A Defense of Biblical Inerrancy, Part 6

August 28, 2007 Posted by Roger OvertoncloseAuthor: Roger Overton Name: Roger Overton
Email: rogeroverton@hotmail.com
Site: http://ateamblog.com
About: Roger Overton is currently pursuing a Masters degree at Talbot School of Theology. He has addressed various churches, schools and youth camps throughout the United States. Roger was co-editor of The New Media Frontier (Crossway, 2008) and God and Governing (Wipf & Stock, 2009). Roger can be emailed at rogeroverton@hotmail.com.See Authors Posts (569)

Part 1 and Part 2 on the definition
Part 3 and Part 4 on the argument.
Part 5 on some possible objections.

The Importance of the Bible’s Claim to Inerrancy & Conclusion

            As it has
been stated, the conclusion that the Bible implicitly claims to be inerrant is
apparently weaker than the claim that the Bible is, in fact, inerrant. However,
the conclusion still holds significant weight in the inerrancy debate for two
reasons. First, many critics of inerrancy do not believe the Bible teaches
inerrancy, even implicitly. If the argument made here is persuasive, and the
Bible does play an authoritative role in the critics’ reasoning, then it should
have profound implications for their view of inerrancy.

            The second
reason the conclusion is important is more interesting. The argument can be
extended to be directed specifically at those who affirm limited inerrancy or
infallibility:

1.      Infallibilists
who deny inerrancy claim that the Bible is true in matters of faith and
practice.

2.      The
Bible’s claims about its own integrity are a matter of faith and practice.

3.      Therefore,
infallibilists ought to affirm that the Bible is true in everything it affirms
(usually referred to as inerrancy)

By the critics’ own standards,
then, they ought to affirm inerrancy. “Faith and practice” is typically
proposed by non-inerrantists to categorically distinguish what they believe is
necessarily true in the Bible and what could be false in the Bible, the
historical, geographic, and scientific details. Davis, for example, put this standard
forward. “The Bible is fully trustworthy and never misleads us on matters that
are crucially relevant to Christian faith and practice.”[1]

It is with the “crucially relevant”
qualification that Davis
would likely seek to find a way out of the proposed argument. He could claim
that the Bible’s view of its own integrity is not crucially relevant to faith and practice. This claim does hold some
water. It is entirely possible for a Christian to deny inerrancy while
affirming all of the essentials of the Christian faith. A great many critics of
inerrancy likely find themselves in this position. However, the Bible’s view of
itself is significantly relevant. If
the Bible is inerrant, the Christian is forced (in theory) to submit to what is
put forward in the Bible. If the Bible has errors, then the Christian has
reason to submit the Bible to his own standards for what is authoritative in.
This is precisely where Davis
ended up: “I believe the Bible is or ought to be authoritative for every
Christian in all that it says on any subject unless and until he encounters a
passage which after careful study and for good reasons he cannot accept.”[2] It
is one thing to claim that a particular interpretation of a passage is wrong,
it’s quite another to say that the passage itself is wrong and therefore has no
authority. Such a position robs the Bible of authority and gives it to the
reader.

Simply defined, the doctrine of
inerrancy claims the Bible is true in all it affirms, regardless of the
affirmations’ categories. Though the Bible does not explicitly teach the
doctrine, an argument has been constructed to show that it does so implicitly.
The argument has also been extended to apply directly to critics of inerrancy
who still hold that the Bible is true in matters of faith and practice, showing
that by their own standards they ought to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy.
Without the doctrine of inerrancy, the Christian reader is more likely to judge
the Bible by his own standards than he is to allow the Bible to judge him.
Therefore, the Bible is significantly relevant to Christian faith and practice.

With such emphasis on the Bible,
however, it is important to maintain a proper perspective. As put forth
earlier, the truthfulness of the Bible really refers to the truthfulness of God
as demonstrated by His Words. While the Bible is a valuable gift from God to
His people, it is not the prize of the Christian faith. Christ did not die on
the cross to give His people the Bible; He died to reconcile them to God.
However, the Bible is God’s means for communicating this good news, and this is
why the Bible is so foundational. So in proper perspective, Christians must
seek to maintain the balance between understanding God as the supreme
importance and understanding the Bible as the primary instrument for learning
about Him and what He’s done.

Related posts:

1. A Defense of Biblical Inerrancy, Part 5
2. A Defense of Biblical Inerrancy, Part 1
3. A Defense of Biblical Inerrancy, Part 2
4. A Defense of Biblical Inerrancy, Part 3
5. A Defense of Biblical Inerrancy, Part 4
6. ETS 2008 – G.K. Beale on Biblical Inerancy

Posted in Main Page, Roger's Posts, Theology