A Defense of Biblical Inerrancy, Part 5

August 27, 2007 Posted by Roger Overton

Part 1 and Part 2 on the definition
Part 3 and Part 4 on the argument.

Objections to the Bible’s Claim to Inerrancy

Obviously,
non-interrantists will object to the conclusion of the argument. So where might
they find fault with it? Stephen T. Davis objected to a similar argument,
though it is the “therefore, the Bible cannot lie”[1]
version. However, his only real objection is that it is “deductive in the
extreme.”[2]
His problem was with the method of the argument, and he claimed that history
has shown how “dangerous deduction can be.”[3] This,
of course, does not show that deduction in relation to inerrancy is necessarily
“dangerous,” nor is it clear that such a charge could successfully be leveled
at the more modest deduction being put forward here. Whether or not a form of
argument is “dangerous,” the argument still needs to be dealt with.

The first
premise reflects a strong view of inspiration such that God is involved in some
way in originating the words that comprise the text of the Bible. Someone with
a weaker view of inspiration would likely deny the first premise. That person
would then need to put forth adequate interpretations of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and
2 Peter 1:21, as well as the other passages that point to God’s authorship of
the Bible. As it stands, it appears that the clearest and most reasonable interpretation
of these passages is that the words of the Bible originated with God in some
way. Many who deny inerrancy do, in fact, affirm this premise. Davis, for example, said
“somehow, the Bible’s words are God’s words.”[4]

It is
likely the case that most Christians would not deny the second premise
outright. They would affirm that anything that comes directly from God must be
true. However, non-inerrantists may object that such a belief is not relevant
to the argument for inerrancy. Davis
raised this objection in his earlier work. “But the Bible containing an error
is not the same thing as God lying. (The question, “But can God lie?” is
sometimes used as a rhetorical device by unsophisticated defenders of
inerrancy.)”[5]< There
are only two ways that the Bible containing an error may not be the same thing
as God lying. The first is if the Bible was not inspired by God. Divine
inspiration of the Bible has already been defended and Davis has repeatedly affirmed it. If God is
in some way the author of the Bible, an error is found, and God is not lying,
then the only other alternative is that God is ignorant. He could not be
accused of lying if He didn’t know what He claimed was false. But denying God’s
omniscience is not biblically defensible[6], a
popular view, nor is it likely that Davis
denies it. Unfortunately, Davis
has not proposed any other alternatives, nor explained how errors being found
in God’s words do not make God a liar. Until he does so, his “rhetorical
device” charge more accurately describes his own objection.

Perhaps another objection could be
made claiming that though the premises are true, the conclusion does not
follow. This would be difficult to maintain considering the apparent validity
of the argument and the biblical evidence for the premises. It is not likely,
then, that an effective objection could be found in this way.

[1] Davis,
Stephen T., 62.

[2] Davis,
Stephen T., 63.

[3]Davis has more recently
stated: “Early in my career I wrote a brief critique of biblical inerrancy in
favor of what I called biblical infallibility. Although I still embrace its
overall approach, I now regard some of the arguments used in that book as
unconvincing, and I am now more familiar with more nuanced ways of
understanding the concept of ‘biblical inerrancy’ than were available in 1977.”
But Is It All True? The Bible and the
Question of Truth (Grand Rapids,
MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2006)
92. Davis’s
arguments from 1977 are still worth conversing with, however, because he does
not specify which ones he now believes are unconvincing, and because his views
were (and are) fairly representative of many Christians who reject inerrancy.

[4] Davis, The Debate About the Bible, 54. He made
a similar statement in his more recent work on the subject: “In some important
sense, God speaks to us in the Bible.” But
Is It All True? 87.

[5]Davis, The Debate About the Bible, 60.

[6] This has
been a significant debate over the past decade between a mass of traditional
omniscience defenders and only a few objectors, usually called open theists. It
is not clear that open theism ever gained a following warranting the attention
it received. Regardless, verses that teach God’s omniscience include 1 John
3:20, Hebrews 4:13, and Job 28:24, for example.

*Part 6 will conclude with reflections on why the doctrine of inerrancy is important.