Basic Theology CH12
THE INERRANCY OF THE BIBLE
Attacks on the inerrancy of the Bible are not new and seem to be somewhat cyclical. However, the contemporary debate seems to be an intramural one; that is, it is among evangelicals, rather than between liberals and conservatives. Perhaps this makes it even more significant, for the debate has drawn lines among evangelicals that needed to be drawn. It has also served to sharpen distinctions that surround the concept of inerrancy.
I. THE IMPORTANCE OF INERRANCY
A. Its Importance Stated
Can one be an evangelical and deny the full concept of inerrancy? The answer is yes, simply because some evangelicals do. Strictly speaking, an evangelical is one who believes the Gospel. Can one be a Christian and not accept the concept of inerrancy? Of course, and undoubtedly many fall into that category. To be a Christian means being rightly related to Christ. Can one be a biblicist and deny inerrancy? Not if the Bible teaches its own inerrancy.
How important is this doctrine then? If it is a biblical teaching, then to deny it is to deny part of the truthfulness of the Bible. But consider this: If the Bible contains some errors, however few or many, how can one be sure that his understanding of Christ is correct? Perhaps one of those errors concerns something about the life of Christ. It would not be impossible that there might be an error about the crucial matter of His death and resurrection. What then would happen to one’s Christology? It would be changed, perhaps even so drastically that there would be no Christian faith to embrace.
Or suppose the biblical teaching on the Holy Spirit were inaccurate. This could affect the cardinal doctrine of the Trinity, which in turn could also seriously affect Christology, soteriology, and sanctification. Even if the errors are supposedly in “minor” matters, any error opens the Bible to suspicion on other points that may not be so “minor.” If inerrancy falls, other doctrines will fall too.
When inerrancy is denied one may expect some serious fallout in both doctrinal and practical areas.
Some doctrinal matters that may be affected by denying inerrancy include the following:
(1) A denial of the historical fall of Adam.
(2) A denial of the facts of the experiences of the prophet Jonah.
(3) An explaining away of some of the miracles of both the Old and New Testaments.
(4) A denial of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.
(5) A belief in two or more authors of the Book of Isaiah.
(6) A flirting with or embracing of liberation theology with its redefining of sin (as societal rather than individual) and salvation (as political and temporal rather than spiritual and eternal).
Some lifestyle errors that may follow a denial of inerrancy include the following:
(1) A loose view of the seriousness of adultery.
(2) A loose view of the seriousness of homosexuality.
(3) A loose view of divorce and remarriage.
(4) “Cultural” reinterpretation of some of the teachings of the Bible (e.g., teaching on women, teaching on civil obedience).
(5) A tendency to view the Bible through a modern psychological grid.
Inerrancy is an important doctrine, the denial or even diluting of which may result in serious doctrinal and life errors.
II. THE MEANING OF INERRANCY
Definitions of inerrancy are not plentiful. Errantists equate inerrancy with infallibility and then limit its scope to matters of faith and practice or to revelational matters or to the message of salvation. An example of this: “The Bible is infallible, as I define that term, but not inerrant. That is, there are historical and scientific errors in the Bible, but I have found none on matters of faith and practice.” At least this is an honest distinction between infallibility and inerrancy.
III. THE INCARNATION AND INERRANCY
The logic of some still insists that anything involving humanity has to allow for the possibility of sin. So as long as the Bible is both a divine and human Book the possibility and actuality of errors exist.
Let’s examine that premise. Is it always inevitable that sin is involved where humanity is?
If you were tempted to respond affirmatively, an exception probably came to mind almost immediately. The title of this section could have put the clue in your mind. The exception is our Lord Jesus Christ. He was the God-man, and yet His humanity did not involve sin. So He serves as a clear example of an exception to the logic pressed by people who believe in errancy.
The true doctrine of the God-man states that He possessed the full and perfect divine nature and a perfect human nature and that these were united in one person forever. His deity was not in any detail diminished; His humanity was not in any way sinful or unreal, but sinless; and in His one Person His natures were without mixture, change, division, or separation.
Similarly, the Bible is a divine-human Book. Though it originated from God, it was actually written by man. It is God’s Word, conveyed through the Holy Spirit. Sinful men wrote that Word but did so without error. Just as in the Incarnation, Christ took humanity but was not tainted in any way with sin, so the production of the Bible was not tainted with any errors.
Let me take the analogy further. In the humanity of Jesus Christ there were some features that were not optional. He had to be a Jew. He could not have been a Gentile. He had to be a man, not a woman. He had to be sinless, not sinful. But some features of sinless humanity might be termed optional. Jesus could have possessed perfect humanity within a variation of a few inches in height at maturity, though a dwarf or a giant would have been imperfect. He might have varied a little in weight at maturity and still have been perfect. Surely, within limits, the number of hairs on his scalp could have been a sinless option. However, the humanity He exhibited was, in fact, perfect humanity.
The writers of the Bible were not passive. They wrote as borne along by the Spirit, and in those writings some things could not have been said any other way. Paul insisted on the singular rather than the plural in Galatians 3:16. But conceivably there were some sinless options as in Paul’s emotional statement in Romans 9:1–3. Yet the Bible we have is in fact the perfect