A Defense of Biblical Inerrancy, Part 4
August 25, 2007 Posted by Roger Overton
Part 1 and Part 2 on the definition
Part 3 on the first half of the argument.
Thus, the Bible generally teaches
its own divine authorship rather explicitly. In essence, the Bible teaches that
its very words are inspired by God, originating from Him. Geisler and Nix summed
it up well: “The cause of inspiration is God, the means is the men of God, and
the end result is the word of God in the language of men.”[1]
But what does inspiration have to do with inerrancy? The connecting point is
the character of God. Regarding the Bible’s authority, Bishop N.T. Wright
claims “that the phrase ‘authority of scripture’ can make Christian sense only
if it is a shorthand for ‘the authority of the triune God, exercised somehow
through scripture.’”[2]
Likewise, the truthfulness of the Bible only makes sense when unpacked as the
truthfulness of God demonstrated by His words that comprise the Bible.
The Bible has much to say of God’s
character. In regards to God’s truthfulness, Paul referred to “God, who never
lies,” in Titus 1:2. Numbers 23:19 states “God is not a man, that he should
lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind.” And more strongly,
Hebrews 6:18 claims “it is impossible for God to lie.” The Bible applies God’s
truthfulness directly to God’s words, such as in John 17:17 “Sanctify them in
the truth; your word is truth.” Earlier in John, Jesus claimed that scripture [God’s
words] “cannot be broken” (10:35). The Psalmist poetically exclaimed, “Forever,
O Lord, your word is firmly fixed in the heavens” (Psalms 119:89).
Another line of argument flows from the
Bible’s standard for prophecies. According to Deuteronomy 18:22, “when a
prophet speaks in the name of the LORD, if the word does not come to pass or
come true, that is a word that the LORD has not spoken; the prophet has spoken
presumptuously. You need not be afraid of him.” There is no room for a prophet
by this standard, someone who claims to speak God’s words, who utters any falsehood.
Since God cannot speak falsely, the Bible affirms that those who speak for him
cannot speak falsely. If someone claims to speak for God, and not everything
they say is true, then the implication is not that God has spoken falsely, but
that the person claiming inspiration has. Thus, when the Bible claims to be the
very words of God, it claims to be truthful in all things.
The argument being put forward can
be summarized in this way:
1. The
Bible claims that it is comprised of the very words of God.
2. The
Bible claims that it is impossible for God to lie and His words are always
true.
3. Therefore,
the Bible implicitly claims that everything it affirms is true.
In other words, the Bible
implicitly teaches that it is inerrant. Such a conclusion is more modest than is
usually offered by inerrantists. Most would prefer a conclusion stating that
the Bible is, in fact, inerrant, rather than merely stating that the Bible
claims to be inerrant. This will be addressed shortly. However, objections to
this argument should first be addressed.
[1] Geisler
and Nix, 39.
[2] Wright,
N.T. The Last Word: Beyond the Bible Wars
to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture (
*Part 5 will briefly consider some objections to the argument.
Related posts:
- A Defense of Biblical Inerrancy, Part 3
- A Defense of Biblical Inerrancy, Part 6
- A Defense of Biblical Inerrancy, Part 1
- A Defense of Biblical Inerrancy, Part 2
- A Defense of Biblical Inerrancy, Part 5
- ETS 2008 – G.K. Beale on Biblical Inerancy
Posted in Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology
content rss
August 24th, 2007 at 9:59 pm
To say something is inerrant is a step beyond saying it is true.
Job's friends said many true but errant things. Ecclesiates says “Money is the answer for everything.” Jesus makes a true but errant argument for the afterlife in Mark 12:26 (A greater point is made by the authority of his presences than the truth of his argument.)
Furthermore, something can be literaily, poetically, or symbolically true, and not necassily factually true, as you note in Psalm 119:89. The Word is NOT forever fixed in heaven, because the Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us (John 1:14).
August 25th, 2007 at 12:20 am
Hi Matt,
I agree with you about Job's friends, but that says nothing about the doctrine of inerrancy. The Bible simply says that Job's friends said those things. Likewise it records the errors of the pharisees, but it does not claim the pharisees were right.
I'm not sure what your point is with the Ecclesiates verse. The author is clearly describing the folly of the sloth as a path of destruction, while he eats and drinks and throws money at his problems his house falls apart.
I have no idea how or what you mean by Jesus' argument for the afterlife being errant. Are you saying Jesus made errors?
I think you're reading things into Psalm 119:89 that aren't there. While “God's Word” sometimes refers to Jesus (as in John 1:14) it also refers to His decrees, and that seems more likely to be what the Psalmist was talking about. Even it if it is some reference to Jesus, there's no indication that it's describing His physical presence. It could be describing how Jesus is unchanging in nature, or how He is always divinely present in heaven. Furthermore, if you see a conflict between these verses, why would you choose John 1:14 to be true and not Psalm 119:89? Are you just choosing what you want your Bible to say?
August 25th, 2007 at 12:26 am
Both Psalm 119 and John 1 are equally true, just in different senses.
My point about Mark 12 was that Jesus's argument doesn't actually prove what Jesus seems to claim. I'm not saying he was in error, but that his argument doesn't really answer the question it's supposed to, which could maybe be considered errant, but is not really an error, because I don't think Jesus' intention was really to answer the question.
Pharisees: “What's 2 plus 2?”
Jesus: ” The sky is Blue.”
Pharisees: “Wow! This guys is smart!”
True, yes. Errant, in a sense. Error? Not really.
August 25th, 2007 at 12:41 am
To perhaps be a bit clearer, if you ask me, “Does the Bible contain errors?” I would say, “Yes, it contains both the errant opinions of fallible people, and literary and symbolic language that does not necessarily correspond to factual reality, but which are true in the sense that they accurately represent what was intended by the author.”
Does that make my position clearer? The writers of the historic creeds never found the word 'inerrant' to be necessary, so neither do I.
August 25th, 2007 at 12:46 am
Thanks for the clarifications Matt,
I agree that Psalm 119 and John 1 are both true- I would say they describe different truths.
I think you're right that what Jesus said was errant from the perspective of the pharisees. Likewise, many people believe the Bible is errant because it does not tell them what they want to hear. But it is always true. When we speak of inerrancy, we mean that the Bible never strays from the truth. On a subjective level, it may stray from our perceived relevance (as Jesus' words did to the pharisees), but that's a problem with us and not the Bible. Jesus' decision not to answer people's questions in the way they'd like Him to does not mean His answers were in error or false, and so they do not have any bearing on the doctrine of inerrancy.
August 25th, 2007 at 12:58 am
Where are these “many people” ? We should do somethign about them! Send then to my blog, I'll set them straight!
Seriously, though, I think I get what you're saying and tend to agree.
I'd still like to know why you think “inerrancy” is so important, when none of the creed writers did. Not even Westminster (eck!).
August 25th, 2007 at 1:02 am
If I understand you correctly, I think that does help. And I think I agree with your response.
1) It contains opinions of fallible people, such as Job's friends, but attributes no truthfulness to them.
2) Psalm 17:8 refers to God's “wings.” We don't believe God has physical wings, so it doesn't correspond to physical reality. However, it does respond to reality in a metaphorical or symbolic sense.
How we understand truth depends on the genre of the literature in these cases. We should not hold a physical/historical standard for truth to poetry. But it seems like we agree that if we take what the author (God) intended to mean by the words, those meanings are true.
I think the word “inerrancy” is necessary and useful in a practical sense, much like “trinity.” These words were brought into usage because a distinction needed to be made between opposing views. Though the term inerrancy is historically recent, the church has affirmed the content of the term throughout history. See John Gerstner
August 25th, 2007 at 1:10 am
I believe the Bible is a book authored by men under the inspiration of God, and is therefore true, truthful, and accurate in every way that it intends to be.
I'm not comfortable with the word “inerrant.” Especially when I start reading about slaughtering children in Exodus, or nihlism in Ecclesiastes, or requiring women to be silent in Paul…
August 25th, 2007 at 1:12 am
I responded in my last comment about the word “inerrancy” being recent, but I think I may have missed your point.
Creeds are typically written to deal with a contemporary debate. Nicea dealt with the Trinity. Westminster dealt with the doctrines of the Protestant Reformation. Throughout those centuries, there was never a serious debate (that I'm aware of) over whether all of the Bible are true or only certain subjects are true, thus there was no need to address it in the creeds. There are plenty of errors that the creeds do not address. It does not follow that the errors are inconsequential or unimportant.
The debate over the truthfulness of the Bible is recent, and therefore, so is the creed that deals with it- The Chicago Statement. As I said in my other comment, the content of the term inerrancy has been affirmed throughout church history. Only recently has so much attention been given to the subject that lines have been drawn and terms defined.
The doctrine of inerrancy is actually less important than the Trinity and Salvation (the Reformation debate). However, practically it is just as important in that we will have a difficult time forming accurate beliefs about God and how He saves us if we don't believe His Word is true.
August 25th, 2007 at 1:14 am
I'm not sure what those things have to do with the word “inerrant.” You're comfortable with the “slaughtering children in Exodus, or nihlism in Ecclesiastes, or requiring women to be silent in Paul” being “true, truthful, and accurate in every way that it intends to be” but not inerrant?
August 25th, 2007 at 2:00 am
Yes, exactly.
August 25th, 2007 at 2:02 am
The Bible is not “his Word.” Jesus is. John 1:1,14
August 25th, 2007 at 2:40 am
As I said before, you can't read Jesus into every instance of the word “Word,” whether in the Bible or otherwise. The Bible doesn't always mean Jesus by it, I'm not sure why you insist on it. It's an inappropriate equivocation.
August 25th, 2007 at 10:37 am
It was the capital “W” that set me off.
This is a big deal for me, so I tend to over emphasize it. The kind of Fundamentalism that I rail against at BeyondFundamentalism.net is that which elevates the scriptures to the point of being a divine entity itself.
Yes, I realize that not every scriptural use of the word “word' refers to Jesus.
But in the context of your statement, I'm not backing down. It is not belief in the word that saves us, as you say, it is belief in the Word. (Jesus, who will then enlighten us to the truth of scripture.)
August 25th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Whoops, just realized I may have overstated your point. I now see on a more careful reading that you did not actually say that belief in the word saves us. Sorry. I know people who believe such a thing. Please forgive my over-ambition.
August 25th, 2007 at 10:41 am
…though at secon dglance, I wish you had structured that sentance differently for fear that someone might stop reading after the words, “You're comfortable with 'slaughtering children'”…
August 26th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
This seems to me to be a very weak definition of inerrancy. For I could even claim H.G. Wells' “First Men in the Moon” is inerrant if I cite, a la “God's wings”, it as an allegory for some real situation and therefore has real symbolic meaning. Symbolic meaning can be extracted from almost any book so is every book inerrant, by this definition?
I would also like to ask if you will be addressing the point of “self-authentication”: the Bible is the Word of God because it claims to be the Word of God. What are you using as an external reference to support the Bible's internal claims?
Thank you.
August 26th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
I agree there is a danger in elevating the Bible to some sort of divine status. The Bible is not God, nor a member of the Godhead. I've done no such elevation simply by using a capital “W.” Neither did I say that it is the Bible that saves us. You won't find either of those notions in anything I've ever written, and both are heretical.
I don't think using a capital “W” or not is something to really fight over, though I prefer the capitalization. The Bible is distinct from every other book ever written. God's divine inspiration communicates attributes to the Bible that no other book can claim, such as inerrancy and authority. I find that capitalizing it as God's Word is a helpful reminder of the honor I owe as a means of grace from God to His people. If it's not helpful for you- don't use it. But it's rather preposterous to accuse people of idolatry simply for capitalizing Word.
August 26th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
Hi Ken,
Do you have some other definition of inerrancy you think is better? What I've offered is what I believe the Bible teaches about itself. The Bible claims to record historical people and events, as well as songs and poems and much more. It claims, for the most part, to be a non-fiction book. Fictional books cannot claim inerrancy, since truth must correspond to reality. It would be a misapplication of the term to apply inerrancy to Wells' “First Men in the Moon.” However, it's logically possible that “The First Men on the Moon” by David Harland is inerrant because it claims to tell a historical story. If it is entirely accurate and true, then it is inerrant. Many things contain truth or truths, but only those things that maintain the highest standard of utter truthfulness throughout can be considered inerrant.
My argument has only been that the Bible claims to be the inerrant, and one of those premises is that it claims to be God's Word. I have not argued here that it is in fact inerrant, nor that it is in fact God's Word. These are entirely different claims that I do not intend to address at this time. So I will not be addressing “self-authentication” any time soon since that would fall under argumentation that the Bible is in fact God's Word.
August 28th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
“Do you have some other definition of inerrancy you think is better?”
No. I just wanted to point out the danger I see when calling allegory or symbolism “true.” Could it be that the claim of inerrancy colors how we view things? The Bible claims to be inerrant and so we seek to support that claim by allowing allegory to be “symbolically true.” Wells' book does not claim to be inerrant and so we do not try so hard to allow his allegory to be as true.
Another point for my clarification of your definition. When the Bible makes scientific statements, is it inerrant if the statement accurately represents the knowledge of the people of the time or is it inerrant if the statement is accurate by today's standards? (I don't have a specific example in mind and I'm too lazy right now to look anything up so this may not be a well posed question. I just vaguely recall something about “life is in the blood” and something about tides or waves or whatever and some say the Bible is correct in some cases and incorrect in others.)
September 1st, 2007 at 12:08 am
The answer to both of your questions is basically the same:
A statement/claim/proposition/allegory/metaphor/etc. (hereafter “thing”) is true if what the author of the “thing” meant by the “thing” in some way corresponds to reality. When the author says something about God having wings, we don't take it literally as if he has physical wings, but we believe the author meant that God provides shelter, protection, and comfort in a way similar to a being that does have physical wings. If God acts in this way, then the author's metaphor is true. If we have reason to believe that the author actually meant that God has physical wings, then God must have physical wings in order for it to be true.
The determining factors are 1) What the author meant and 2) What is actually the case. Wells did not mean for his story to correspond to reality (at least the plot anyway), so it does not factor into the equation. In regard to historical context, it matters what the author meant. If whoever said “life is in the blood” meant that blood is alive (or something like that), then it's false. If they meant that blood is vital to our survival, then it's true.