Biblical Authority Calmly Considered
David Watson recently penned an interesting reflection on truth and authority in Scripture. I responded by encouraging us not to abandon the “catholic” account. The summaries of this catholic position that I quoted included the language “without error.” Watson has followed up with another provocative piece that is more particularly focused on issues related to biblical inerrancy. He has graciously invited me to respond. I do not want us to lose sight of the broader picture, but, in response to his kind request, here are some brief reflections on several specific points.
First, I want to join Watson in denying that anyone is saved by getting epistemology right. Amen to what Watson says about this. Indeed, that notion is just silly. Imagine the wayward sinner who falls under conviction during a camp meeting service, walks down the sawdust trail to the mourner’s bench, and then confesses his earlier flirtations with epistemological internalism before standing in a testimony service to affirm that he is now inviting externalism into his heart and indeed is seeking a “second blessing” of full deliverance from the Gettier Problem. Or think of the baptismal candidate who earnestly renounces “the devil and all the spiritual forces of coherentism that rebel against God” as well as “the empty promises and deadly deceits of classical foundationalism” while resolutely affirming her commitment to reliabilism and proper functionalism. Yes, that is just silly.
I also want to affirm my full and hearty agreement with (what I take to be) Watson’s twin claims that (a) belief in the inerrancy of the Bible neither equals nor entails salvation and (b) to be saved one need not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. Thankfully, no one needs to confess the belief that the Bible is “without error in all it affirms” to be saved. So, again, Amen and Amen.
I further agree with Watson that belief in biblical inerrancy is not necessary for theological orthodoxy as it is inscribed in the major ecumenical creeds. Indeed, no particular account of the inspiration, nature, and authority of the Bible is necessary for affirmation of the major Christian confessions on such core doctrines as the Trinity and Incarnation.
Indeed, I’ll not only see Watson’s “belief-in-inerrancy-isn’t-necessary” claim, I’ll raise it: not only is it not necessary, neither is it sufficient. Consider the statement of R. P. C. Hanson that in the heat of the fourth century debates both the “Arians” and the pro-Nicenes believed in the “inerrancy” of the Bible (RPC Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy ca. 318 – 381 AD, pp. 825-826). Note carefully that there is something very important here for both defenders and detractors of inerrancy. On one hand, the detractors – at least those who are tempted to repeat the old canard that the doctrine of inerrancy is a recent invention stemming from modernist epistemological anxieties – should hear Hanson’s testimony that it was so widespread and basic that it was accepted by all parties. But on the other hand, defenders need to understand that the Arians (as well as the pro-Nicenes, of course) were advocates of biblical inerrancy. So, no, clearly it is not sufficient for creedal orthodoxy.
I find Watson’s account of the relation between Scripture and the tradition of developing creedal orthodoxy to be less than satisfactory. The issues are, of course, much more complicated than anyone (even as gifted a writer as Watson) can handle adequately within such short compass, and in any case he raises some important points. But in addition to Watson’s argument that the formation of the biblical canon was intimately connected to the emergence of the creedal faith (with which I concur), I think it is also important to recognize as well that there is good evidence from patristic theology that Scripture was accorded a primacy over tradition. It is also important to observe a theological distinction between the claim that it took the church quite some time to recognize the canon and the claim that the church created or invented the canon.
(6) I must confess that I am completely unmoved by Watson’s complaint (echoing I. Howard Marshall) that the doctrine of inerrancy is “in danger of dying the death of a thousand qualifications.” This kind of criticism of traditional doctrine is quite common; in Wesleyan theological circles, Thomas Jay Oord, for instance, is currently making a lot of noise about how the doctrine of omnipotence “dies the death of a thousand qualifications.” Now Watson is doing it here. Let us grant that sophisticated defenses of inerrancy in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries involve qualifications. Fine; that seems obvious. But so what? What follows from that? Isn’t this just what it means to do theology? Don’t all major doctrines require serious reflection and the kinds of important qualifications that follow that reflection? Compare this with Christological debates and developments. From the major fourth-century debates over the person of Christ through the intricacies of medieval accounts to the highly-focused disputes between the early modern Reformed and Lutheran (and Thomist and Scotist) scholastics, qualifications (literally: qua-moves) are part and parcel of Christology. Such careful work relating scriptural exegesis to logical and metaphysical concerns – all in the service of a coherent, systematic understanding of the person of Christ – is simply the stuff of orthodoxy and the story of its development.
And where in the world would Wesleyan soteriology be without careful qualification and explanation? Consider for a moment the doctrine of “Christian perfection” or “entire sanctification.” Think with me of the common (I am tempted to say “standard”) response to any positive use of these terms: “What? Seriously? Perfection? Entire sanctification?” What Methodist theologian or preacher would dare to either explain or even proclaim this doctrine without resorting to crucially important qualifications?
Yes, any reasonable articulation of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is going to require a lot of qualifications. But then again so is any reasonable articulation of any doctrine. By my lights, this is just part of what it means to do theology. Far from being a disqualification, the presence of careful qualifications can be a sign that serious and thoughtful work is being done.
Billy Abraham was an immense gift to the confessional Wesleyan community. He left us many wonderful contributions. Unfortunately, however, he also left behind some unfinished business… and some deep confusions about epistemology. He talked a lot about epistemology across the course of his illustrious career. Sometimes he talked about “epistemology” as an actual subdiscipline of philosophy (the subdiscipline that considers the empiricism vs. rationalism debate, the internalism vs. externalism controversies, coherentism vs. various kinds of foundationalism, beliefs vs. credences, the proper and improper uses of probability calculus, and so much more). At other points, however, he would refer to it as anything that serves to “demarcate truth from falsehood [and] reality from illusion” (compare Watson: biblical inerrancy is an exercise in epistemology because it is a “way of attempting to secure religious knowledge”). When Abraham decried the use of the Bible as epistemology, it was not always obvious what he meant. When I pressed for clarity about his own usage (in relation to his own view of the Bible), he only complained that I was of the “precisionist school of analytic theology” (what he called the “School of St. Alvin” (Plantinga); he declared himself to be of the “School of St. Basil” (Mitchell) and did not offer further clarification.
That confusion is with us now. If we understand epistemology in the narrower sense (as actual epistemology), then it is simply a mistake to refer to biblical inerrancy as an epistemology. We aren’t talking about apples and oranges; this is more like apples and alligators. If, on the other hand, we are merely referring to whatever makes truth claims (especially truth claims of importance), then both detailed doctrines of biblical inerrancy and Watson’s own preferred account are going to count as epistemology. For Watson also claims that Holy Scripture is a “truth-bearing text” and indeed claims further that it bears truths that are “essential for salvation.” In other words, at least so far as I can see, on Watson’s account we are to read the Bible as a “way of attempting to secure religious knowledge.” So, on one way of understanding “epistemology” (that is, as actual epistemology), neither inerrancy nor Watson’s preferred alternative count as epistemology. On the other way of understanding “epistemology,” however, it turns out that both the doctrine of inerrancy and Watson’s own view are going to qualify. Either way then, they are in the same boat. I confess that I fail to see what there is to fuss over – or how having that fuss might help us.
We can agree that discussions about infallibility, inerrancy, and the like are issues of higher resolution detail. We can agree that they are not of the highest importance; they are not “necessary for salvation” or “necessary for creedal orthodoxy.” But “necessary for salvation” (or creedal orthodoxy) and “unimportant” are not the only options in theology. And we should also want to think long and hard about the best ways that we have of articulating the truth as we see it. I share Watson’s concern for thinking carefully about dogmatic ranking of doctrines. Indeed, I’ve been in places where, in my judgment, insistence on the “right” statement about biblical authority was all out of proportion, places where the official confessional statements happened to allow wriggle room for various Christological heterodoxies but resolutely insisted on affirmation of “inerrancy.” That seems to me to get things upside down and backwards, and I think that it is important to think carefully and critically not only about the content of the doctrinal formulations but where they belong and how they function. But as we do so, we need to remember that the options are not limited to “of first importance” or “unimportant.”
In my earlier response to Watson, I suggested that much of this work has already been done for us, and indeed that we would do well to join our forefathers and mothers as well as our brothers and sisters around the globe in affirming and building upon what has been done. I briefly summarized (what I refer to as) the “catholic” account of biblical authority, I responded briefly to some common objections to that account, and I concluded that there are good reasons to hold to it. So far as I can see, what I said has not been gainsaid.
In conclusion, let me say that we of the Methodist family would not be well-served by another internecine “Battle for the Bible.” I don’t think that we will be helped by attacks on the catholic account. But I do think that we should be patient and charitable where there are different understandings and even misunderstandings. We need to stand united in our confessional orthodoxy and commitment to gospel proclamation. We need to walk together and continue to talk together; we need to understand that at various points we will have differing ideas about the best ways to formulate our commitments to the truthfulness, trustworthiness, and authority of Holy Scripture. And let me also say again how much I appreciate David Watson, his ministry, and his openness to dialogue.
Thomas H. McCall holds the Timothy C. and Julie M. Tennent Chair of Theology at Asbury Theological Seminary