Biblical inerrancy and idolatry

Jim West and Chris Tilling (in response to Jim) have both posted on the topic of inerrancy and fundamentalism (I think the topic of inerrancy comes up every two weeks, AT LEAST!).

First off, let me start of by saying that I am not an inerrantist. Let me clarify though. I don't believe every intended meaning of the writer is in fact true, if it not from God himself (such as a prophet conveying the words of God). By implication then, I do not believe the Bible to be the "Word of God," but rather a book that contains mostly:
a) the words of God, such as in occasional quotations of God in the historical books, the prophetic oracles, and the words of Christ
b) a historical record (albeit possibly in error in some points) of people (a lot of the time focused upon Israel and their ancestors) and God's dealings with them
c) a blending of God's work in history, the words of God, experience, and logic (this is specifically the case for many of the New Testament epistles).
There are some other classification for some of the materials contained in Scripture, but that covers most of the bases. In all that, the only things I attribute as inerrant are the words of God in their intended meaning or meanings.

Now, when I say a statement that purports to be the word of God is inerrant (or infalliable), no one would accuse me of be a idolater. If God came down to earth and said something to me, if I take Him at His word and believe their is no lie or mistake on His part (He is after at omniscient) it is not idolatry to attribute the words that come from Him as infalliable. While the words are not God, they are in fact directly from God. I am sure people like Jim West would agree with that (I hope....).

However, what differentiates me from most inerrantists is not that I say that God can lie or God may be mistaken. We both affirm that God does not lie and His knowledge is perfect. The only difference is that I do not believe that God dictated the whole Bible (or any other idea similar to that). But if God in fact dictated the whole Bible, to attribute inerrancy to the Bible is not idolatry. If I can attribute a part as inerrant without idolatry, I could conceivably attribute the whole with inerrancy without committing idolatry (whether it is mistaken or not).

Now in saying the Bible is infalliable, one is in likelihood guilty of not accepting evidence against the idea. This can happen for a variety of reasons. Perhaps they do not realize their attempts to harmonize the Bible are in fact, to borrow from Chris, applying a "deductively logical wringer" to the Scriptures. They may be in error, but this by no means is idolatry. Or they might be ignorant of certain errors because they do not retain information from all parts of the Bible, and are suspicious of anyone else who makes claims that there is errors. This suspicion is not without reason, as recent trends are to tear away the bulk of Scripture and file it away as false and made up by religious zealots and priests. One again, they may be incorrect, but this is not idolatry.

Of course there is the case where inerrancy is idolatry. I had the experience recently of having my faith questioned because I did not believe the Bible is inerrant. Right then and there, if inerrancy is taken as central to the faith, we have made the Bible the "fourth part" of the Trinity. And this idolatrous statement was not far off the mark because the person said something to the effect of the Bible is Christ.

My point is that inerrancy at times exists in the form of idolatry, but by no means is it all the time. As Chris says, we must treat those who believe the Bible to be infallible with grace. We need to for four reasons.

1) If we treat them with contempt or act condescending to them, they will attribute our belief to hardness of the heart and they will become more resolute in their beliefs.
2) Their whole faith at that moment may take a terrible blow if the inerrancy is no longer true in their minds. This may not be due to idolatrous conceptions of the Bible, but other reasons. For instance the false dilemma might be in their mind that if the Bible is not inerrant, it is not trustworthy, and therefore the can have no assurance with their faith. One must slowly work with this in addressing false conceptions.
3) The fact is we may in fact be wrong and the Bible may in fact be inerrant in some way (for instance in the originals of the Bible). As much as scholars and what not like to think they have a good understanding, we do not have all the information. We don't even have the original copies of the books of the Bible. So it is best for us to remain humble in discussions.
4) There are reasons that Biblical inerrancy is so cherished by many. It is in the face of liberalism in Biblical studies that have made the Bible out to be a pack of lies and denied it has any revelation. While it is one extreme, it came from another extreme and we must still show grace to them.