A Defense of Biblical Inerrancy, Part 3
August 20, 2007 Posted by Roger Overton
Here's Part Three of my paper on inerrancy. Part One and Part Two discussed the definition.
A Defense of the Bible’s Claim to Inerrancy
With an appropriate definition of inerrancy in hand, the next step is to assess whether or not the Bible claims inerrancy for itself, and if it does, to what degree it does so. Philosopher Stephen T. Davis said no. “The Bible does not teach inerrancy, nor does inerrancy seem to be presupposed or implied by what it does teach.”[1] He was correct in that the Bible does not explicitly teach inerrancy. As with many church doctrines, such as the trinity, the term inerrancy is not in the text. New terms are usually introduced to help distinguish between differing views about a subject, even if the views are not new. Thus, inerrantists believe that though the term inerrancy is not in the Bible, the concept is implicitly taught therein.
The first passage most people turn to when discussing the integrity of the Bible is 2 Timothy 3:16-17. “All scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”(ESV[2]) The claim for divine authorship of scripture is of primary importance. The Bible is not simply inspired as a poet might be inspired by a beautiful sunset. Scripture was “breathed out” by God, meaning its origin and authorship comes from Him. “All” likely refers to the Old Testament, so this claims that every bit of the Old Testament is the Word of God. The word for “scripture” indicates that the subject is the written record of the Old Testament rather than the simply the concepts or intentions of the record[3]. So, this passage claims divine authorship for every writing contained in the Old Testament.
Several other passages attribute Old Testament writings to God, such as Hebrews 1:1, John 10:34-35, and 2 Peter 1:19-21. Clearly, the Bible regards Old Testament scripture as the very words of God, but what of the New Testament? The most comprehensive statement is found in 2 Peter 3:16, where the author equates Paul’s writings with “the other Scriptures,” the Old Testament. Paul also made several claims throughout his letters that he was speaking for God[4]. Since Paul’s writings account for a large portion of the New Testament, this covers a lot of ground.
One of John’s letters is broader but less clear: “We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth from the spirit of error.” (1 John 4:6, ESV) “We” likely refers to the apostles, the witnesses of Christ discipled to teach His words. The claim to have God’s authority assumes some sort of inspiration (See also 1:5). The point is strengthened when coupled with Jesus’ promise in John 14:26 that the Holy Spirit “will bring to rememberance all that I have said to you” (ESV). It is believed by many that all the books of the New Testament were written by the apostles, either directly or indirectly. If this is the case, then this point strongly suggests that all of the accepted New Testament is to be regarded as the words of God[5].
[1]
[2] All scripture references are ESV.
[3] Norman Geisler and William Nix provide an important qualifier for this point: “This does not mean that each individual word is inspired as such but only as part of a whole sentence or unit of meaning. There is no implication in Scripture of an atomistic inspiration of each word but only of a holistic inspiration of all words used.” General Introduction to the Bible by Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix (Chicago: Moody Press, 1986) 36.
[4] Such as 1 Cor. 4:1, Gal 1:11-12, 1 Thess. 4:8
[5] I. Howard Marshall made the point that “it would be wrong to suggest that the writers felt conscious that they were writing Scripture.” Biblical Inspiration (
Related posts:
- A Defense of Biblical Inerrancy, Part 4
- A Defense of Biblical Inerrancy, Part 5
- A Defense of Biblical Inerrancy, Part 1
- A Defense of Biblical Inerrancy, Part 2
- A Defense of Biblical Inerrancy, Part 6
- ETS 2008 – G.K. Beale on Biblical Inerancy
Posted in Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology
content rss
August 22nd, 2007 at 3:37 pm
Been reading these parts… It seems to me that the doctrine of inerrancy is really on a spectrum. On one end you have literalist (seven day creationists, etc…) and on the other end you may have those of limited inerrancy (or I suppose even a non-inerrant view). Hence the general problem with the doctrine–the problem of definition (which you take a stab at).
Finally 2 Timothy is a great passage, but as one who does not subscribe to the doctrine of inerrancy, I don't find it as a defense of inerrancy. Scripture can be inspired and breathed by God without someone having to logically conclude that the scriptures are “inerrant. “
August 23rd, 2007 at 12:36 am
Thanks CE,
Really the point of the first two parts I wrote on the definition is that there is no spectrum. There are those who adhere to the basic definition of inerrancy (that the Bible is “free from all falsehood, fraud or deceit
August 24th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Thanks Roger for the helpful clarification. Just curious, how would you respond to people who claim a literal seven day creation (among other literalist readings of scripture) behind the guise of inerrancy?
August 24th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
That's a good question, and it might be worth responding to in a separate post. Simply: Only denial of explicit teachings of Scripture negate one's belief in the doctrine of inerrancy. For example, the Bible explicitly tells us the God is love. If someone were to claim that God is not love, then they would also be claiming the Bible is not always true, and therefore not inerrant.
Whether creation was done in seven literal days or not is a matter of interpretation of the text that must be argued- no interpretator can claim their view on this issue is explicitly taught. Many (perhaps most) of those who differ can believe the Bible is always true in what it claims, even though they disagree about what it claims. Inerrancy only entails we must believe what the Bible explicitly teaches, but we can disagree and offer arguments over it's implicit teachings while still believing in inerrancy.
In other words, I don't believe those who hold to a literal seven day creation alone can believe in inerrancy. And as an aside, I think the debate over how long God took to create is an utter waste of time and I made a decision awhile back to not even make claims either way about it in a public forum such as this one.
August 25th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Thanks Roger. How would you then describe my position? Am I then an inerrantist? I don't deny any teaching of scriptures. I believe the Bible is true and has unique authority. But I don't care for the details and I would add to “utter waste of time” most discussions such as authorship or dates. My understanding of the doctrine of inerrancy is that those things actually matter.
Also, the Bible does contain some contradictions where only one can be historically correct. For example, the last supper happened either Passover (synoptics) or Passover eve (John).
Now to me, it doesn't matter when it happened. What is more important is how that story is used in the particular writing, and what it communicates to us about Jesus and his authority.
August 26th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Well, if you believe there are contradictions in the Bible, that would assume some error and I would not consider you an inerrantist. I believe there are things that appear to conflict, but upon study are usually resolved. I do remember this issue in John about the Last Supper occurring at a time other than when the synoptics claim, but I don't see it at the moment. It seems clear from John 13 (verse 2,4,12) that what occurred was during the Passover meal, which is what the synoptics claim as well.
It may or may not practically matter when this or some other event occurred. However, if the Bible makes a claim that is false, I don't see why we would trust what it communicates to us about Jesus and his authority. If it is of God, the intended meaning at the time of writing must be utterly true. If there is falsehood, it could not be from God, and is mere human speculation, or if the falsehood is from God, then God cannot be trusted.
As for authorship and dates, I see no reason why those would be necessarily tied to the doctrine of inerrancy. I think for many people there's a connection because they attempt to prove the doctrine evidentially, but such a proof is not necessary. Authorship and dates can have exegetical value, especially in the case of the book of Revelation, but for the most part they can be left to those who enjoy exploring historical debates.