Pete Enns thinks that inerrantists harbor a view of God that is too small:
Perhaps the root theological misgiving for me is that inerrancy prescribes biblical interpretation too narrowly because it prescribes God too narrowly.
The premise all inerrantists hold to on some level—albeit in varying degrees—is that an inerrant Bible is the only kind of book that, logically, God would be able to produce, the only means by which a truth-telling God would communicate.
As I see it, the rhythmic, recurring, generational tensions over inerrancy within evangelicalism are fueled by the distance between this a priori theological expectation about God and how his book should behave, and the persistently non-cooperative details of biblical interpretation.
On the contrary, the inerrantists with whom he studied had a pretty big view of God:
God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself; and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them. He is the alone fountain of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them whatsoever himself pleaseth. In his sight all things are open and manifest, his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature, so as nothing is to him contingent, or uncertain. He is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his commands. To him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience he is pleased to require of them. (Confession of Faith 2.2)
From that view followed an understanding of the Bible that made it significant — God’s most direct revelation — but by no means encompassed the deity:
Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation. Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing: which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God’s revealing his will unto his people being now ceased. (Confession of Faith 1.1)
I’ve always wondered whether Pete had to create an abstract inerrantist in order to make his own view plausible. Now I wonder if the difference goes deeper and whether Pete needs to put his cards on the table about how big or small God is. After all, an inerrant Bible tends to restrain those who attempt to decipher divine ways. Without inerrancy, human interpreters can think themselves pretty big.
Old Life 
I’m not so sure about what Enns is proposing, but I’ve always found the inerrantists claims (particularly as described by the Chicago statement on biblical inerrancy) problematic. It seems to me that this statement (which has become a de facto non-negotioable in evangelical circles) goes beyond what scripture claims for itself or what Calvin claims for scripture – namely that incidental descriptions of the natural world have been dumbed down so the typical Israelite/1st century Christian could understand. If the Holy Spirit is willing to inspire erroneous descriptions of nature to make a point, it is hard to see how one could call every jot and tidle in the bible without error (in the original manuscripts we don’t have). Why isn’t an infallible bible that includes cultural accommodations good enough to square with the reformed confessions?
LikeLike
sdb, but why is Enns confusing the Chicago Statement with the Reformed confessions?
LikeLike
In my more cynical moments, I think it is because attacking evangelicals gets you a better a book deal, better speaking gigs, and maybe even some notice with the with the HuffPo crowd. Who cares what what Enns has to say about the OPC (no offense!)?
In my less cynical moments I suspect the views expressed by the Chicago statement (or a very close approximation) undergird the view of scripture held by your average pew sitting PCA/OPC’er (and perhaps more importantly to Enns – the typical board member of Christian Univ), so he has the greatest impact even in reformed circles by going after the Chicago statement enforcers.
LikeLike
DGH, in the evangelical world, the Reformed confessions carry no weight. The Chicago Statement has become the hill to die on. But I suspect you know that. Enns isn’t above constructing caricatures of his opponents, granted, but if you read the comment threads on his blog long enough, there are plenty of folks who defend inerrancy in Chicago terms, and almost never a reference to Reformed confessions. Maybe he’s just shooting over a baited field.
I (all about) don’t think your point about inerrancy restraining human interpreters is as well taken as it first appears. I grew up in a Baptist church where more than one view of the end times was acceptable, but we were surrounded by Schofield toting premil dispy’s who would certainly have agreed with the Chicago Statement had it been around back then. Don’t see that they were very restrained.
LikeLike
SDB, your point about the book deal is well taken, as are your other points. Remember the World Vision imbroglio? Rachel Held Evans, in a fit of financial suicide, announced that she was no longer going to call herself an evangelical. A couple of days later, no doubt having heard from her publisher, she recanted.
LikeLike
sdb, I’ve made a living of attacking evangelicals, but I didn’t get fired for my politics. I agree about the pewsitters.
LikeLike
Dan, didn’t inerrancy restrain some of their pride?
LikeLike
DGH, I didn’t see much restrained pride among the radio and TV preachers of the day. I don’t see mich evidence of that with the celebrity reformed of today, either. The more things change….
LikeLike
“sdb, but why is Enns confusing the Chicago Statement with the Reformed confessions?”
Is this really what he is doing? He is commenting on the contents of a particular book and particular on the contributions of two individuals – neither of which as far as I can tell take the most basic position implied by the Reformed Confessions. As other commentators point out above, the Chicago Statement is what gets pushed these days (as confused and muddled as it is).
There’s another issue here – that of scholarship – if at least some theological colleges are attempting biblical scholarship then sticking ones fingers in ones years re higher criticism and humming loudly doesn’t help anyone in the long run. Which isn’t to say that everything coming out of HC is true – but that the retrenchment to ‘orthodoxy’ has generally meant refusing to engage it seriously.
LikeLike