for me to make any argument of my own related to anything of my confessional view for this or that. It is unrelated to the question I asked repeatedly and that you chose not to address.

But thanks anyway :-)

[JohnFH]

You just don't like the way I chose to address it.

It saddens me that you are more interested in tearing down someone's else confessional views on the Bible than presenting your own. I wanted to hear them out of genuine interest, not to make a forensic point.