Fallibility, Inerrancy, and Mystery

I think Mark at Pseudo-Polymath is absolutely correct in his excellent post Of Scripture and Tradition.

When I first decided that inerrancy didn’t work, it was because I found errors as they would be defined by the people that first taught me to regard the Bible as inerrant.  At the same time I remained convinced of Biblical inspiration.  Over time this has evolved in my mind to the position that inerrancy causes us to ask the wrong questions of scripture, something I still believe, despite the efforts of many to frame inerrancy so that it does not have that effect.  My problem is that once one has so framed inerrancy, it appears meaningless to me.

It seems to me that we try to judge the Bible as a book amongst books, and that we err in doing so whether our judgment is favorable or not.  As scripture, the Bible is a unique phenomenon.  There is no standard by which we could judge it.  There is no category “books inspired by God” which as a set of criteria (presumably also divinely inspired) against which we can judge the Bible.

I like Mark’s statement “The mystery is the experience …”  That is a very good descriptive phrase.

Now I don’t think there is any problem evaluating the Bible’s impact on some area of study, for example, its value to historical study, and so forth.  But its value to historical study is not the same thing as its value as God’s message.