5 Views on Biblical Inerrancy - A Review
“Inerrancy has been commonly viewed as the doctrine upon which evangelicalism stands or falls.”
The majority of inquiries on the reliability of scripture are motivated not from an honest intellectual struggle with complexities of textual criticism, historical reliability, or scientific precision; but rather moral pragmaticism.
People want to be socially accepted or morally inculpable and therefore, flee the authority of the Bible. Normal arguments against the Bible are the following:
People wrote it, therefore it can't be true
Scientifically indefensible
Schizophrenic God; ordering Genocide in one part and Love in another
Multiple versions and contradictions
Multiple denominations and interpretations
Simple rejection: "I choose not to believe it"
The book Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy is an intriguing dialog, all from professing Christian believers, on how do we think, speak, and reason about scripture.
It is book 25 of 52 in the Tim Challies 2020 reading challenge, and I find myself 2 weeks behind! But no matter, reading through the argumentation and analysis on inerrancy from men like Mohler and Vanhoozer has been extraordinarily beneficial.
While I recommend the book, I give it 3.5 out of 5 stars. The major hits are for poor organization and lack of a succinct definition of individual positions. That said, it is an excellent resource for understanding the intrinsic arguments within Christianity on the "trustworthiness" of the Bible in your hand.
In this review, I will highlight several of the different arguments and positions, however, my main purpose will be to provide a clear delineation between inerrancy and infallibility and why this distinction is important.
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
In October of 1978, the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy met to develop a clear orthodox statement of inerrancy. Over 200 evangelical leaders like J. I. Packer, Francis Schaeffer, John MacArthur, R. C. Sproul, and James Montgomery Boice all signed an eight-page document outlining the nuances of inerrancy.
This council was fueled by the ever-growing liberal perspective on the scriptures, primarily within American seminaries and megachurches, where some confessing believers were denying the historical or authoritative nature of certain sections of scripture. These confessing believers were not creating new interpretations, but simply discarding sections of scripture due to cultural context or merely lacking scientific understanding.
Dr. Al Mohler Jr.
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy defines multiple tenants of inerrancy, one that states; "being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives" (ICBI, 1978, p. 2).
This statement addresses the controversial belief that someone can have saving faith in Jesus while actively choosing to reject, not misinterpret, but reject other sections of scripture based on historical inaccuracy or cultural context.
A couple of common points of contention were the creation story, God's command of genocide, and the roles of men and women in society and church.
Essentially, the founders are stating, that if we are going to accept God's testimony in scripture about salvation, then we must also accept its account of the history and cultural practices as authoritative; we cannot pick and choose.
In the Five Views, the contributors each answer the questions of historical accuracy (mainly Joshua 6 and Jericho), intracanonical accuracy (discrepancies in Acts over dates and events), and a theological plurality (the seeming differences of God in the Old and New Testament). And how they approach these questions revolves around their adherence to two different perspectives.
Inerrancy vs. Infallibility
Perhaps the most succinct definition regarding the difference between inerrancy and infallibility has been supplied by Stephen Davis in his The Debate About the Bible.
Davis argues persuasively that "the Bible is inerrant if and only if it makes no false or misleading statements on any topic whatsoever. The Bible is infallible if and only if it makes no false or misleading statements on any matter of faith and practice."
If this distinction is palatable, then infallibility leaves the door open for a spectrum of interpretations or even blatant rejection of biblical content, so long as it does not relate to faith and practice. And the natural question evolves from this position, who determines what statements are relevant to faith and practice? Even this becomes subjective to some measure.
Dr. Peter Enns
Stating that the Bible is infallible as it pertains to faith and practice is the same thing as saying the Bible is fallible to some measure. While it might seem illogical, to claim infallibility is an acceptance of some fallibility. And if this is accepted, then how and who determines the extent of said fallibility?
The previous Alice in Wonderland theological rabbit hole is the reason why in the introduction Garrett and Merrick state that "Inerrancy has been commonly viewed as the doctrine upon which evangelicalism stands or falls" (p. 9).
Dr. Mohler opens his argument for the doctrine of inerrancy by appealing to its orthodoxy. He states boldly, "In affirming that the Bible, as a whole and in its parts, contains nothing but God-breathed truth, evangelicals have simply affirmed what the church universal had affirmed for well over a millennium—when the Bible speaks, God speaks." (p. 29). Inerrancy safeguards the unnegotiable reality that the Bible is the very words of God.
On the opposite side, Peter Enns argues for a looser understanding of scripture. He says that the Bible "tells of God's acts but also reports some events that either may not have happened or have been significantly reshaped and transformed by centuries of tradition" (p. 83). In other words, people might have made some mistakes or recorded misunderstandings, albeit honest mistakes, but wrong, nonetheless. The job then of the interpreter is to wade through the cultural presuppositions and ideologies to discover God's objective truth in a partly subjective text.
Peter combats the natural logical conclusion of his conservative brethern. “The logic seems to be that if the teaching of Scripture on creation, history, and authorship is wrong, then we have no reason to trust what Scripture says about salvation" (p. 89). Peter holds a different position. The Bible can be both wrong about certain historical or cultures things while still being trustworthy in terms of salvation.
While the book Five Views have three other contributors that find themselves between the far-right Mohler and far-left Enns, the contrast between the two views is apparent.
Inerrancy = God's Inspired Word (It is all objectively true)
Infallibility = God's Inspired and Man's Perceived words (It is all subjectively true)
My nuance is not agreed on by all parties. Nonetheless, the practical application of these beliefs is drastic in the life of the believer and the practice of the church.
so Why Inerrancy
"Inerrancy becomes necessary when the truthfulness and trustworthiness of the Bible are undermined by the claim that the Bible contains error" (p. 176)
Dr. Kevin Vanhoozer
Dr. Mohler, who made the above comment in response to another contributor, is accurately addressing the need for the doctrine of inerrancy. The problem is we are sinful and will naturally desire to be in authority rather an under authority. And any authority that limits my perceived freedom or perceived understanding of correctness is a threat to my identity.
Vanhoozer recognizes the problem well. "The critical question at present is whether inerrancy is a divisive distraction or an essential feature, perhaps even the rallying cry, of evangelical biblicism" (p. 200). To quote him at length, he states:
“God's Word will accomplish the purpose for which it has been sent (Isa. 55:11). It follows that the Bible is authoritative over any domain God addresses. Inerrancy points out how the efficacy of God's Word works out concerning assertions in light of divine omniscience. To anticipate: inerrancy means that God's authoritative Word is wholly true and trustworthy in everything it claims about what was, what is, and what will be" (p. 202).
In other words, to reject or redefine inerrancy is to make direct claims on God. If God allowed false things to be recorded in scripture, then is he still wholly true? Scripture states abundantly that God is truth and speaks the truth. If there are untrue claims in scripture, then the character of God is to be questioned.
The Doctrine of Inerrancy is not the gateway to all truth. The text will still need to be interpreted for the twenty-first-century reader and therefore, human interpreters will still make mistakes in their conclusions. But without holding to inerrancy, the spectrum for interpretive error increases exponentially into the realm of nearly pure subjectivity. While not all who claim infallibility will slide into moral relativity, the ability to do so is a small step; a step not available for those adhering to biblical inerrancy.
PREVIOUS Reviews
John Owen came from Welsh descent, was educated at Queens College, and became a renowned Puritan theologian, Oxford professor, and passionate pastor who lived from 1616 to 1683. In 1647, he wrote the exhaustive treatise The Death of Death defending Limited or Definite Atonement against the Arminian view of Universal Atonement or Unlimited Atonement.