"I will have nothing to do with all those who think Moses could have said anything untrue." (Confessions, 12.23.32)
I'm not convinced that the Christian tradition is without the doctrine of the truthfulness of all Holy Scripture until Old Princeton comes on the scene. Thoughts?
Only that Augustine's notion of Scripture's "truthfulness" would be in some ways unrecognizable by some current versions of "strict inerrancy". Some of the issues involved in the 20th century debate would have been off Augustine's radar; or, at least, they would not have been as prominant as we have made them in the modern, N. American context.
ReplyDeleteHey Kent,
ReplyDeleteThanks for adding this point here. The post title is something of an anachronism and that's why I moved toward talking about Augustine's take on the "truthfulness" of Scripture. I think that it may be because I wouldn't want an overcooked version of inerrancy that I'm comfortable finding a resonance with some of the older Christian writers, who, as you said, weren't necessarily concerned with some of the facets of more recent debates. On another note, I also think it's a bit frustrating when contemporary advocates of inerrancy are treated as if their position were wholly out of touch with the Christian tradition. I think that in our theological heritage we can see some precedent for the concept of inerrancy, even if that concept has been overblown or taken in some unhelpful directions in recent times.
I thought that in Words of Life Timothy Ward offered a fruitful angle on the doctrine of inerrancy, neither overemphasizing it nor simply casting it aside. I know that at Theology Forum there were several posts on Ward's book, but I'd be curious if you have any thoughts on it.
Steve