A Critique Of The Inerrancy Of Scripture
LIBERTY THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
INERRANCY OF SCRIPTURE:
A CRITIQUE ON CONCEPTS AND APPROACHES TO BIBLICAL INERANCY
Submitted to
Liberty Theological Seminary
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
For completion of the course,
THEO 525
SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY I
DR. GREG ENOS
October 11, 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Thesis Statement 3
Introduction 3
Inerrancy Defined 3
Concepts of Inerrancy 6
Critique of Concepts of Inerrancy …show more content…
8
Inerrancy and the Phenomena of Scripture 10
Critique of Approaches to Inerrancy 12
Conclusion 13
Bibliography 14
THESIS STATEMENT
This student affirms the position that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God; this position is best upheld by the concept of full inerrancy, and approached through moderate harmonization.
INTRODUCTION
The Christian faith holds to the beliefs of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ the Son of God, of God the Creator of all living things, and the Trinity, among other beliefs.
More importantly, the entire Christian faith has its foundation on the authority of the Scriptures. But what if fault were to be found in the Bible? To find error in the Scriptures would invalidate the church, Christianity and God himself. This necessitates a study of the inerrancy of the Scriptures. By gaining a thorough understanding of inerrancy Christians will be better equipped to understand and communicate what we believe and why we believe …show more content…
it.
The purpose of the paper is to determine the proper concept and approach to biblical inerrancy. Several definitions and concepts of inerrancy will be discussed. Also, different conceptions of inerrancy; including absolute, full, limited and inerrancy of purpose will be examined. The different approaches to biblical inerrancy and the strengths and weaknesses of each will also be listed. From the research a conclusion will be drawn as to which concepts and approaches to inerrancy are the most biblical and offer the most balance while maintaining the credibility of the church, the Scriptures, and the Lord our God.
INERRANCY DEFINED
In order to gain an understanding of inerrancy it becomes necessary to determine the meaning of its root, error. The Merriam-Webster dictionary lists several definitions for the word error. The first definition describes error as an action. It is defined as: an act involving an unintentional deviation from truth or accuracy; an act that through ignorance, deficiency or accident departs from or fails to achieve what should be done. The second definition refers to error as a quality or state; the difference between an observed or calculated value and a true value; a deficiency or imperfection in structure or function.1 For the purposes of this paper, the implication of ‘error’ will include both of the above definitions. These definitions support the dual nature of inerrancy; the Bible does not contradict itself, nor does it lie. The doctrine of inerrancy is supported by the principle that the Scriptures are the direct Word of God. The Bible is completely true because God cannot lie. Therefore, scripture “truly and properly speaking God’s Word, it will not deceive nor err.”2 The word “inerrancy” derives from the Latin inerrans which means “not wandering” or “fixed.” It is defined as “the theological conviction that the Bible is completely truthful and accurate in every respect about all it affirms.”3 One of the most prominent declarations on biblical inerrancy is found in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, which affirms: Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives.4 Feinberg gives an equally in depth definition: “inerrancy means that when all facts are known, the Scriptures in their original autographs and properly interpreted will be shown to be wholly true in everything that they affirm, whether that has to do with doctrine or morality or with the social, physical, or life sciences.”5 Several scholars and theologians have also proposed similar definitions. Erickson defines inerrancy as the doctrine that “The Bible, when correctly interpret in light of the level to which culture and the means of communication had developed at the time it was written, and in view of the purpose for which it was given, is fully truthful in all that it affirms.”6 Elmer Towns writes that the Bible is “accurate, reliable, authoritative and without error.”7 Perhaps the simplest definition is offered in Charles C. Ryrie’s Basic Theology in which he writes, “the inerrancy of the Bible means simply that the Bible tells the truth.”8
Several terms have been used synonymously or in conjunction with inerrancy. The most common of these is the term ‘infallible.’ While at one point they were used synonymously, recent definitions make a distinction between the two. Infallibility is defined as “that which will not deceive or lead to error;”9 “the quality of being unfailing or not liable to fail.”10 Stephen Andrew uses the following distinction: “The Bible is inerrant if and only if it makes no false or misleading statements on any topic whatsoever. The Bible is infallible if and only if it makes not false or misleading statements on any matter of faith and practice.”11 Helm goes on to clarify that, “Inerrancy focuses our attention exclusively on questions of truth and falsehood, whereas the older term, ‘‘infallibility,’’ when applied to Scripture, lays emphasis upon the fact that the Bible is an unfailing guide to whoever may read it, and especially to the Christian and the church, for the purpose for which it was given.12
Inspiration; that which moves humans to receive divine truth,13 is also frequently applied to the inerrancy debate. Historically, the church has always held to the inerrancy of the Bible. From the time of Jesus, the Scriptures have been regarded as the authoritative, inspired Word of God; “God’s speaking in written form.”14 God’s Word can be depended on because God is dependable. Consequently, inerrancy and inspiration have a direct relationship.15
CONCEPTS OF INERRANCY
The meaning of inerrancy has been hotly debated among scholars and theologians alike. Several variations exist on what inerrancy should entail. Millard Erickson notes, “The term inerrancy means different things to different people, who contend over which position properly deserves to be called by that name.”16 Each of these conceptions attempts to explain the meaning of inerrancy. Absolute Inerrancy
Perhaps the most rigid stance on the meaning of inerrancy is that of Harold Lindsell.
In his book The Battle for the Bible, Lindsell asserts that the Bible “does not contain error of any kind.”17 This is the concept of absolute inerrancy, which is defined by Erickson as is the position “that the Bible, which includes rather detailed treatment of matters both scientific and historical, is fully true.” 18Absolute inerrancy holds that everything in is intentional—that the Bible set out to give an accurate accounting of specific historical and scientific events, and that any contradiction found in the Bible can and must be explained. In fact, Lindsell goes to great measures to reconcile several biblical discrepancies commonly pointed out; noting that while they can certainly be explained, accuracy must be judged based on the context of the time in which it was written.19
Full Inerrancy
Similar to but less rigid than absolute inerrancy, is the concept of full inerrancy. Full inerrancy differs from absolute inerrancy in that it maintains that while the Bible did not set out to give historical and scientific data, the historical and scientific accounts of the Bible are indeed accurate. This view takes into account the fact that biblical authors were in fact human; the historical and scientific aspects of the Bible are correct although not necessarily exact. Erickson describes them as “popular descriptions,” and “general references;” noting that “what they teach is correct in the way
they teach it.”20
Limited Inerrancy
Limited inerrancy draws a distinction between doctrinal verses and those which are merely human observations. Under its umbrella, the Bible is fully true in all of its salvific doctrines; but its historical and scientific data is limited to the understanding of times of its day. Like full inerrancy, the concept of limited inerrancy recognizes the humanity of biblical authors; noting that God did not reveal scientific or historical matters which were not of biblical concern.21
Inerrancy of Purpose
Inerrancy of purpose is somewhat similar to limited inerrancy in that it makes distinctions. However, this position distinguishes isolates the verse which help the Bible to fulfill its purpose, seeing all other material as incidental. Inerrancy of purpose maintains that the purpose of the Bible is to bring people to salvation and a personal relationship with God rather than to convey truth. Therefore, the Bible is completely inerrant in accomplishing this purpose.
CRITIQUE OF CONCEPTS OF INERRANCY
One asset for those who hold to absolute inerrancy is the position of great faith from which they come. Such strong faith is certainly admirable and necessary to uphold such a staunch position. Absolute inerrancy supporters believe that the Bible cannot contain errors and be trustworthy at the same time. Those things which may seem to be errors in the Bible are merely difficulties which can be explained; however explanations must be limited to the understanding of the time in which it was written. This is where apparent weaknesses come into play, as formulating an explanation for every difficulty will undoubtedly take a considerable amount of effort. Also, current explanations for the various difficulties in the Bible are certainly limited to the understanding of current times.
Lindsell devotes an entire chapter to reconciling biblical discrepancies; a famous example being his explanation of the Molten Sea discrepancy. In Chronicles 4:2 the diameter and circumference of the sea is listed as 10 cubits and 30 cubits respectively.22 However, the circumference of a circle is known to be 3.14. Lindsell’s explanation for this discrepancy is that the circumference of the Molten Sea was actually measured from the inside. As logical and accurate as Lindsell’s methods and results seem, his explanation was still limited to his own understanding of pi=3.14. This seems to defeat his assertion that accuracy of the Scripture must be judged according to the prevailing standards of the time.”23 There is also no solid way to prove that Lindsell is inerrant in his explanation.
Both limited inerrancy and inerrancy of purpose maintain that the Bible is inerrant in matters related to salvation. However, there must be some unified principle to determine what things are to be considered related and irrelevant. Therefore, both include a measure of subjectivism. It also seems that the word “limited” invalidates the word “inerrancy.” If he meaning of inerrant is that which does not err, limiting that implies that error is indeed a possibility.
Of the several conceptions of inerrancy, the position of full inerrancy offers the most balance and credibility. Full inerrancy holds to the inerrancy of the Bible while allowing for certain writings to be estimations or even descriptions of how certain events occurred. Like inerrancy of purpose, full inerrancy maintains that the Bible accurately accomplishes its purpose; however full inerrancy supports do not believe the Bible to purposefully historical or scientific. The Bible supports the idea that its goal is not to keep scientific or historical records in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 which says the Bible “is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
INERRANCY AND THE PHENOMENA OF SCRIPTURE
While the term inerrancy is not found in the Bible, several Scriptures actually support its veracity. 2 Timothy 3:16 states, “All Scripture is God-breathed.” 2 Peter 1:21 says that, “… prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” We can attest to the truthfulness of God’s words because, as the Bible says, God cannot lie (1 Samuel 15:29, Numbers 23:19, Hebrews 6:18). Also, Psalms 12:6 and Proverbs 30:5 assert that every word of God is without flaw. Although the Bible is the inspired Word of God, its authors were undeniably human. Several books in the Bible contain different accountings of the same events. Some examples of this can be found in the case of the Molten Sea,24 and the contradictory chronology found throughout the Bible.25 Because of this, several approaches have been proposed in attempts to explain contradictions found in biblical accounts.
Abstract Approach
The first approach is the abstract approach advocated by B.B. Warfield. Warfield’s approach is an historical approach based on the dependability of the Bible throughout the ages. This conviction leads him to believe that what the Bible says about itself is indeed true. As a result, difficulties found in the Bible, while they should be addressed, have no need for explanation.26 This abstract approach asserts that difficulties in any faith are to be expected, and that one cannot wait until all the difficulties have been reconciled in order to believe.27
Harmonistic Approach
The harmonistic approach also has its foundation in the doctrine of inspiration. This approach is advocated by E.J. Young who believes it is not necessary biblical accountings to be identical in order for them to be infallible. Young acknowledges that the biblical authors were human; and though they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, the way they conveyed the message was subject to their humanity.28 Supporters of this approach believe that difficulties can be solved using currently available data.29 Again, Lindsell’s examples in The Battle for the Bible are used as representations of this idea.30
Moderate Harmonization
The moderate harmonization is a variation of the harmonistic approach. Everett Harrison advocates this approach. He woefully observes the recent accusations that “The Bible may contain the Word of God, or be the vehicle for the Word…but can no longer be equated with the Word itself;”31 and that “verbal inspiration could hold the field only so long as the divine factor in its composition was magnified to neglect the human.”32 Harrison acknowledges the discrepancies found between different biblical accountings; such as chronology and the Gospels. He asserts that difficulties can be resolved as more information becomes available. The moderate harmonization approach maintains, as Erickson writes, “if we had all the data, we might resolve all the problems.”33
Other Approaches Erickson lists two other notable approaches to the phenomena of scripture. The first is to “adopt the position that inspiration guarantees only accurate reproduction of the sources the Scripture writer employed, not correction of them. Thus, is the source contained an erroneous reference, the Scripture writer recorded that error just as it was in the source.”34 This approach acknowledges the doctrine of inspiration as well as the humanity of the biblical authors; and seems to be a fallback position of several theologians. The final position listed is the view that the bible is not inerrant, and that difficulties should simply be acknowledged as errors.35
CRITIQUE OF CONCEPTS AND APPROACHES TO INERRANCY
As noted above, the most biblical and logical concept of inerrancy is the position of full inerrancy. It now becomes necessary to determine the proper approach to be used in conjunction with full inerrancy. While the abstract approach faithfully relies on the Scriptures as inspiration from God, this would not be the best epistemological approach. One of the primary tasks of the Christian faith is to spread the Gospel. When approached by an unbeliever’s questions on inerrancy, the tautological abstract approach can actually defeat itself.
The harmonistic approach, though based on the doctrine of inspiration, seems to place too much faith in one’s ability to interpret the Scriptures. Lindsell’s explanation of biblical discrepancies shows a good example of this. Those who use this approach attempt to explain biblical contradictions by using currently known information. However, this approach is subject to human understanding, the principle which warrants the question of inerrancy itself.
The most complementary approach to full inerrancy is that of moderate harmonization. . This approach upholds the inerrancy of the Scriptures while acknowledging that discrepancies may exist due to the lack of available data. The Bible makes it known that man’s understanding is limited. This is evident in Deuteronomy 29:29 which reads: “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.”36
CONCLUSION
The inerrancy debate is an important theological issue, as inerrancy is vital to the Christian faith. Without it, the very foundation on which we stand becomes shaky. Should the Bible be found to err, the entire Christian faith and even God himself would lack authenticity. The Bible is the inspired Word of God. It is the law on which we believe; it is God’s interaction with his creation, and the expression of his love. Erickson defines inerrancy of Scripture as “the doctrine that the Bible is fully truthful in all of its teachings”37 This definition supports this student’s view on biblical inerrancy. This student fully believes in the inerrancy of God’s Word, and that man should approach the Scriptures as the finite beings we are. There are things we may not be meant to understand; 2 Corinthians 2:11 states, “…no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.”38 However, we can trust that the Bible will fulfill all its promises, because we can faithfully put our trust in God.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Andrew, Stephen L. “Biblical Inerrancy.” Chafer Theological Seminary Journal 8, no. 1
(January 2002): 3-21. Accessed September 24, 2013. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/article/ctsj08-1-01
Elwell, Walter A. ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001.
Enns, Paul. Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago, IL: Moody, 2008.
Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998.
Geisler, Norman L. and William C. Roach. Defending Inerrancy: Affirming the Accuracy of
Scripture for a New Generation. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011.
Geisler, Norman. Inerrancy. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980.
Harrison, Everett F. “The Phenomena of Scripture.” In Revelation and the Bible: Contemporary Evangelical Thought, edited by Carl F.H. Henry, 237-250. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958. Accessed October 1, 2013. http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/rev-henry/15_phenomena_harrison.pdf
Helm, Paul. “B.B. Warfield’s Path to Inerrancy: An Attempt to Correct Some Serious Misunderstandings.” Westminster Theological Journal 72, no. 1 (Spring 2010): 23-42.
Accessed September 24, 2013. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/article/wtj72-1-02
Lindsell, Harold. The Battle for the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976.
McKim, Donald K. The Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms. Louisville: John Knox, 1996.
Poythress, Vern Sheridan. Inerrancy and the Gospels: A God Centered Approach to the Challenges of Harmonization. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012.
Preus, Robert. “The Inerrancy of Scripture.” In The Proceedings of the Conference on Biblical Inerrancy. Nashville: Broadman, 1987.
Ryrie, Charles C. Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth. Chicago: Moody, 1999.
Towns, Elmer L. Theology for Today. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2001.
Young, Edward Joseph. Thy Word is Truth: Some Thoughts on the Biblical Doctrine of Inspiration. London: Banner of Truth, 1963.
Zaspel, Fred G. The Theology of B.B. Warfield: A Systematic Summary. Wheaton: Crossway, 2010.
INERRANCY OF SCRIPTURE:
A CRITIQUE ON CONCEPTS AND APPROACHES TO BIBLICAL INERANCY
Submitted to
Liberty Theological Seminary
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
For completion of the course,
THEO 525
SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY I
DR. GREG ENOS
October 11, 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Thesis Statement 3
Introduction 3
Inerrancy Defined 3
Concepts of Inerrancy 6
Critique of Concepts of Inerrancy …show more content…
8
Inerrancy and the Phenomena of Scripture 10
Critique of Approaches to Inerrancy 12
Conclusion 13
Bibliography 14
THESIS STATEMENT
This student affirms the position that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God; this position is best upheld by the concept of full inerrancy, and approached through moderate harmonization.
INTRODUCTION
The Christian faith holds to the beliefs of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ the Son of God, of God the Creator of all living things, and the Trinity, among other beliefs.
More importantly, the entire Christian faith has its foundation on the authority of the Scriptures. But what if fault were to be found in the Bible? To find error in the Scriptures would invalidate the church, Christianity and God himself. This necessitates a study of the inerrancy of the Scriptures. By gaining a thorough understanding of inerrancy Christians will be better equipped to understand and communicate what we believe and why we believe …show more content…
it.
The purpose of the paper is to determine the proper concept and approach to biblical inerrancy. Several definitions and concepts of inerrancy will be discussed. Also, different conceptions of inerrancy; including absolute, full, limited and inerrancy of purpose will be examined. The different approaches to biblical inerrancy and the strengths and weaknesses of each will also be listed. From the research a conclusion will be drawn as to which concepts and approaches to inerrancy are the most biblical and offer the most balance while maintaining the credibility of the church, the Scriptures, and the Lord our God.
INERRANCY DEFINED
In order to gain an understanding of inerrancy it becomes necessary to determine the meaning of its root, error. The Merriam-Webster dictionary lists several definitions for the word error. The first definition describes error as an action. It is defined as: an act involving an unintentional deviation from truth or accuracy; an act that through ignorance, deficiency or accident departs from or fails to achieve what should be done. The second definition refers to error as a quality or state; the difference between an observed or calculated value and a true value; a deficiency or imperfection in structure or function.1 For the purposes of this paper, the implication of ‘error’ will include both of the above definitions. These definitions support the dual nature of inerrancy; the Bible does not contradict itself, nor does it lie. The doctrine of inerrancy is supported by the principle that the Scriptures are the direct Word of God. The Bible is completely true because God cannot lie. Therefore, scripture “truly and properly speaking God’s Word, it will not deceive nor err.”2 The word “inerrancy” derives from the Latin inerrans which means “not wandering” or “fixed.” It is defined as “the theological conviction that the Bible is completely truthful and accurate in every respect about all it affirms.”3 One of the most prominent declarations on biblical inerrancy is found in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, which affirms: Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives.4 Feinberg gives an equally in depth definition: “inerrancy means that when all facts are known, the Scriptures in their original autographs and properly interpreted will be shown to be wholly true in everything that they affirm, whether that has to do with doctrine or morality or with the social, physical, or life sciences.”5 Several scholars and theologians have also proposed similar definitions. Erickson defines inerrancy as the doctrine that “The Bible, when correctly interpret in light of the level to which culture and the means of communication had developed at the time it was written, and in view of the purpose for which it was given, is fully truthful in all that it affirms.”6 Elmer Towns writes that the Bible is “accurate, reliable, authoritative and without error.”7 Perhaps the simplest definition is offered in Charles C. Ryrie’s Basic Theology in which he writes, “the inerrancy of the Bible means simply that the Bible tells the truth.”8
Several terms have been used synonymously or in conjunction with inerrancy. The most common of these is the term ‘infallible.’ While at one point they were used synonymously, recent definitions make a distinction between the two. Infallibility is defined as “that which will not deceive or lead to error;”9 “the quality of being unfailing or not liable to fail.”10 Stephen Andrew uses the following distinction: “The Bible is inerrant if and only if it makes no false or misleading statements on any topic whatsoever. The Bible is infallible if and only if it makes not false or misleading statements on any matter of faith and practice.”11 Helm goes on to clarify that, “Inerrancy focuses our attention exclusively on questions of truth and falsehood, whereas the older term, ‘‘infallibility,’’ when applied to Scripture, lays emphasis upon the fact that the Bible is an unfailing guide to whoever may read it, and especially to the Christian and the church, for the purpose for which it was given.12
Inspiration; that which moves humans to receive divine truth,13 is also frequently applied to the inerrancy debate. Historically, the church has always held to the inerrancy of the Bible. From the time of Jesus, the Scriptures have been regarded as the authoritative, inspired Word of God; “God’s speaking in written form.”14 God’s Word can be depended on because God is dependable. Consequently, inerrancy and inspiration have a direct relationship.15
CONCEPTS OF INERRANCY
The meaning of inerrancy has been hotly debated among scholars and theologians alike. Several variations exist on what inerrancy should entail. Millard Erickson notes, “The term inerrancy means different things to different people, who contend over which position properly deserves to be called by that name.”16 Each of these conceptions attempts to explain the meaning of inerrancy. Absolute Inerrancy
Perhaps the most rigid stance on the meaning of inerrancy is that of Harold Lindsell.
In his book The Battle for the Bible, Lindsell asserts that the Bible “does not contain error of any kind.”17 This is the concept of absolute inerrancy, which is defined by Erickson as is the position “that the Bible, which includes rather detailed treatment of matters both scientific and historical, is fully true.” 18Absolute inerrancy holds that everything in is intentional—that the Bible set out to give an accurate accounting of specific historical and scientific events, and that any contradiction found in the Bible can and must be explained. In fact, Lindsell goes to great measures to reconcile several biblical discrepancies commonly pointed out; noting that while they can certainly be explained, accuracy must be judged based on the context of the time in which it was written.19
Full Inerrancy
Similar to but less rigid than absolute inerrancy, is the concept of full inerrancy. Full inerrancy differs from absolute inerrancy in that it maintains that while the Bible did not set out to give historical and scientific data, the historical and scientific accounts of the Bible are indeed accurate. This view takes into account the fact that biblical authors were in fact human; the historical and scientific aspects of the Bible are correct although not necessarily exact. Erickson describes them as “popular descriptions,” and “general references;” noting that “what they teach is correct in the way
they teach it.”20
Limited Inerrancy
Limited inerrancy draws a distinction between doctrinal verses and those which are merely human observations. Under its umbrella, the Bible is fully true in all of its salvific doctrines; but its historical and scientific data is limited to the understanding of times of its day. Like full inerrancy, the concept of limited inerrancy recognizes the humanity of biblical authors; noting that God did not reveal scientific or historical matters which were not of biblical concern.21
Inerrancy of Purpose
Inerrancy of purpose is somewhat similar to limited inerrancy in that it makes distinctions. However, this position distinguishes isolates the verse which help the Bible to fulfill its purpose, seeing all other material as incidental. Inerrancy of purpose maintains that the purpose of the Bible is to bring people to salvation and a personal relationship with God rather than to convey truth. Therefore, the Bible is completely inerrant in accomplishing this purpose.
CRITIQUE OF CONCEPTS OF INERRANCY
One asset for those who hold to absolute inerrancy is the position of great faith from which they come. Such strong faith is certainly admirable and necessary to uphold such a staunch position. Absolute inerrancy supporters believe that the Bible cannot contain errors and be trustworthy at the same time. Those things which may seem to be errors in the Bible are merely difficulties which can be explained; however explanations must be limited to the understanding of the time in which it was written. This is where apparent weaknesses come into play, as formulating an explanation for every difficulty will undoubtedly take a considerable amount of effort. Also, current explanations for the various difficulties in the Bible are certainly limited to the understanding of current times.
Lindsell devotes an entire chapter to reconciling biblical discrepancies; a famous example being his explanation of the Molten Sea discrepancy. In Chronicles 4:2 the diameter and circumference of the sea is listed as 10 cubits and 30 cubits respectively.22 However, the circumference of a circle is known to be 3.14. Lindsell’s explanation for this discrepancy is that the circumference of the Molten Sea was actually measured from the inside. As logical and accurate as Lindsell’s methods and results seem, his explanation was still limited to his own understanding of pi=3.14. This seems to defeat his assertion that accuracy of the Scripture must be judged according to the prevailing standards of the time.”23 There is also no solid way to prove that Lindsell is inerrant in his explanation.
Both limited inerrancy and inerrancy of purpose maintain that the Bible is inerrant in matters related to salvation. However, there must be some unified principle to determine what things are to be considered related and irrelevant. Therefore, both include a measure of subjectivism. It also seems that the word “limited” invalidates the word “inerrancy.” If he meaning of inerrant is that which does not err, limiting that implies that error is indeed a possibility.
Of the several conceptions of inerrancy, the position of full inerrancy offers the most balance and credibility. Full inerrancy holds to the inerrancy of the Bible while allowing for certain writings to be estimations or even descriptions of how certain events occurred. Like inerrancy of purpose, full inerrancy maintains that the Bible accurately accomplishes its purpose; however full inerrancy supports do not believe the Bible to purposefully historical or scientific. The Bible supports the idea that its goal is not to keep scientific or historical records in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 which says the Bible “is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”
INERRANCY AND THE PHENOMENA OF SCRIPTURE
While the term inerrancy is not found in the Bible, several Scriptures actually support its veracity. 2 Timothy 3:16 states, “All Scripture is God-breathed.” 2 Peter 1:21 says that, “… prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” We can attest to the truthfulness of God’s words because, as the Bible says, God cannot lie (1 Samuel 15:29, Numbers 23:19, Hebrews 6:18). Also, Psalms 12:6 and Proverbs 30:5 assert that every word of God is without flaw. Although the Bible is the inspired Word of God, its authors were undeniably human. Several books in the Bible contain different accountings of the same events. Some examples of this can be found in the case of the Molten Sea,24 and the contradictory chronology found throughout the Bible.25 Because of this, several approaches have been proposed in attempts to explain contradictions found in biblical accounts.
Abstract Approach
The first approach is the abstract approach advocated by B.B. Warfield. Warfield’s approach is an historical approach based on the dependability of the Bible throughout the ages. This conviction leads him to believe that what the Bible says about itself is indeed true. As a result, difficulties found in the Bible, while they should be addressed, have no need for explanation.26 This abstract approach asserts that difficulties in any faith are to be expected, and that one cannot wait until all the difficulties have been reconciled in order to believe.27
Harmonistic Approach
The harmonistic approach also has its foundation in the doctrine of inspiration. This approach is advocated by E.J. Young who believes it is not necessary biblical accountings to be identical in order for them to be infallible. Young acknowledges that the biblical authors were human; and though they were inspired by the Holy Spirit, the way they conveyed the message was subject to their humanity.28 Supporters of this approach believe that difficulties can be solved using currently available data.29 Again, Lindsell’s examples in The Battle for the Bible are used as representations of this idea.30
Moderate Harmonization
The moderate harmonization is a variation of the harmonistic approach. Everett Harrison advocates this approach. He woefully observes the recent accusations that “The Bible may contain the Word of God, or be the vehicle for the Word…but can no longer be equated with the Word itself;”31 and that “verbal inspiration could hold the field only so long as the divine factor in its composition was magnified to neglect the human.”32 Harrison acknowledges the discrepancies found between different biblical accountings; such as chronology and the Gospels. He asserts that difficulties can be resolved as more information becomes available. The moderate harmonization approach maintains, as Erickson writes, “if we had all the data, we might resolve all the problems.”33
Other Approaches Erickson lists two other notable approaches to the phenomena of scripture. The first is to “adopt the position that inspiration guarantees only accurate reproduction of the sources the Scripture writer employed, not correction of them. Thus, is the source contained an erroneous reference, the Scripture writer recorded that error just as it was in the source.”34 This approach acknowledges the doctrine of inspiration as well as the humanity of the biblical authors; and seems to be a fallback position of several theologians. The final position listed is the view that the bible is not inerrant, and that difficulties should simply be acknowledged as errors.35
CRITIQUE OF CONCEPTS AND APPROACHES TO INERRANCY
As noted above, the most biblical and logical concept of inerrancy is the position of full inerrancy. It now becomes necessary to determine the proper approach to be used in conjunction with full inerrancy. While the abstract approach faithfully relies on the Scriptures as inspiration from God, this would not be the best epistemological approach. One of the primary tasks of the Christian faith is to spread the Gospel. When approached by an unbeliever’s questions on inerrancy, the tautological abstract approach can actually defeat itself.
The harmonistic approach, though based on the doctrine of inspiration, seems to place too much faith in one’s ability to interpret the Scriptures. Lindsell’s explanation of biblical discrepancies shows a good example of this. Those who use this approach attempt to explain biblical contradictions by using currently known information. However, this approach is subject to human understanding, the principle which warrants the question of inerrancy itself.
The most complementary approach to full inerrancy is that of moderate harmonization. . This approach upholds the inerrancy of the Scriptures while acknowledging that discrepancies may exist due to the lack of available data. The Bible makes it known that man’s understanding is limited. This is evident in Deuteronomy 29:29 which reads: “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law.”36
CONCLUSION
The inerrancy debate is an important theological issue, as inerrancy is vital to the Christian faith. Without it, the very foundation on which we stand becomes shaky. Should the Bible be found to err, the entire Christian faith and even God himself would lack authenticity. The Bible is the inspired Word of God. It is the law on which we believe; it is God’s interaction with his creation, and the expression of his love. Erickson defines inerrancy of Scripture as “the doctrine that the Bible is fully truthful in all of its teachings”37 This definition supports this student’s view on biblical inerrancy. This student fully believes in the inerrancy of God’s Word, and that man should approach the Scriptures as the finite beings we are. There are things we may not be meant to understand; 2 Corinthians 2:11 states, “…no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God.”38 However, we can trust that the Bible will fulfill all its promises, because we can faithfully put our trust in God.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Andrew, Stephen L. “Biblical Inerrancy.” Chafer Theological Seminary Journal 8, no. 1
(January 2002): 3-21. Accessed September 24, 2013. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/article/ctsj08-1-01
Elwell, Walter A. ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001.
Enns, Paul. Moody Handbook of Theology. Chicago, IL: Moody, 2008.
Erickson, Millard. Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998.
Geisler, Norman L. and William C. Roach. Defending Inerrancy: Affirming the Accuracy of
Scripture for a New Generation. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011.
Geisler, Norman. Inerrancy. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980.
Harrison, Everett F. “The Phenomena of Scripture.” In Revelation and the Bible: Contemporary Evangelical Thought, edited by Carl F.H. Henry, 237-250. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958. Accessed October 1, 2013. http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/rev-henry/15_phenomena_harrison.pdf
Helm, Paul. “B.B. Warfield’s Path to Inerrancy: An Attempt to Correct Some Serious Misunderstandings.” Westminster Theological Journal 72, no. 1 (Spring 2010): 23-42.
Accessed September 24, 2013. http://www.galaxie.com.ezproxy.liberty.edu:2048/article/wtj72-1-02
Lindsell, Harold. The Battle for the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976.
McKim, Donald K. The Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms. Louisville: John Knox, 1996.
Poythress, Vern Sheridan. Inerrancy and the Gospels: A God Centered Approach to the Challenges of Harmonization. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012.
Preus, Robert. “The Inerrancy of Scripture.” In The Proceedings of the Conference on Biblical Inerrancy. Nashville: Broadman, 1987.
Ryrie, Charles C. Basic Theology: A Popular Systematic Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth. Chicago: Moody, 1999.
Towns, Elmer L. Theology for Today. Belmont: Wadsworth, 2001.
Young, Edward Joseph. Thy Word is Truth: Some Thoughts on the Biblical Doctrine of Inspiration. London: Banner of Truth, 1963.
Zaspel, Fred G. The Theology of B.B. Warfield: A Systematic Summary. Wheaton: Crossway, 2010.