Professional Documents
Culture Documents
of Scripture
Horace D. Hummel
I do not intend to attempt to break new ground in this paper. The
soil has been plowed (and disked and harrowed) many times before.
Neither is there any point in simply kicking up dust. All I can do is
restate the case, as it has been many number of times before. To some
it will be at least part of the "savor of life unto life," to others perhaps
something else.1
I have formulated the title as I have, because a common charge is
that the dogma of inerrancy is not native to Lutheranism, but an alien
concept imported from elsewhere. On the original source of the alleged
import there is less agreement, however. The very variety of answers
already suggests a rather suspect attempt to pin the blame on somebody
else—almost anybody will do.
Hence, maybe it will be fruitful if we first try to consider chronolog-
ically those on whom the "blame" is often put. First, then, must be listed
Judaism—"late Judaism" as used to be commonly said, but belatedly
recognizing the latent anti-semitism in that formulation, increasingly
today termed "early Judaism."2 At any rate, toward the end of the Old
Testament era, Judaism allegedly began to be thrown on the defensive,
and eventually formulated a doctrine of the verbal inspiration of not
only the "Tanak" (Old Testament), but also of the oral Mosaic tradition.
This development allegedly coincided to a large extent with efforts to
close the canon, determine a normative Hebrew text, and the like.
By this reading, the final "edition" of the Hebrew Old Testament
text itself shows some traces of that mentality, although the presumed
original fluidity and variety could never be completely erased.3
By the same line of reasoning, essentially the same thing could be
said of the New Testament. Only perhaps in the second century A.D.
when Christianity found itself assailed by gnosticism and various other
syncretisms, did it begin to fashion an "orthodoxy" which found the
Judaistic dogma of inerrancy very handy. Usually appearing in the same
"rogue's gallery" are the rise of the "monarchical episcopate" and other
"early Catholic" tendencies.
102
Let us pause here before we continue the historical survey. A common
charge is that "inerrancy" claims more for Scripture than Scripture claims
for itself. To be sure, the precise formulation is not to be found, but
that is no more or less decisive than it is for most of our dogmatic
vocabulary. Two examples should suffice: the term "sacrament" is not
found at all, and even "justification" is not used quite so precisely, not
even in St. Paul.
But that the idea, concept, or assumption is absent is an entirely
different matter. We can, of course, trot out the familiar proof-texts:
the θεόττνευστος text of 2 Timothy 3:16; the "holy men of God spoke as
moved by the Holy Spirit" text of 2 Peter 1:21 (the explicit contrast is
"the impulse of man"—an almost precise parallel to the Christological
and pneumatological assertion of John 1:13, "born not—of the will of
man, but of God"); and possibly best of all, our Lord's own "Scripture
cannot be broken" of John 10:35.
Now, it will not do to claim that these are all "late" texts, a common
type of higher-critical ploy. The date of a text, even if it were agreed
upon, has nothing to do, as such, with its reliability. Alleged lateness is
usually based on prior assumptions of lateness of formulation, and, in
turn, alleged lateness of date tends to yield interpretations that allegedly
demonstrate a certain arteriosclerosis—all of it a classic example of the
"argument in a circle" fallacy. The assumption or presupposition has
determined the result, and the result "confirms" the assumptions.
However, I submit that, even if for a moment we do play that game
ourselves, in this case it confirms our own case. Even if we limit ourselves
initially to the indisputably genuine Pauline letters (Galatians, Romans,
1 Corinthians), we find essentially the same picture as everywhere else
in the New Testament, the unquestioned appeal to Holy Scripture (such
as the Old Testament, usually interpreted predictively and/or typolog-
ically) and a type of argumentation that simply assumes its verbal and
plenary inspiration. I don't think I need to illustrate or document that
point here. Even if we were to assume with higher critics that large
chunks of the rest of the New Testament are derived from the later
church rather than from St. Paul himself or from the "historical Jesus,"
the picture remains essentially the same. The point is that the argument
from Scripture for the "inerrancy" of Scripture is immeasurably greater
than merely the citation of a handful of arguable proof-texts, but ac
curately reflects one part of the very warp and woof of the New Tes
tament's and our Lord's own argumentation (κάτα τάς γράφας).
We have said nothing about the Old Testament itself so far. Because
of the general non-systematic nature of its literature, one is scarcely
surprised to find even less overt implication of an absolutely authoritative
Scripture there than in the New Testament. Even so, such implications
104
medieval doctrines were frontally challenged, there was no hint on either
side that the veracity of Scripture was in question. Whether we look at
the Augustana or its attempted rebuttal, the Confutation; whether we
study the entire Book of Concord or the Tridentine decrees, we find a
common appeal to Scriptural authority. All kinds of other things were
in dispute, to be sure, but not the article de Scriptum. And so the argument
that the Book of Concord contains no separate treatment of that locus
proves as little as that the precise vocable "inerrancy" does not appear
in the Bible. Apologetic, confessional documents (not totally unlike the
Bible itself) normally limit themselves ad hoc to the issues at hand—in
contrast to a systematics which attempts to "cover the waterfront" by
induction from all of Scripture. Sola Scriptum is not self-evidently inclu-
sive of "inerrancy," of course, but the burden of proof that the two did
not, in fact, proceed in tandem in Reformation thought lies with those
who would deny it.
Luther himself is likely to be hailed as the major exception from
whom, curiously, virtually all his fellow-workers and followers are sup-
posed to have strayed. The canard that Luther was "soft" on Scripture
and pitted Christ and the Gospel against it has become such an oft-
repeated (and usually beloved!) assertion, that it appears to be a classical
case where "truth" (in this case, untruth) is "established" by virtue of
mere repetition. Sometimes it is copied in even relatively conservative
literature, such as R. K. Harrison's widely used Introduction to the Old
Testament*
Typically, Luther is contrasted with Calvin on this point. There are,
no doubt, differences in nuance and accent between the two (and un-
doubtedly even more so between some of their heirs), and we shall have
to return to that difference shortly. But the evidence does not support
the thesis that the two fundamentally disagreed on the issue itself. And,
it is worth noting, there are Calvinists who attempt about the same "snow
job" on Calvin as many Lutherans do with Luther—and obviously out
of the same motives.
What then, do we make of Luther's well-known and oft quoted re-
mark about James as a "strawy epistle," his distaste for Esther and Rev-
elation, his principle of was Christum treibt, his remark that if anyone
urges Scripture against Christ, he will urge Christ against the Scripture,
and so on? Well, surely "contextual exegesis" is as important for the
interpretation of Luther as it is for any other writer or piece of literature.
If Luther does not simply contradict himself all over the place, those
kinds of comments must be read in the context of an entire life devoted
to establishing Scripture as the sole authority, and sometimes of explicit
statements to the effect that God and/or the Scriptures do not lie, or the
like. Luther is one of those writers who so often speaks hyperbolically,
106
I think, would be comparable to claiming that there was no Eucharist
until that very noun came into use (and in many places it is still quite
unfamiliar), or, to take an example from the Old Testament, it would
be like claiming that there was no ritual of "laying on of hands" in the
Old Testament because the abstract noun semikhah does not appear (only
forms of the verbal root, s-m-k).
Perhaps the emergence of the term "inerrancy" does signal somewhat
greater apologetic accent on the concept in the struggle of orthodoxy
against the various manifestations of "modernism," and, no doubt, par-
ticularly the rise of higher criticism. In defense of the truth, there is
always the danger that one may overstate his case and unwittingly car-
icature his position (and that may have happened sometimes), but that
is a different matter, too.
The common rhetoric charges that the inerrantist position is "fun-
damentalistic." Part of the problem, of course, is that that term has
become such an all-purpose slur to hurl at virtually anyone or anything
judged to be to the "right" of one's own position that it is often hard
even to determine its content. As a result, very few people are willing
even to own it. Lutherans have even less reason to accept it. Let me
remind you of the now venerable work of Milton Rudnick, Fundamen-
talem and the Missouri Synod (St. Louis: Concordia, 1966), which, however,
is essentially by no means dated. In the light of Rudnick's careful in-
vestigation, it is hard to chalk up the continued hurling of that label
simply to unfamiliarity with his work. Rather, it simply seems to be too
handy a slingstone in the anti-inerrantists' psychological warfare to let
go, no matter what.
What then does differentiate "fundamentalism" from the historic
Lutheran (and traditionally Christian) position? Quite a number of things,
possibly among the most obvious: Sacraments.9 That has all kinds of
implications, which I cannot begin to explore fully here. One of the most
palpable will be a liturgical form of worship, rather than a free-church
style. Presumably that will include liturgical (pericopal) preaching, as
well as a certain type of hymnology. It will certainly be a counterweight
to the individualism so endemic to Protestantism and now reenforced
by various sub-Christian or non-Christian personalisms. It is fairly ob-
vious that Lutheranism has a long way to go in recovering such sensi-
bilities, but I would challenge anyone to demonstrate that the lines in
any way correspond to an inerrantist position. Pietism and an irrational
anti-Catholicism have been just as culpable, and various secular fashions
today scarcely help.
Perhaps even more central will be the equilibrium to Scriptural au-
thority necessarily lent by authentic Lutheranism through equal em-
phasis on Christ and/or the Gospel and/or "justification by faith." Here
108
trust, etc.)? How do we know what the truth is—as well, of course, Truth
as a person? Every discipline, every faith, has its hermeneutics, its epis-
temology. If Scripture, confessionally read, is not sufficient, how is it a
norm} If its authority is to be shared with something else, how do we
test it—or them? How do we not succumb to some new brand of Pietism,
mysticism, subjectivism, emotionalem, etc.?
I submit that the present state of world Lutheranism amply illustrates
what happens to one degree or another if the dogma of inerrancy is let
go of. This is no mechanical "domino" theory, as it is sometimes scorned.
Some depart further from the norm than others, and God alone knows
those who are His. We do not presume to test the "heart and reins," but
if it is ultimately up to us to decide what parts of Scripture are still Word
of God for us, the fatal concession in principle has already been made. I
look about on the current ecclesiastical scene, and say: "What further
need have we of witnesses?"
"Pluralism" of doctrine has become something virtuous, and "unity"
recedes into the mystical indeed. "Reconciled diversity" has become a
catch-all catchword for all kinds of "ecumenicity" (or syncretism?). Look
at the former ALC's Invitation to Action on even the sacramental presence
in the Eucharist, and on the other side, an apparent willingness some-
times to submit to episcopal ordination without the crucial counter-
concession that the procedure is de iure humano. Look at the attempt to
neutralize the clear Biblical condemnations of homosexuality in the re-
cent LCA statement on the issue,11 or the extent to which, indeed, the
"world is writing the church's agenda"—such as a left-leaning, counter-
cultural stance that virtually becomes part of the Gospel (feminism,
apartheid, "pro-choice" stand, aid to the contras, asylum to San Salvador
refugees, etc., ad infinitum). Comparable "right-wing" confusions of Law
and Gospel are abroad too, but I doubt that Lutheranism has been nearly
so much tempted by them.
All of this seems to me to expose clearly the fallaciousness of claiming
that we can cling to the "Gospel" content of Scripture and let the rest
go. How shall we know what is and is not "Gospel?" Shall we fall into
some kind of antinomianism (denial of "third use of the Law"), always
one of Lutheranism's Achilles' heels? Or how shall we "test the spirits,"
whether it is some mere affirmation of the "human spirit," the spirit of
this age, or the Holy Spirit?12
We might have formulated Lutheranism's "material principle" earlier
as "Law-Gospel" (Gospel in the broad sense), and the proper distinction
between the two. And a corollary ofthat is the "two kingdoms" principle?
Do the actions of the majority of Lutherans today give us any cause for
optimism here? "Justice" and "justification" are mentioned in the same
breath, and often "justice"first,not only sequentially but quantitatively—
110
I am well aware that there is an opposite extreme: ignoring historical
context completely, literalism (with which "inerrancy" is often falsely or
even slanderously equated), or other scandals besides the "scandal of
particularity," but I submit that it is tilting at windmills to act as though
the church's dominant problems lie in that direction today.
It is precisely for the sake of the Gospel as well as totally thanks to
the Gospel, that historic, Confessional Lutheranism always has, and still
does, proclaim an inerrant inscripturated Word as one indispensable
article of "the doctrine of the Gospel," an integral component of the
seamless robe of the Word of God, the eternal and life-giving Gospel of
salvation solely through our Savior's vicarious death and triumphant
resurrection.
Notes
1
This paper (now in slightly altered and updated form) was originally delivered at a
free conference of Lutheran pastors in the metropolitan New York City area in June,
1987.
1 shall no more attempt any exhaustive bibliography of the subject than attempt to
break new ground—if there is any. The bibliography is (it is almost trite to say) literally
boundless, and this is as true of specialized, professional discussions as it is of popular
ones. Perhaps it will suffice here if I call attention only to the various publications of "The
Conference on Biblical Inerrancy" (ICBI) in the last decade or so. On the popular side,
I should call attention to the two well-done articles by David Liefeld, pastor of St. John's
Lutheran Church, Springfield, PA in successive issues of The Lutheran Witness: 1) "Iner-
rancy: The Roots Run Deep" (Vol. 106, No. 5 [May 1987]), pp. 4-6; and 2) "Inerrancy:
It's Not Enough," (Vol. 106, No. 6, [June 1987]), pp. 4-5.
Neither need one point out the obvious: that the discussion has unfortunately become
largely a "dialogue of the deaf," that is, both sides speak and preach almost exclusively to
those already "converted" to their viewpoint. This state of affairs is lamentable, to be sure,
but it is simply a fact of life, a major factor in the general stand-off between "conservative"
and "liberal" groups.
However lamentable, though, I submit that such an atmosphere (especially to the extent
that rancor can be avoided) is preferable to the temptation to indulge in duplicity by
playing word-games, such as using "inerrancy" and related terms in different ways than
they are normally and traditionally understood, without clearly informing the audience
of the redefinition. I constantly caution my students against attributing "dishonesty" to
those with whom we disagree. But surely if such a charge will stick anywhere, it will in
such semantic sleight-of-hand. (One of the latest such to come to my attention is: "A
Defense of Inerrantia" by Walter Sundberg of Luther Northwestern Seminary in Dialog,
Vol. 26, No. 4 [Fall 1987], pp. 310-312).
2
This point has been classically urged by especially Charlotte Klein (herself a convert
from Judaism) in: Anti-Judaism in Christian Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978). This
significant shift (part and parcel of the classical higher-critical attempt to reverse the
traditional "Law-Prophets" sequence of the Old Testament) has recently begun to take
root even in Germanic scholarship.
3
A recent wrinkle in establishment scholarship attempts to put a little more positive
face on this attitude, but with ambivalent results. We speak of what is often termed
112
through the words He had verbally inspired originally [and/or their faithful later procla-
mation]). Sometimes we distinguish "verbal" (inspiration of the Biblical text) from "func-
tional" inerrancy. The latter we will certainly want to affirm and emphasize too, but not
in opposition to the former.
9
The point cannot be developed here, but I would ultimately invoke the "hermeneutical
circle." Our doctrines derive from Scripture, and circle back as major lens for the inter-
pretation of Scripture. In my judgment, not even our classical Lutheran theology has
exploited and applied this principle as thoroughly as it might have. I would judge that
the absence of such a "sacramental hermeneutics" would fairly well parallel a sub-Lutheran
doctrine of Scripture. Naturally, one would scarcely expect much help along these lines
from Reformed or Arminian circles. (A recent, impassioned expression of classical, "Prot-
estant" fears is Jacques Ellul's Humiliation of the Word; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985).
One may summarize virtually all of the varieties of "liberalism" by its use of a radically
different "hermeneutical circle." Whether styled "a new hermeneutic" or not, some degree
of epistemological input is conceded to the reader and/or to modernity, whether articulated
as "reason," "experience," "science"—or whatever. All such approaches conflict with the
traditional understanding of "Sola Scriptum" (although, of course, that expression easily
gets redefined, too).
10
St. Louis: Concordia, 1972. Perhaps this is the place to observe also that subscription
to inerrancy by no means implies the lockstep uniformity on many exegetical issues and
even on doctrinal formulations (both only up to a point, of course), as opponents sometimes
charge. For confirmation, one need only read the Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society (JETS) regularly.
11
A Study of Issues Concerning Homosexuality. Report of the Advisory Committee on Issues
Relating to Homosexuality. 1986. LCA Division for Mission in North America.
12
One may be permitted to observe that, if the survival of the Gospel in spite of one's
doctrine of Scripture were so self-evident, it is surely passing strange that now in ELCA
we meet more or less organized groups or caucuses concerned with making sure that
confessionalism (not mere "confessing"—who knows what?) survives in the new entity.
Such concerns are articulated in such independent publications as Ad Fontes, Lutheran
Forum and Forum Letter. For example, in Forum Letter (Vol. 16, No. 101; Jan. 31, 1988),
Neuhaus observes that "... oddly enough, the AELC was in some ways enthusiastically
accommodating—to the quota system, feminism, varieties of liberationism, and to the
theologically diluted agreement with the Presbyterians, among other things."
13
Again, this exchange has been quoted enough that documentation seems superfluous.
For example, the Lutheran Standard quotes Anderson's observation in its issue of September
26, 1986, p. 28.
Both Anderson and Nafzger speak in part out of their experiences in LCUSA's Division
for Theological Studies. Their extensive discussion on the issue at hand is summarized in
their recenüy published Statement on Historical Criticism (1987).
In the recent Festschrift for John Tietjen {Currents in Theology and Mission, Vol. 15, No.
1 [February 1988]), Edgar Krentz has rehearsed some ofthat history, rehashed the stand-
ard arguments, and even seen fit to disinter some of its prehistory, including the allegation
that Martin Scharlemann and I first "formally introduced the method into the faculty of
Concordia Seminary in a paper entitled, 'Notes on the Valid Use of the Historico-Critical
Method' (7 February 1958)" (p. 128; his entire essay extends through p. 136).
This is not the place for any extended rejoinder or apologia pro vita mea. While formally
true, such a statement is substantially only half-true, at best. While I would by no means
care to defend everything I wrote there or elsewhere in the past, permit me three obser-
vations: 1) Krentz's article perpetuates the confusion of "Method" in the sense of basic
hermeneutics, epistemology, or presuppositions with "method" (better "methods") in the
114
^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.