Comments on: A Defense of Biblical Inerrancy, Part 3

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 01:14:47 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 15:54:09 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 03:01:02 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 17:01:40 +0000

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?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 05:36:24 +0000

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

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 20:37:35 +0000

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. “