The following will be jolting to an Evangelical’s ear. This is Thomas Torrance’s rationale for understanding Holy Scripture to be errant; the analogy he uses, or really the ontology he uses is that of fallen humanity. He correlates humanities’ fallness, and human language as part and parcel with this; as the mode which Scripture takes as God’s redemptive and inerrant Word takes hold of human language, and in his in-spirated obedience ‘bends’ it back to 
find its purpose in its reality; the reality to which it points. So for Torrance, it is unthinkable to think that Scripture could be anything other than errant; only because it is this very human language that needed to be redeemed in the first place. With this as the reality, Torrance’s aversion to biblical inerrancy is not a function of holding to what Evangelicals might consider Liberalism (the kind of ‘Liberalism’ that gave rise to Christian fundamentalism and the doctrine of inerrancy in the first place); but instead Torrance’s account is situated within his Christological/soteriological frame in which Scripture—according to Torrance—ought to be situated. Here’s Thomas F. Torrance,
[T]he extraordinary fact about the Bible is that in the hands of God it is the instrument he uses to convey to us his revelation and reconciliation and yet it belongs to the very sphere where redemption is necessary. The Bible stands above us speaking to us the Word of God and yet the Bible belongs to history which comes under the judgment of God and requires the cleansing and atoning activity of the Cross. When we hear the Word of God in the Bible, therefore, we hear it in such a way that the human word of Holy Scripture bows under the divine judgment, for that is part of its function in the communication of divine revelation and reconciliation. Considered merely it in itself it is imperfect and inadequate and its text may be faulty and errant, but it is precisely in its imperfection and inadequacy and faultiness and errancy that God’s inerrant Holy Word has laid hold of it that it may serve his reconciling revelation and the inerrant communication of his Truth. Therefore the Bible has to be heard as Word of God within the ambiguity of its poverty and riches, its weakness and power, and heard in such a way that we acknowledge that in itself in its human expression, the Bible comprises the word of man with all the limitations and imperfection of human flesh, in order to allow the human expression to fulfill its divinely appointed and holy function for us, in pointing beyond itself, to what it is not in itself, but to what God has marvellously made it to be in the adoption of his Grace. The Bible itself will pass away with this world, but the Word of God which it has been inspired to convey to us does not pass away but endures for ever. [Thomas F. Torrance, Divine Meaning: Studies in Patristic Hermeneutics, 9-10]
This, then, does not represent an insensitive frontal attack on Biblical inerrancy; in fact Torrance’s project seeks to understand Scripture from within a Christically framed understanding of the relation of the divine and the human in the hypostatic union realized in Jesus Christ. Torrance’s view of Scripture is corollary with his view on the ‘kind of humanity’ that Christ assumed in the incarnation; viz. a fallen human in need of redemption (so Scripture as human language).
This kicks against the goads, as I already noted, for the American Evangelical. I would suggest though, that one of the reasons this is hard teaching for the Evangelical is because it takes Scripture and its mastery away from our control; and instead it places the control of Scripture in the hands of its reality, Jesus Christ. No longer is Scripture open for public consumption, but for Torrance the Bible is a decidedly Christian venture that requires eyes and ears of faith to see and hear God’s Word confront us through it. Here is how Charles Ryrie would respond to Torrance:
[T]he logic of some still insists that anything involving humanity has to allow for the possibility of sin. So as long as the Bible is both a divine and human Book the possibility and actuality of errors exist.
Let’s examine that premise. Is it always inevitable that sin is involved where humanity is?
If you were tempted to respond affirmatively, an exception probably came to mind almost immediately. The title of this chapter put the clue in your mind. The exception is our Lord Jesus Christ. He was the God-Man, and yet, His humanity did not involve sin. So He serves as a clear example of an exception to the logic pressed by people who believe in errancy.
The true doctrine of the God-Man states that He possessed the full and perfect divine nature and a perfect human nature and that these were united in one Person forever. His deity was not in any detail diminished; His humanity was not in any way sinful or unreal, though sinless; and in His one person His natures were without mixture, change, division, or separation.
Similarly, the Bible is a divine-human Book. Though it originated from God, it was actually written by man. It is God’s Word, conveyed through the Holy Spirit. Sinful men wrote that Word but did so without error. Just as in the Incarnation, Christ took humanity but was not tainted in any way with sin, so the production of the Bible was not tainted with any errors. [Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology, 83]
And Ryrie further:
[…] Even if the errors are supposedly in “minor” matters, any error opens the Bible to suspicion on other points which may not be so “minor.” If inerrancy falls, other doctrines will fall too. . . . When inerrancy is denied one may expect some serious fallout in both doctrinal and practical areas. [p. 77]
For Torrance, Scripture is in God’s hands first; for Ryrie, for Scripture to be Scripture it is in our hands first—once we’ve “proven” through scientific rigor, that Scripture is reliable, then we can approach the Bible as reliable, and in fact God’s Word to humanity. So for Ryrie it all depends upon our defense of Scripture; if we can’t prove it to be Scripture (without error), then it is no longer a reliable Word from God, and thus Christianity ought to go the way of other myths—this is the implication of Ryrie’s approach.
I could say much more, but this post just went over that magic word count number for posts on blogs (a 1000 words), and so I better stop or you won’t read.
I think your setting up a false choice. To say Torrence is taking the scriptures out of the control of humans and ultimately placing it in gods control seems a bit much. Torrance knows the problems with the text as do all scholars and nuances the rule of god over all things, that’s fine, but my problem is that it is deeply subjective and probably not worth even formulating sentences to “defend” over the ryrie model. Simply put why even write about this if god is truly in control of his word.
I say false choice because you want people to learn about Torrance and his theories in order to learn how to read and believe the bible, while ryrie wants others to have some other standard to measure the bible to prove it’s authority, it seems a bit the same. I just think if people really believed in the subjective god proving himself to individuals there wouldn’t be so many theological blogs where people are trying to prove everyone else is wrong. It seems we would just trust god the do his business.
Kenny,
I brought Ryrie into this because I thought it would be interesting, that’s all. Why write about anything according to your logic, Kenny? You’re saying that what Torrance is saying and what Ryrie is saying are “the same?” They are fundamentally at odds. Anyway, I simply am using Ryrie as someone who has influenced me in the past as a foil alongside Torrance. I mostly write to learn, Kenny … so if that offends you or you think that’s a waste of time then that’s up to you. Anyway, the premise of your comment seems quite self-refuting, since you are participating and writing on a blog.
One more point; I never tried to convince anyone of anything in this post. I never said what I believed between TFT and Ryrie … I left that open. I suggested a point that I thought might prove to be a reason for why folk might be disinclined toward TFT’s view, and think this can be a point of correction for a more classic view of Scripture; but I never gestured one way or the other as to which approach—if either—I endorse. Again, that’s why I write, to learn.
I wonder, what we have left then? If we can not draw a line and say “this source, is true” or do we cherry pick the statements within the sources? I’ve often wondered out of the vast source of statements in the Old Testament, how the disciples knew that this thing that Jesus did, or that thing that befell Jesus was to fulfill this prophecy. If I open my Bible to some obscure verse and it seems to point to David Koresh, or Joseph Smith, what makes that more humanly foulable than any other claim of fulfilled prophecy. Sure my spirit witnesses with His Spirit within me, but more often it feels like heartburn, and I wonder if those that drank the Koolaide with the Reverend Jim Jones had the same feeling. Maybe Torrance is right. I should pray on it and maybe the fruit of it will out pace the fruit of the solid rock of Holy Scripture as I’ve always tried to trust it (and often failed). What should I trust and who should I believe? Say “trust Jesus”, but who was He really, and what did He really say, given that foulable humans wrote it all down years later?
Then one more question: Then what soteriology? Most of christendom seem to go with syn… syn…. uh, that word that means that I contribute to my own salvation. How can I know that it is He alone who saves, without any help from me. The Bible tells me so?
It’s 10 pm according to the 2:00 am time change, and I have to get up at 3 am to get ready for work, if I don’t get up at 2 am to change the clock, so nighty night!
@Duane,
Honestly, I am still thinking on this too. I remain an Evangelical, which includes certain things … so TFT hasn’t made me a believer on this as of yet either. I am still working on this; which is another reason I posted this … hoping to provoke feedback that is constructive, thank you!
It seems to me that most inerrancy arguments proceed from ‘Inerrancy, or else X (unreliable, what have you) – it basically sets up a ‘defensive theology of necessity’ (I may have just coined that term) not unlike that that 6-day creationists use. It *has* to be inerrant, otherwise it is unreliable, or any number of other accusations. The difference is notable in the two quotes you used – Torrance has a nuanced view that subtly highlights why Scripture is authoritative, whereas Ryrie almost sounds desperate to defend inerrancy by invoking the doctrine of Christs sinlessness. Interesting how guys such as C.S. Lewis never really commented on such issues.
@WF,
I am probably more sympathetic to Ryrie’s points than this post might let on. I am still working through how to articulate my own view; I am not altogether happy with the TFT’s articulation, even though I accept most of his points. I think there must yet be a better way for an Evangelical such as myself to articulate this … maybe some kind of via media.
CS Lewis did not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. One of my former mentors in undergrad was/is a CS Lewis expert, and he made that clear of Lewis’ view.
You write about things to educate. Some things can be known to a high degree of probability, while other things have a low degree of probability. Education is to reveal something unknown or nuance a known subject. That’s why one should write about anything.
My point here is that Torrance is different from Ryrie and his type of thinking. Torrance is ultimately appealing to a private convincing that the scriptures are a medium of the word, while ryrie is a modernist and argues in that tradition. I happen to think Torrance is closer to the reality of how scripture works. Yeah I never said they were the same, but I was trying to get you to see that once a blogger brings in a theologian, philosopher, science, history etc as a support for what is ultimately validated by god in a subjective way, that blogger is reasoning much like ryrie. That was my point.
Ultimately as Christians we need to just lift up Christ, since he is the only one who can fully convince one of his love and embrace. The logic of Torrance ultimately should cause all his followers to forsake him and only speak of Christ.
I write to learn; if educating is a by product of that, then so be it.
I don’t agree with your point. If I don’t bring in Torrance to talk about Torrance’s view of Scripture then who else will I appeal to introduce folk to Torrance’s view if not Torrance? It is not modernist to appeal to a philosopher, scientist, or theologian to substantiate or make a point; it is modernist to believe that doing so ultimately makes the point. I don’t think I did that in my appeal or introduction of Torrance, and so I don’t think it is modernist to write about something if in fact I am going to write in a meaningful way about that something. If the something is Torrance’s view of Scripture—which articulates a way of thinking about Scripture that gives way to God’s validation of it in Christ—then Torrance’s word for us becomes that occasion which causes us to look away from Torrance’s view—but not w/o the articulation provided by Torrance (for his particular view)—to what he has helpfully identified as a gifted teacher in Christ’s Church. So yes, this is the logic of Torrance’s view, I think. But I don’t think we can get to Torrance’s logic w/o Torrance; and that is my overriding point. Ryrie is a modernist (but so is TFT in his own way), or epistemological rationalist; and it is this that bothers me the most with his view in contrast to TFT’s … but we would never have this contrast unless I for example brought a comparison between the two in this post. And this comparison represents a personal one for me; since Ryrie used to be someone I looked up to as one of my teachers. I certainly didn’t bring him into the mix to bash him or make fun of him or anyone like him.
Fair enough.
HI,
I like the Torrance ‘version’ best because it frees us as interpretors from coming to a conclusive, ie final and logical consistent, version of the text of the Bible. Life is inconclusive, the Bible is ‘messy’ in that it is open to all sorts of avenues of interpretation, and that He who is in us doesn’t shout at us like a human parent when we are getting things badly wrong.
Hi Timothy,
I do agree that there is a dynamism related to bib interpretation, but the ‘rule of faith’ or control is Jesus of course. But I do believe that there is one meaning to Scripture’s witness, again I see that as tying into Jesus Christ and his mediation in and throughout salvation history.