Biblical Inerrancy/Part 1
| By: Dr. John G. Weldon; ©1999 |
| What is your opinion on the authority of the Bible? This four-part series examines the arguments for inerrancy of the Scriptures. Why is it important? What is inerrancy? What is the difference between inerrancy and inspiration? |
Contents
INTRODUCTION
Preface
Men cannot shut their eyes to truth and fact. The Bible itself nowhere makes the claim that it is inerrant. Nor do the creeds of the Church sanction such a theory. Indeed, the theory that the Bible is inerrant is the ghost of modern evangelicalism to frighten children..
— Charles Briggs cited in Carl Hatch, The Charles A. Briggs Heresy Trial, p. 33
In every defense of Biblical Inerrancy it is maintained that the notion is scriptural, that is, a concept taught by Jesus and the apostles…[but] we are forced to ask whether it is really scriptural or simply an inference drawn by godly minds.
— Clark Pinnock in Jack Rogers (ed.), Biblical Authority (Word, 1978), p. 63.
I regard the subject of this book, Biblical Inerrancy, to be the most important theological topic of this age. A great battle rages about it among people called evangelicals. I did not start the battle and wish it were not essential to discuss it. The only way to avoid it would be to remain silent. And silence on this matter would be a grave sin. — Harold Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible, preface, p. 13
What is your opinion on the authority of the Bible? Do you see it as the literal Word of God which commands our obedience? Or do you view it as the humanly inspired words of great men so that we are pretty much free to pick and choose what we will accept or reject? Or do you see the Bible as something in between, as a combination of divine ideas and human beliefs?
In this series, we will seek to examine the important subject of Biblical Inerrancy, i.e., the claim that the Bible is without error. Space does not permit an analysis of related topics, such as the evidences for biblical inspiration (e.g., prophecy), the Bible’s uniqueness in light of the sacred texts of other religions, the origin, manuscript evidence, transmission and translation of the Bible, or the accepted rules by which we properly interpret the Bible. Our The Facts On the King James Only Debate will adequately address these subjects.
Why Is Biblical Inerrancy Such a Crucial Subject?
Because of its implications, the fabric of which will be woven throughout this series. The Bible claims to be inerrant and Jesus Christ claimed the Bible was inerrant. If the Bible claims inerrancy and this is wrong, then the Bible contains errors and is wrong on a critical subject: its own authority. But then Jesus was also wrong. Indeed, if the Bible and Jesus were both wrong on this point, they could have been wrong on any point. It seems logical that granting a position of biblical errancy leaves one sinking within a spiritual quagmire. Subjectivism and uncertainty concerning divine revelation can only result in either agnosticism or blind trust on any given Scripture, or teaching of Scripture. In other words, if the Bible contains errors, can we be certain we are capable of determining where it speaks truth and where it speaks error? If the answer is yes, then on what logical basis is the judgment made?
On the other hand, if a rational defense of inerrancy can be made, then, given the conditions under which it was written, it is exceedingly difficult to reject the thesis that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. The Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek, two extremely different languages (plus some Aramaic), by over 40 different authors from many walks of life during a vast period of 1,500 years. It was not written by a single author over a period of just a few years. The Bible was laboriously hand copied on perishable materials. It was not typed with a modern computer on high quality reading paper. Over 3,000 years, from 1,500 BC to 1,600 AD, biblical parchment was frequently subject to the stresses of weather, human neglect, political and military upheavals, and deliberate sabotage. It was not protected in a modern climate controlled library. Given these and other adverse conditions, if the Bible were only written by men, it would necessarily contain a good number of errors. But if it is actually errorless, then given the thousands of details in its contents, specific predictions of the future, etc., such inerrancy cannot reasonably be accounted for apart from divine inspiration and preservation.
Why Do We Think It Is Vital for Everyone to Investigate the Issue of the Authority of the Bible?
Because of its teachings. The Bible is the single most important book the world has ever owned. To be ignorant concerning its claims and contents constitutes an abdication of personal responsibility.
If the Bible is the Word of God, then its importance to every person and every culture is obvious. Religious scripture that is obviously a human product or false or mythic or fraudulent can hardly command our attention as the inspired Word of God. And, despite what anyone claims and no matter how offensive we are to some for saying it, this is the lot of all non-biblical scripture. This is the truth. So the only question is whether or not this is also the case for the Bible. If the Bible is the inerrant Word of God and if it authoritatively answers the fundamental questions of life, then who can ignore its message? If the Bible accurately tells us who God is, who we are, why we are here and what happens when we die, is there a living soul anywhere who could fail to be impressed? If the Bible gives us true absolutes in a world of relatives doesn’t this have profound implications? Who wants to live a life of uncertainty when they can actually know the truth?
Indeed, isn’t the plague of the modern world its own relativism—in ethics, law, politics, sexuality, education, medicine, religion, business, and so on? If people live only for themselves and do whatever they want—often in disregard of others’ welfare—isn’t one reason for this because they feel life is meaningless and that nothing finally matters? If there is no final authority in anything and if when you die you are gone forever, why not live any way you please?
It would be difficult to deny that if people today merely lived by most of the Ten Commandments, then most of our social ills would be solved or greatly reduced. People don’t because they do not really believe those words and commandments came from God; some people just think they did. And they certainly don’t believe that God will hold them personally accountable in the next life for the kind of life they lived here.
In essence, helping people to believe in the Bible and live by its precepts is the single most important issue for our nation’s direction and future. It is the one single thing that would solve most of our problems immediately, heal our nation, and prosper us again in every way. If so, then the subject of this series must also be of great importance.
Non-Christians, of course, aren’t going to start believing in the Bible through osmosis.
It is only through Gospel evangelism by Christians and personal discipleship that this occurs. But with God’s blessing, it clearly is possible to reach tens of millions with salvation and discipleship and for Christianity to once again start exerting such a cultural influence that even non-Christians will, by choice, live according to general biblical precepts.
But if only the church can save our nation from the perilous direction it is headed, then the church must be fully persuaded as to biblical authority and inerrancy. Unfortunately, many in the church are no longer sure of their spiritual moorings.
When God’s people again honor God and His Word, then He will again honor our nation. In the meantime, as church historian Dr. Harold Lindsell so clearly pointed out in his book by the same title, The Battle for the Bible will continue within and without the church. And as always, the victors will be the diligent.
Whatever one’s view of the Bible, it stands as written and can be frankly investigated and evaluated by anyone who wishes. We think it is significant, given two thousand years of the most intense scrutiny by critics and skeptics, that millions of people in the modern era continue to believe the Bible is the literal inerrant Word of God and argue that it can be rationally defended as such. Can members of any other religious faith in the world logically defend such a claim concerning their own scripture?
As sad (and ironic) as it is, the “battle” over inerrancy lies primarily within the Evangelical Church. This is not a result of any defect in the defense of Biblical Inerrancy, but has occurred for a variety of reasons. Much of it has to do with infection by liberal theology, higher critical methodologies and the premises of secular culture; not the biblical text itself. The battle lies between those who maintain the complete inerrancy of Scripture and those who limit the inerrancy of Scripture to matters of faith and practice, leaving history, science, etc., open to the possibility of error.
A generation ago, when someone said, “I believe in the inspiration of the Bible” the meaning was generally understood. It meant this person believed the Bible was inerrant. As the doctrine became increasingly questioned, however, the list of descriptive adjectives needed to say the same thing grew longer and longer.
Consider the chart below as an illustration:
| The Initial Phrase: “The Inspiration of the Bible” | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Progressive Qualifications on the Term Inspiration by Liberal, Neo-Orthodox and Some Evangelical Theologians: | Conservative Response and Biblical Support: | ||||
| The denial that individual words were inspired | verbal inspiration (Mt. 4:4; Rom. 3:2) | ||||
| The denial that the entire Bible was inspired (limited inspiration) | verbal plenary (complete) inspiration (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21) | ||||
| The denial that inspiration requires infallibility (fallible inspiration) | verbal plenary infallible inspiration (God doesn’t lie; Titus 1:2; cf. Heb. 6:18) | ||||
| The denial that infallibility equals inerrancy, i.e., to say the Bible is infallible is not to say it is inerrant (the term infallible vs. inerrant) | verbal plenary infallible inerrant inspiration (cf. Jn. 17:17) | ||||
| The denial that inerrancy extends to all parts of Scripture (inerrancy only in matters of faith and practice, i.e., limited inspiration again) | verbal plenary infallible inerrant unlimited inspiration | ||||
If one were to accept the increasing qualifications on the term inspiration, one would now have to say “I believe in the verbal, plenary, infallible, inerrant, unlimited, inspiration of the Bible” merely to declare what was clearly understood a generation ago by “I believe in the inspiration of the Bible.”
These qualifications have failed at every level they have been attempted. This is the case with the most recent “limited inerrancy” view held among some evangelicals who argue that only this view squares with the facts. How should we respond? Let’s begin by noting with the eminent biblical scholar Dr. Gleason Archer the issue involved and the requirements needed for the full inerrancy position to be established:
- …a new school of revisionists has risen to prominence, and this school poses a vigorous challenge to Biblical Inerrancy and yet lays claim to being truly and fully evangelical…. Proponents of this approach invariably argue that they alone are the honest and credible defenders of scriptural authority because the “phenomena of Scripture” include demonstrable errors (in matters of history and science, at least), and therefore full inerrancy cannot be sustained with any kind of intellectual integrity….
- In answer to this claim, it is incumbent on consistent Evangelicals to show two things: (1) the infallible authority of Scripture is rendered logically untenable if the original manuscripts contained any such errors and (2) no specific charge of falsehood or mistake can be successfully maintained in the light of all the relevant dataIn other words, we must first show that the alternative of infallibility without inerrancy is not a viable option at all, for it cannot be maintained without logical self-contradiction. And, second, we must show that every asserted proof of mistake in the original manuscripts of Scripture is without foundation when examined in the light of the established rules of evidence.[1]
As we will seek to show, the “limited inerrancy” position collapses on two fronts: First, nowhere does the Bible make such a distinction, to the contrary it assumes full inerrancy. The “limited inerrancy” view never originated from the claims of Scripture, only from its supposedly fallible contents, an assumption that when examined critically has never proven itself a credible theory, let alone a demonstrable fact. Second, the theological parts of the Bible are inseparable from the non-theological portions, i.e., matters of faith (doctrine) and practice (morality) are intimately tied to matters of science and history. In other words, if we accept errors in the areas of science and history, it is impossible to maintain inerrancy in matters of faith and practice. In the next article, we will consider how the limited inerrancy position collapses when we evaluate this basic thesis: maintaining inerrancy in matters of doctrine and morality but accepting errors in matters of science and history.
Notes:
- ↑ Gleason Archer, Jr., Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1980), pp. 119-120.
