Phenomenological Language and Semantic Naïveté

Denis Lamoureux seeks to resolve perceived contradictions between science and Scripture by persuading that Scripture is not inerrant, but is infallible in doctrine, and he reasons that the phenomenological language defense (as he terms it) fails to recognize the impact of ancient science upon the text. This is in contrast to the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy, which argues that phenomenological language does not invalidate the inerrancy of the Bible. Lamoureux describes himself as a “literal non-literalist,” but his work exhibits a certain naïveté about lexical semantics (along with a number of other hermeneutical issues undergirding his analysis). The problems with Lamoureux’s analysis can be seen, for example, in his analysis of the mustard seed motif in the gospels, and a wholly inadequate understanding of the idiomatic nature of hyperbole. But, more telling is his failure to recognize the impact that ancient science might have on the terminology used to describe natural phenomenon. This problem is best demonstrated by the impact that ancient theories of biology on the semantic domain of the words translated “heart” in the Bible. This being the case, his arguments against the inerrantist position loses much of its force. Denis Lamoureux’s book Evolutionary Creationism: A Christian Approach to Evolution is one of the controversial works entangled in an ongoing debate between young earth creationists, old earth creationists (commonly called progressive creationists) and Christians who are theistic evolutionists. Lamoureux produced a theistic evolutionary framework and a rejection of inerrancy,1 stating, “The Bible makes statements about the physical world that are false” (Lamoureux 2008, 309). Lamoureux is noteworthy because while he essentially presents a case asserting that Christians should accept theistic evolution; he and others at BioLogos2 use arguments that are more often presented to support the claim that Christianity itself is false, and this is the reason his critique is useful in understanding what may be an important issue raised in criticisms of biblical Christianity. He accepts the truthfulness of these arguments uncritically; thus, he presents an interesting analysis of many perceptions underlying ISSN: 1937-9056 Copyright © 2017 Answers in Genesis, Inc. All content is owned by Answers in Genesis (“AiG”) unless otherwise indicated. AiG consents to unlimited copying and distribution of print copies of Answers Research Journal articles for non-commercial, non-sale purposes only, provided the following conditions are met: the author of the article is clearly identified; Answers in Genesis is acknowledged as the copyright owner; Answers Research Journal and its website, www.answersresearchjournal.org, are acknowledged as the publication source; and the integrity of the work is not compromised in any way. For website and other electronic distribution and publication, AiG consents to republication of article abstracts with direct links to the full papers on the ARJ website. All rights reserved. For more information write to: Answers in Genesis, PO Box 510, Hebron, KY 41048, Attn: Editor, Answers Research Journal. The views expressed are those of the writer(s) and not necessarily those of the Answers Research Journal Editor or of Answers in Genesis. the rejection of inerrancy, and perhaps he pinpoints common misunderstandings of the various “caveats” in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Cosmology and Semantics The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy reads: We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture. We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations. (Article XIII; emphasis mine) 1 This is not the manner in which Lamoureux presents the material. He uses inerrancy and infallibility as a hendiadys throughout. Instead of treating these two terms as distinct, he discusses scientific, historical, and theological concordism; and rejects both “scientific and historical concordism,” as opposed to theological concordism. (For example, he makes the argument that Genesis 1–11 is intended to be history. By following this line of reasoning, the historicity of the rest of the Torah would be in doubt). His presentation and rejection of scientific and historic concordism appears to be the traditional approach to Scriptural infallibility without inerrancy. However, Lamoureux’s arguments do not seem to be completely consistent with someone holding to infallibility, either (for example, it is difficult to accept his argument about Paul’s discussion of the fall of man and still accept the doctrinal infallibility of the Bible; see Lamoureux 2008, 177–282). At no point does Lamoureux discuss the passages of Scripture where the Bible discusses itself in a methodical fashion, so the work cannot be considered prima facia in presenting his main point. While the primary discussions and evidence he presents for scientific concordism are problematic, his rejection of historical concordism presents a far greater theological problem since biblical history and Christian theology are intertwined. See Lamoureux 2008, 169–176. See also The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy Article IX: http://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI_1.pdf. 2 BioLogos is an organization devoted to the attempt to synthesize theistic evolution with Christianity. Their website presents a variety of opinions, but a number of guest bloggers, including Peter Enns and John Walton present similar interpretations as Lamoureux.