Some theologians, such as Matthew Becker, argue against the doctrine of inerrancy by complaining that the doctrine has been used to promote what they consider to be anti-scientific views. For example, Becker derides Francis Pieper’s rather eccentric position (at least by the standards of the early twentieth century) that scriptural inerrancy entails the rejection of heliocentrism.1 According to Becker, on the one hand Pieper is indeed correct that the Bible teaches geocentricism, while on the other he should be faulted for not seeing that this teaching flatly contradicts scientific facts and therefore this disproves the inerrancy of the Bible. Ultimately for Becker, one should simply accept that the Bible is in error with regard to many scientific things. One notable example of Scripture’s “errors” would be its references to the “pillars of the earth” (1 Sm 2:8; Jb 9:6).
In response to this, let us first note that Pieper’s position was a rather eccentric one even for the theologians of scholastic orthodoxy. As we saw earlier, the Lutheran scholastics accepted a notion of inerrancy compatible with the idea that Scripture often described things as they appear (“the sun is setting”) rather than in literal scientific descriptions of the world.2 This understanding does not undermine inerrancy or the scientific accuracy of scriptural statements any more than contemporary people lie when speaking in the same manner (“the sun is setting”). They are not speaking a falsehood but using a turn of phrase.3
Beyond using turns of phrase, the Bible also uses many poetic expressions. One can view references to the “pillars of the earth” as poetic in the same way that the “setting of the sun” is merely a turn of phrase. Much as contemporary poets do not base their language of nature on quantifiable scientific descriptions of the universe, neither did the biblical poets, notably in the Psalms or Job. Indeed, as Peter Leithart has pointed out, language like “pillars of the earth” has the very specific theological/poetic function of describing creation in non-literal terms as a cosmic temple.4 Ultimately, trying to take poetic descriptions of nature by the biblical authors as scientific propositions of that era is a highly questionable procedure.
To be continued….
Part 2 available here; Part 3 available here; Part 4 available here; and Part 5 available here
[1] Matthew Becker, Fundamental Theology: A Protestant Perspective (New York: T & T Clark, 2014), 268–69.
[2] Robert Preus, The Theology of Post–Reformation Lutheranism, 2 vols. (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1970–1972), 1:355.
[3] Adolf Hoenecke, Evangelical Lutheran Dogmatics, trans. Joel Fredrich et al., 4 vols. (Milwaukee: Northwestern Publishing House, 1999–2009), 1:438.
[4] Peter Leithart, A House for My Name: A Survey of the Old Testament (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2000), 43–45.
Adapted from Jack D. Kilcrease, Holy Scripture, Confessional Lutheran Dogmatics, Gifford A. Grobien, ed. (Fort Wayne, IN: The Luther Academy, 2020), 112-113.
Image from “Heliocentrism,” https://www.meteorologiaenred.com/en/heliocentrism.html.
4 Replies to “Inerrancy and Science Part 1: Turns of Phrase and Poetic Expressions”
Comments are closed.