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.

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.

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.

Here's Part Three of my paper on inerrancy. Part One and Part Two discussed the definition.

A Defense of the Bible?s Claim to Inerrancy

           With an appropriate definition of inerrancy in hand, the next step is to assess whether or not the Bible claims inerrancy for itself, and if it does, to what degree it does so. Philosopher Stephen T. Davis said no. ?The Bible does not teach inerrancy, nor does inerrancy seem to be presupposed or implied by what it does teach.?[1] He was correct in that the Bible does not explicitly teach inerrancy. As with many church doctrines, such as the trinity, the term inerrancy is not in the text. New terms are usually introduced to help distinguish between differing views about a subject, even if the views are not new. Thus, inerrantists believe that though the term inerrancy is not in the Bible, the concept is implicitly taught therein.

            The first passage most people turn to when discussing the integrity of the Bible is 2 Timothy 3:16-17. ?All scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.?(ESV[2]) The claim for divine authorship of scripture is of primary importance. The Bible is not simply inspired as a poet might be inspired by a beautiful sunset. Scripture was ?breathed out? by God, meaning its origin and authorship comes from Him. ?All? likely refers to the Old Testament, so this claims that every bit of the Old Testament is the Word of God. The word for ?scripture? indicates that the subject is the written record of the Old Testament rather than the simply the concepts or intentions of the record[3]. So, this passage claims divine authorship for every writing contained in the Old Testament.

            Several other passages attribute Old Testament writings to God, such as Hebrews 1:1, John 10:34-35, and 2 Peter 1:19-21. Clearly, the Bible regards Old Testament scripture as the very words of God, but what of the New Testament? The most comprehensive statement is found in 2 Peter 3:16, where the author equates Paul?s writings with ?the other Scriptures,? the Old Testament. Paul also made several claims throughout his letters that he was speaking for God[4]. Since Paul?s writings account for a large portion of the New Testament, this covers a lot of ground.

One of John?s letters is broader but less clear: ?We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth from the spirit of error.? (1 John 4:6, ESV) ?We? likely refers to the apostles, the witnesses of Christ discipled to teach His words. The claim to have God?s authority assumes some sort of inspiration (See also 1:5). The point is strengthened when coupled with Jesus? promise in John 14:26 that the Holy Spirit ?will bring to rememberance all that I have said to you? (ESV). It is believed by many that all the books of the New Testament were written by the apostles, either directly or indirectly. If this is the case, then this point strongly suggests that all of the accepted New Testament is to be regarded as the words of God[5].

My paper on inerrancy continued...

Part 1

          Precisely what details are affirmed by scripture is a hermeneutical question; therefore, people can agree about inerrancy but differ on theological details such as the age of the earth. Pertinent to the definition of inerrancy is the question of whether every category of affirmations is included, or whether only some categories are included. Even the Fuller statement above implies that the Bible does make historical assertions. They simply deny that such assertions must categorically be true. According to them, only the primary or ultimate purpose of the Bible must be true. ?The purpose of the Bible is not substitute for human science. The purpose of the Bible is to warn against human sin and offer us God?s salvation in Christ. Scripture infallibly achieves that purpose."[1] In contrast, the traditional view of inerrancy does not draw such a severe distinction between the Bible?s primary purpose and any other purpose God may have had for it. Full inerrancy entails that every affirmation of the Bible is true regardless of the affirmation?s category or immediate purpose.

            An important qualifier is inherent in the definition of inerrancy. When asserting that the Bible is true in all that it affirms, inerrantists are speaking of the original manuscripts. Full inerrantists do not claim inerrancy for the manuscripts currently in possession. That would entail some sort of inerrant transmission that is neither claimed by the Bible nor reasonably possible considering the many discrepancies between manuscripts. However, the admission of modern discrepancies does not make the doctrine of inerrancy irrelevant. If the text had errors to begin with, then accumulated more errors through centuries of transmission, confidence in the reliability and subsequent authority of the text could not be strong. However, if the text was originally without error, and it can be shown that few or no substantial changes have been made through transmission, then confidence in the integrity and authority of the text ought to be strong. Greg Bahnsen concluded his outstanding chapter on this subject noting ?the results of textual criticism confirm that we possess a biblical text that is substantially identical with the autographa? Accordingly the doctrine of original inerrancy can be commended to all believers who are sensitive to the authority of the Bible as the very Word of God and who wish to propagate it as such today.?[2]

    At the foundation of Christian doctrine lies the integrity and authority of the Old and New Testaments. Though it is typically claimed that specific beliefs about the Bible are not necessary for salvation, they do provide the logical foundation for necessary beliefs such as Jesus? death being the necessary and sufficient sacrifice for human sin. Due to its foundational role, the Christian view of the Bible is not a subject to be taken lightly.

Historically, Christians have affirmed the utter truth of the scripture, claiming its divine authorship renders it trustworthy and authoritative. With the advent of textual criticism, however, many Christians have sought to uphold the authority of the Bible, while at the same time admitting it contains certain kinds of errors. This paper will first explore a suitable definition for inerrancy, the historical position of the church universal, followed by a biblical and theological defense for the Bible?s claim to be inerrant. Potential objections will then be considered, and the paper will conclude with consideration for why the Bible?s claim to inerrancy is important. The ultimate argument presented in this paper is directed to Christians who affirm the Bible?s truthfulness in matters of faith and practice, but deny its inerrancy in other categories.

Defining the Doctrine of Inerrancy

            Some authors needlessly complicate the defining of inerrancy. Some, such as Clark Pinnock, suggest ?inerrancy begs clear definition.?[1] However, it is only those who deny the full inerrancy of the Bible who seem to be confused. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, for example, clearly defines inerrancy as ?being free from all falsehood, fraud or deceit.? Millard Erickson sheds more light on this: ?The Bible, when correctly interpreted 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 purposes for which it was given, is fully truthful in all that it affirms.?[2]

           There is nothing unclear or confusing about the definition of inerrancy unless it is limited in its application and thus used in a non-traditional[3] manner. Limitations commonly suggested deal with matters of history, science, and geography. A statement on Fuller Theological Seminary?s website put it this way: ?Where the focus switches to an undue emphasis on matters like chronological details, precise sequence of events, and numerical allusions, we would consider the term misleading and inappropriate.?[4] Christians in this camp usually consider their position to be ?limited inerrancy? or simply ?infallibility? (meaning they affirm Scripture?s infallibility but not its full inerrancy). Thus, by looking at what is denied by those in the limited inerrancy camp, a clearer picture emerges of traditional or full inerrancy. Limited inerrancy claims that even if scripture affirms certain types of historical details, those affirmations are not necessarily true, and in some cases ?clearly? false, even though they were divinely authored. Alternatively, full inerrancy means that if scripture affirms something, that affirmation is true and trustworthy due to its divine source.

"The goodie two shoes, jocks, athletes and other 'good' kids are now going to Facebook. These kids tend to come from families who emphasize education and going to college." MySpace is still home for "kids whose parents didn't go to college, who are expected to get a job when they finish high school."

Facebook began as, and is still, primarily focused around college networks. So it seems it should follow that there is more of an upper-class atmosphere there than on Myspace. I think aesthetics also has something to do with it as well. Many people on Myspace overload their profiles with obtrusive graphics and obnoxious music (not to mention the ads). Facebook, on the hand, has a consistently clean and professional look, which is likely more preferred by educated and professional consumers.*

One implication of this division (general as it is), is that advertises will likely go where the consumers have more money, and this is likely to be Facebook. In the long run, I suspect Facebook will be more profitable.

However, I think it?s more interesting (and profitable) for us to consider how Christians can use these networks for God?s glory. Due to Facebook?s group features, I think it provides more avenues for discussion and connecting with non-Christians. I?m suggesting Christians abandon Myspace, but I am suggesting our time may be most economically spent in Facebook if we are to engage these networks for advancing God?s kingdom.

I?ll have a bit more to say about this in the coming days, but I?m interested in your feedback. Those of you who have dabbled in these networks, what opportunities do you see for evangelism or Christian community? Even if you?ve stayed away from these networks, I?m interested in your reasons for dis-involvement.

* It should also be noted that many people participate in both networks. Unfortunately, I haven?t seen any statistics noting how many are in both.

Here is the video...

Some fellow bloggers have been posting lists of book titles they'd like to see published. The Reformed Baptist Thinker has my favorites, but also check out Pyromaniacs ( I think they started it) and Triablogue. I decided to join in on the fun... so here's what we might see if these people changed their minds about things they're passionate about:
[Please note: These are jokes. If I wanted to accuse anyone on anything, I would provide a well laid out argument.]

Believers Under Water: The True Reformed View of Baptism by Kim Riddlebarger & R. Scott Clark

Wasting Ages: Why You Shouldn't Spend Any of Your Time Worrying About the Age of the Earth by Hugh Ross & Ken Ham

The Unchanging Truths About Prophecy Throughout the Bible by Wayne Grudem

In, With, and Over It: Why Lutherans Should Give Up Their Confusing View of the Lord?s Supper by Rod Rosenbladt

Philobiblion Christi: How God?s Word Trumps Man?s Philosophies by William Lane Craig & J.P. Moreland

He Isn?t Perfect: 10 Things I Don?t Like about George W. Bush by Hugh Hewitt

Our Prophetic God: God?s Sovereign Knowledge of All Things Past, Present and Future by Greg A. Boyd

Oops! A Dozen or So Centuries of Ecclesiastical & Theological Mistakes by Pope Benedict XVI

A Postmodern Creed: What I Truly Believe in Plain English by Brian D. McLaren

God?s Glory Now: How to Stop Living For Yourself & Give Everything to God by Joel Olsteen

Discovering Biblical Hierarchy: Examining the Plethora of Verses We Twisted in Order to Advance Our Feminist Agenda by CBE (Christians for Biblical Equality)

I consider myself a forgiving guy. I actually have a difficult time holding grudges against people, and I can only think of one or two people who have caused me to struggle with the practice.

That is, except for when I think of myself. When I consider Roger Overton, I can be the most critical and unforgiving person you might ever meet. The worst of it led me into a very serious depression for about a month, and that continued as a less serious depression for another eleven months (this was several years ago).

How is it that I can forgive others so easily but I run myself into the ground even for lesser offenses? It?s because I hold myself to a higher standard than anyone else. In my mind, it?s okay for those around me to slip occasionally, but I ought to be better than that. It?s not so much that I think that I should be better than other people, but I hold myself to a high standard regardless of what standards those around me live up to.

I know other people have struggled with this problem as well, so I?d like to share how I?ve been dealing with it in hopes that it might help you. At some point it occurred to me that my inability to forgive myself is actually a pride issue and a source of further sin.

While my personal standards are rather high, God?s standard is much higher: perfection. In reality, I fail to meet His standards far more often than I fail my own. Yet, if Christ has died for my sins (and I believe He has), then God is no longer holding my sins against me (Isaiah 43:25, 1 John 1:9). What does it mean if God can forgive me for not living up to His perfect standard but I can?t forgive myself for failing at a lesser standard? It means that I think my standards are higher than God?s, and that is a rather prideful sin. It also involves disobedience since we are repeatedly commanded to forgive (Matthew 6:14-15, Ephesians 4:32). Certainly those commandments include us under the umbrella of our grace toward others.

Indeed, we are called to forget our past. Philippians 3:13-14 ?Brothers, I do not consider that I have made it my own. But one thing I do: forgetting what lies behind and straining forward to what lies ahead, I press on toward the goal for the prize of the upward call of God in Christ Jesus.? We cannot ?strain forward to what lies ahead? if we are stuck in our past sins. We cannot press on toward the goal if we are looking backward.

The way forward is marked with repentance; not self-condemnation. I?ve found that the best I can do to practice God?s grace in my life is to avoid wallowing in my guilt and direct my frustrations toward doing better in the future by the power of His Holy Spirit. Withholding forgiveness from ourselves is at best unproductive and at worse sinful. If we truly want to practice God?s grace in our lives, we must forgive ourselves out of humility and submission to God?s amazing grace, and repent toward a life that brings glory to God and enjoys Him forever.

?For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit.? -1 Peter 3:18