Session 8
I I n n e e r r r r a a n n c c y y
Do D oe es s t t he h e B Bi ib bl le e e er rr r? ?
Q Q u u es e st t io i on ns s: :
1. Can the Scriptures err and Christianity still be true?
2. Can the Scriptures err and still be inspired?
3. Do the Scriptures contain inconsistencies?
4. How do we explain the apparent contradictions?
Can the Scriptures err and Christianity still be true?
Can the Scriptures err and still be inspired?
Ar A rg gu um me en n t t s s f fo or r I In ne er rr ra a nc n cy y: :
1. If the Scriptures are “God-breathed,” representing the voice of God, and God is without error, and then the Scriptures are without error.
Premise 1: God is truthful and therefore beyond error (2 Sam. 7:28; Titus 1:2; Heb. 6:18).
Premise 2: God is the ultimate author of Scripture (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet.
1:20–21).
Conclusion: Scripture is truthful and therefore beyond error.
2. If Scripture contains historical and/or scientific error, then its entire theological message is placed in jeopardy, since the theological message of Scripture is based upon the historical. Who has the ability to judge what is accurate and what is not?
3. Inerrancy is inherently tied to absolute authority. Any denial of inerrancy produces a slippery slope in which the one who denies this doctrine is open to deny the authority of Scripture on any matter.
4. The Bible does not contain any errors.
Premise: The Bible does not contain any errors.
Conclusion: The Bible is inerrant.
Premise: Everything the Bible says is true according to the intention to which it was written.
Conclusion: The Bible is true (i.e., inerrant).
C C h h i i c c a a g g o o S S t t a a t t e e m m e e n n t t o o f f B B i i b b l l i i c c a a l l I I n n e e r r r r a a n n c c y y
Select Articles
Article IV
We affirm that God who made mankind in His image has used language as a means of revelation.
We deny that human language is so limited by our creatureliness that it is rendered inadequate as a vehicle for divine revelation. We further deny that the corruption of human culture and language through sin has thwarted God's work of inspiration.
Article VI
We affirm that the whole of Scripture and all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration.
We deny that the inspiration of Scripture can rightly be affirmed of the whole without the parts, or of some parts but not the whole.
Article VII
We affirm that God in His work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared.
We deny that God, in causing these writers to use the very words that He chose, overrode their personalities.
Article IX
We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.
We deny that the finitude or falseness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God's Word.
Article XI
We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.
We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished but not separated.
Article XII
We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.
We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual,
religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.
Article XIII
We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.
We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that
inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of metrical, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.
Article XIX
We affirm that a confession of the full authority, infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture is vital to a sound understanding of the whole of the Christian faith.
We further affirm that such confession should lead to increasing conformity to the image of Christ.
We deny that such confession is necessary for salvation. However, we further deny that inerrancy can be rejected without grave consequences, both to the
O O b b je j ec ct ti io on n s s to t o In I n er e rr ra a nc n cy y
1. Since the Scriptures were written by man, we should expect them to accurately reflect the characteristic in all men which is error. To deny error in Scripture is to deny the humanity of Scripture.
“To err is human”
Premise 1: Human beings err.
Premise 2: The Bible is a human book.
Conclusion: The Bible errs.
2. Inerrancy only applies to the original manuscripts (autographa). Since we do not have the original manuscripts, it is irrelevant to talk about
inerrancy.
3. The Bible contains errors; therefore, the Bible is not inerrant.
Re R es sp p on o n se s e t t o o o ob bj je ec ct ti io on ns s t to o i in ne er rr ra an nc cy y: :
1. While it is true that the Bible is a human work, and humans often err, it is also true that it is a divine work, and God does not err. It is not necessary to err to be human.
If that argument was true, then this argument would be true as well:
Premise 1: Human beings err.
Premise 2: Christ is a human being.
Conclusion: Christ errs.
The fallacy of this argument lies in the premise that to err is human.
• Human beings must err.
• Human beings can err.
2. While it is true that we do not have the original manuscripts of Scripture, this does not invalidate the doctrine of inerrancy; it simply makes textual criticism all the more important. Through the science of textual criticism we learn that the Scriptures are preserved with 95 percent accuracy and that we have access to the originals through diligent study and research. In other words, textual criticism does not invalidate inerrancy, but inerrancy validates textual criticism.
3. When the original context and intention is understood, taking into account the science of textual criticism, all alleged errors are shown to be based upon either faulty hermeneutics or scribal errors.