Return to Syllabus

BY THE AUTHOR
Dr. W. Robert Cook, Th.D

Scriptures,
partly by reason of their own simplicity
and partly through the divine illumination,
are plain and perspicuous in all things necessary to salvation,
and adapted to even the instruction of the most unlearned,
through the medium of diligent and constant reading.

John Milton (1608-1674)


Lamp of our feet, whereby w trace
Our path when wont to stray;
Stream from the fount of heavenly grace,
Brook by the traveler’s way.

Word of the ever-living God,
Will of His glorious Son,
Without Thee how could earth be trod,
Or heaven itself be won?

Bernard Barton (1784-1849)


Holy Father, Thou has given
Holy truth from highest heaven;
Words of counsel wise and pure,
Words of praise bright and sure;
Light that guides us back to Thee,
Back to peace and purity.

William Bruce (1812...1882)

Because the written Word of God is revealed and inspired as previously described it bears certain marks or characteristics. Although they are interrelated they are nonetheless distinguishable.

I.       It Is Inerrant and Infallible

It has long been claimed by liberal theologians and it is currently asserted by some evangelicals ^[1] that because the term “inerrancy" is of relatively recant coinage the idea set forth therein is foreign to the historic doctrine of the church. This charge has been shown to be unfounded by specific references to the church fathers themselves. ^[2]The often quoted statement by Augustine in a letter to Jerome is worthy of repeating in this connection:

I have learnt to ascribe to those Books which are of Canonical rank, and only to them, such reverence and honor, that I firmly believe that no single error due to the author is found in any of them. And when I am confronted in these Books with anything that seems to be at variant with truth, I do not hesitate to put it down either to the use of an incorrect text (faulty manuscript), or to the failure of a commentator to rightly explain the words, or to my own mistaken understanding of the passage. ^[3]

Even such an one as Emil Brunner, no friend of inerrancy, admitted that "the doctrine of Verbal Inspiration was already known to pre-Christian Judaism and was probably also taken over by Paul and the rest of the Apostles. ^[4]

In October of 1978 the International Council in Biblical Inerrancy held a meeting at which an extended statement on inerrancy was endorsed by 240 evangelical leaders. A part of that statement is reproduced below as an introduction to this section.

Article I.

We affirm that the Holy Scriptures are to be received as the authoritative Word of God.

We deny that the Scriptures receive their authority from the church, tradition, or any other human source.

Article II.

We affirm that the Scriptures are the supreme written norm by which God binds the conscience, and that the authority of the church is subordinate to that of Scripture.

We deny that church creeds, councils, or declarations have author1ty greater than or equal to the authority of the Bible.

Article III.

We affirm that the written Word in its entirety is revelation given by God.

We deny that the Bible is merely a witness to revelation, or only becomes revelation in encounter, or depends on the responses of men for its validity.

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 V.

We affirm that God's revelation within the Holy Scriptures was progressive.

We deny that later revelation, which may fulfill earlier revelation, ever corrects or contradicts it. We further deny that any normative revelation has been given since the completion of the New Testament writings.

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 inspiration was the work in which God by his Spirit, through human writers, gave us his Word. The origin of Scripture is divine. The mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us.

We deny that inspiration can be reduced to human insight, or to heightened states of consciousness of any kind.

Article VIII.

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 fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduces distortion or falsehood into God's Word.

Article X.

We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of biblical authority invalid or irrelevant.

Article XI.

We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true add 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 material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or use of free citations.

Article XIV.

We affirm the unity and internal consistency of Scripture.

We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible.

Article XV.

We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy is grounded in the teaching of the Bible about inspiration.

We deny that Jesus' teaching about Scripture may be dismissed by appeals to accommodation or to any natural limitation of his humanity.

Article XVI.

We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy has been integral to the Church's faith throughout its history.

We deny that inerrancy is a doctrine invented by scholastic Protestantism, or is a reactionary position postulated in response to negative higher criticism.

Article XVII.

We affirm that the Holy Spirit bears witness to the Scriptures, assuring believers of the truthfulness of God's written Word.

We deny that this witness of the Holy Spirit operates in isolation from or against Scripture.

Article XVIII.

We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatical-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.

We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relitivizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.

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 individual and to the church.

A.      Definition of Terms

When it is said that the scriptures are inerrant it is meant that they are not liable to prove false or mistaken. They possess the quality of freedom from error. They are exempt from the liability of mistake and are incapable of error. The scriptures are in perfect accord with the truth in all their teachings. While it may be said that they are wholly true. After offering his own definition of inerrancy Millard Erickson offered several principles to help clarify what is meant by the term and how it should be used. He states,

1. “Inerrancy pertains to what is affirmed or asserted rather than what is merely reported.” In some cases although the item or statement reported or recorded is reported and recorded accurately it may be a statement of falsehood and thus not normative for faith or life. ^[5]
    

2. “We must judge the truthfulness of Scripture in terms of what the statements meant in the cultural setting in which they were expressed.” An example of this may the use of the word “son” in the genealogies of Genesis five. In current usage the word means an immediate male child; in that culture it had the broader connotation of “descendant” which encompassed our meaning, too.
    

3. “The Bible’s assertions are fully true when judged in accordance with the purpose for which they were written.” All usages of numbers, for example, do not call for the same degree of exactness.
    

4. “Reports of historical events and scientific matters are in phenomenal rather then technical language. That is, the writer reports how things appeared to the eye.” For example, the sun may be said to rise in the morning when in point of technical fact it is the earth which moves." ^[6]
    

5. "Difficulties in explaining the biblical text should not be prejudged as indications of error."

In affirming that the scriptures are infallible we mean that they are incapable of teaching deception. Scripture possesses an indefectible authority. It can never fail in its judgments and statements. Thus it may be said that they are wholly trustworthy and reliable. ^[7] Another way to use this term is to restrict it to the copies, only. In a carefully developed view which avoids extremes this is the position taken by Henry. ^[8]

B.      Defense of the Doctrine

While it is held by some that it is possible to believe in a biblical doctrine of inspiration without full inerrancy, we believe that logical and biblical consistency require that these two doctrines are integral and cannot be separated. Erickson captures the significance of this fact in the following observation:

If God is omniscient, he must know all things. He cannot be ignorant of or in error on any matter. Further, if he is omnipotent, he is able to affect the biblical author's writing that nothing erroneous enters into the final product. And being a truthful or veracious being, he will certainly desire to utilize these abilities in such a way that men will not be misled by the Scriptures. Thus our view of inspiration logically entails the inerrancy of the bible. Inerrancy is a corollary of the doctrine of full inspiration. If, then, it should be shown that the Bible is not fully truthful, our view of inspiration would be in jeopardy. ^[9]

This logic is also well stated by John A. Witmer as follows:

Only with the acceptance of the doctrine of verbal-plenary inspiration of Scripture is the validity of the Bible safe-guarded from deterioration, because only by this doctrine is the existence of the totality of Scripture as "God-breathed” that the Word of God, assured.

The logic involved is simple. To the extent that the verbal-plenary inspiration is modified, infallibility is removed, human error is admitted. Since error cannot be ascribed to God, therefore, to the extent that human error is admitted, divine authorship is removed and purely human authorship remains. To the extent that purely human authorship remains, the authority of God departs.

When the authority of God no longer can be ascribed to all the Bible, then some principle for determining which parts have the authority of God and which do not must be adopted. And when the adoption of such a principle is necessary, the eternal, objective authority of the Bible—the principle of sola Scriptura—is gone, and subjectivism reigns supreme. ^[10]

Despite this logic there are a number of respected evangelical scholars today who are not happy with anything more than a limited inerrancy position. Donald Bloesch, while taking great care to give a balanced and biblical view of scripture, none-the-less can only say, "They did not err in what they proclaimed, but this does not mean that they were faultless in their recording of historical data or in their world view, which is now outdated."  ^[11]

In fairness to Bloesch, it must be noted that his position on qualified inerrancy is different from that of such limited inerrantists as Daniel Fuller. He states of himself,

Our position must not be confused with the 'limited inerrancy' position of Daniel Fuller and others, which discriminates between revelational and non-revelational statements in Scripture on the basis of an inductive, empirical methodology. Instead, we hold that revelation is in all of Scripture, but this divine truth is veiled to the empirical eye. Moreover, we contend that whatever Scripture truly teaches is authoritative and binding, not just what it affirms on matters of faith and salvation. Our position is at the same time a qualified inerrancy because we recognize that the human expression on which scriptural truth comes to us bears the marks of cultural and historical contingency. ^[12]

Another evangelical, Stephen T. Davis has stated,

I believe it is a Christian's responsibility to accept whatever the Bible says on any subject whatsoever unless there is compelling reason not to accept it. That is, everything in the Bible is authoritative and normative for the Christian until he comes across a passage which for good reasons he cannot accept. ^[13]

Earlier in this same work he makes the amazing statement that,

It is true that no Christian who believes that the Bible errs can hold that the Bible alone is his authority for faith and practice. He must hold to some other authority or criterion as well. That authority, I am not embarrassed to say is his own mind, his own ability to reason." ^[14]

Recognizing the validity of Witmer's challenge, “When the authority of God can no longer be ascribed to all of the Bible, then some principle for determining which parts have the authority of God and which do not must be adopted,” various attempts have been made to propound such a principle. Among those suggested are, the intent of the author versus matters not within the purview of his intent.

While authorial intent is an important hermeneutic concern (to avoid the subjective morass of leaving determination of the meaning of the text solely in the mind and milieu of the reader) when used to equivocate the doctrine of inerrancy it becomes a slippery slope. Who is able to say with certainty that a given statement or piece of information is unrelated to the author’s intention?

Another principle sometimes set forward is redemptive versus non-redemptive truth (matters of faith and practice versus all the other matters in the Bible). This principle is spurious, however, and there is no reason to limit the trustworthiness of the record to just redemptive matters. The record is not trustworthy because it deals with redemption. It is trustworthy because it is God-breathed. If we follow the logic that only that which is salvific is inerrant then the entire New Testament would be superfluous, at best, and possibly even errant since people were saved in Old Testament times without the need of the New Testament.

Daniel Fuller ^[15] sets forth another yet similar scheme. It may be described as the principle of revelational versus non-revelational material or inerrancy of purpose (intent) versus inerrancy of fact. He states,

A communication can be in error only if it fails to live up to the intention of its author. In considering the "nature of Biblical inerrancy "we first let the Biblical writers tell us what their intention was in writing and then if they fulfilled this intention, we regard them as inerrant. ^[16]

He goes on to refer to 2 Timothy 3:15 where Paul speaks of the "sacred writings which are able to make thee wise unto salvation" and to 1 Corinthians 2:6-9 where Fuller associates Paul's statement about "secret wisdom" to that which "no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of men conceived." In light of those statements he concludes that the "biblical writers make it clear that their purpose was to report the happenings and meanings of the redemptive acts of God in history so that men might be made wise unto salvation."  ^[17] This kind of reasoning gives no place to the Bible’s won self-claims (e.g., 2 Timothy 3:16) or to the fact of dual authorsh1p. It also is an over simplification since, while redemption is a great purpose it is not the only purpose of the Bible.

Fuller then makes a case for the inerrancy of the Bible's revelational teaching. He even concedes that "…the Bible is amazingly accurate in so many of its allusions to non-revelational matters" and defines “non-revelational matters" as "capable of being checked out by human investigation, that is, knowable by what eye can see and ear can hear."  ^[18] Thus, so-called non-revelational matters are susceptible to error in the biblical record and the determination of whether they are erroneous or not is left up to the reader. This kind of thinking, however, uproots God’s redemptive acts from the warp and woof of history. As Henry points out,

Scripture…expands its redemptive panorama by exhibiting the history in which God has made known the truth about himself end his saving plan. The virgin birth of Jesus is a biological matter and yet is related to the concerns of salvation. Nor can the salvific significance of Jesus Christ be disengaged from his historical resurrection from the dead (1 Cor. 15:l4); if the empty tomb and resurrection appearance narratives are false, then the bodily resurrection cannot be maintained. ^[19]

In another place, in noting that redemption and history cannot be divorced, he says

Not only does the Bible offer a special history of revelation and of redemption but also locates these particularities in the universal history to which the Egyptian and Babylonian and Roman empires belonged. Nor can the redemption of which the Bible speaks be isolated from physical nature; the Bible speaks of cosmic redemption and the resurrection of the body. If the Scripture is not trustworthy in respect to nature and history, but is regarded as reliable only in matters of salvation, even its redemptive message is embarrassed. ^[20]

He goes on to remind us that “Jesus quotes the Old Testament as the veritable word of God and does so, moreover, where its teaching concerns the subjects other than salvation (cf. Gen. 2:24, Matt. 19:5)." ^[21]

Fuller's strong support for verbal inspiration of what he considers to be the revelational aspects of scripture is commendable. Further, we recognize that he has written in support of the historical nature of the resurrection of Christ. Our concern is simply that we believe that there is no need to surrender any part of scripture to the misty regions of inspired errancy.

The danger of such a position is seen later on in the paper quoted above when, in commenting on Arts 7:1-4 he says, "…God helped Stephen to communicate revelation to the Sanhedrin by directing him to go right ahead and use this very possibly, less accurate text." ^[22] Can he mean that God is not to be implicated in Stephen's "error"? He then states, “The communication of this revelational truth would have been hindered had the Holy Spirit directed Stephan to use the more inaccurate text, for its strange sound would have diverted his hearer's attention away from the revelational point God was inspiring him to make." ^[23] Here we have God inspiring both truth and error for error seems to be legitimized, in Fuller's view, if the truth may be potentially distractive.

The implications of the logic developed by Witmer above are developed in the following paragraphs most of which appeared first in "Biblical Inerrancy and Intellectual Honesty,” Bibliotheca Sacra April, 1968 by W. Robert Cook.

Beegle and others of similar persuasion do not accept this (Witmer’s) logic. He claims such a view is non-biblical. ^[24] On the other hand, F. C. Grant, who is an avowed liberal in theology states: “It is taken for granted that Scripture is trustworthy, infallible and inerrant…No New Testament writer would ever dream of questioning a statement contained in the Old Testament.” ^[25]   Other liberals have expressed similar views, such as Cadbury, Harnack, and Bultmann. ^[26]

What evidence, then, can be brought forward in support of this doctrine? (It is not the purpose of this article to answer the mass of supposed evidence that Beegle has set down in his book in an attempt to disprove inerrancy. ^[27] Charles C. Ryrie suggests that there are four lines of proof,  ^[28]  which will serve as an outline for the following remarks, to which the writer would add a fifth.

1.      The witness of Scripture

The first support for the doctrine is the witness of scripture to its own inerrancy. With a statement such as this, the critics will immediately leap forward to accuse us of circular reasoning; but it is an accepted principle that everyone has the right to speak for himself; and, as Gaebelein observes: "Internal evidence is always the essential subject matter of criticism... there is nothing ambiguous in the teaching of the Bible about itself."  ^[29] Without apology, then, we point to the following three types of Scriptural testimony to its own inerrancy.

a)      The First Class of Witnesses

The first class of witnesses are verses which affirm the truthfulness of God, which in turn guarantees to us that this revelation is truthfully communicated. In John 3:33 and Romans 3:4 we read that "God is true," and in Titus 1:2 we are told that God, “cannot lie”. The word used in the first two passages is alethes, which signifies something that is true to fact in contrast to that which is false.

On the other hand, the same two writers, under the guidance of the same Holy Spirit, speak of the “true God” in John 17:3 and 1 Thessalonians 1:9. Here the word is alethinos, which refers to that which is real or genuine in contrast to that which is spurious or counterfeit. In other words, this genuine God is trustworthy and truthful in all He does and says. Is it conceivable that such a God would impart erroneous information to His church?

The explanation is often given by the critics that, although the revelation was perfect when it came from God, the minute it was recorded by a fallible human instrument the record of revelation became fallible.

Certainly this need not be, for God is fully able to preserve the record of his revelation inerrant...Not only is it not necessary that there be errors, but it is more plausible that the God of truth and power would preserve the record without error." ^[30]

As Warfield put it: Revelation is but half revelation unless it be infallibly recorded." ^[31] Certainly it is to be recognized that claims regarding inerrancy are made regarding the autographa and not copies or translations. Such a statement as this, however, is immediately challenged as an "easy way out" that is not "an honest way to face facts."  ^[32] It is true that appeal to inerrant autographa does not explain every apparent discrepancy, but it is not true that such an appeal is not legitimate, for there is a difference between apparent discrepancies and errors. ^[33]

b)      The Second Class of Witnesses

The second class of witnesses is verses which emphasize the enduring character of the Scriptures. Matthew 5:17-19 has the statement of our Lord to the effect that the very letters which make up the words and the parts of the letters which distinguish them from one another have an abiding character. He speaks here of the jot or yodh, the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet; and the tittle, the differences in recording similar Hebrew characters (see e.g., the difference between h and j).

Another affirmation of great significance is John 10:33-36, where Christ states, "The Scripture cannot be broken."  ^[34] Note first of all that Christ introduces this statement in connection with a relatively insignificant quotation from Psalm 82:6 (which might be considered a "non-redemptive" or "non-revelatory" passage by some standards today). The Lord is saying, because this portion of the Psalm is a part of Scripture and Scripture cannot be broken, neither can this portion be broken.

Furthermore, He builds His whole argument on the consequent reliability of the Old Testament Quotation. Secondly, notice that it is the words which are wr1tten in the Old Testament that are designated as Scripture; and because they are Scripture, they must be accepted; for they cannot be broken or nullified. The fact is, the truth expressed by the Scripture is such that, despite what men do, it will always have binding force.

Thirdly, note carefully that He does not say "this Scripture" but simply "Scripture." The point is that Scripture as a whole stands inviolate and infallible. ^[35]

One more passage that belongs with this class of witnesses is Matthew 24:35: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."  ^[36] That which is apparently the most stable in the minds of men will have its end, but His words will stand. The grammatical construction of the second clause is not a common one. It is reserved for matters which the speaker wanted to negate emphatically (ou me). Hence, in essence our Lord is saying that His words will in no wise, under any circumstances, pass away. They will stand forever.

c)       The Third Class of Witnesses

The third class of witnesses includes verses in which an argument is based upon a word or form of a word. In Matthew 22:23-33 the Lord’s argument is based on the present tense of the verb to be (cf. Exod. 3:6); in Matthew 22:.3-45 the single word Lord (cf. Ps. 110:1) is the heart of the argument; and in Galatians 3:15-22 Paul makes his point in relation to the singular form of the word seed (cf. Gen. 17:7-8) in contrast to the plural.

(Hebrews 7:4-10 is a similar illustration, although in this case the argument turns on small historical detail rather than on grammatical form.) "None of these arguments is valid unless tenses, words, and singulars, and plurals are to be trusted. And they cannot be trusted apart from inerrancy. ^[37]

2.       A proper concept of communication

The second support for the doctrine of inerrancy is a proper concept of communication. Many contemporary rejecters of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy do so by insisting that it is not the verbalized word-forms that are important but the concept or meaning intended by the communicator.

However, what objective basis is there for determining the accuracy of a meaning or concept without an objectively accurate verbal statement of that concept? As Hodge has written: "Men think in words, and the more definitively they think, the more are their thoughts immediately associated with an exactly appropriate verbal expression. Infallibility of thought cannot be secured or preserved independently of an infallible verbal rendering." ^[38]

Gordon Lewis has stated it well in saying: "Although there is a clear distinction today between meaning and sentences, inspiration may be viewed as implying neither merely conceptual or merely verbal supervision on the part of the Holy Spirit. Inspiration in this realm of discourse applies to both content and wording, meanings and sentences." ^[39]

Another recant approach to language is to insist that "God-talk," religious language, and theological assertion, since it is not empirically verifiable, is meaningless (nonsense) or, at best, irrelevant as to their truth or falsity. However,

The Christian shuns the claim that sense-verification in and of itself makes theological propositions intelligible or true since the God of the Bible is by definition invisible and immaterial spirit; in any event, meaningfulness never depends simply upon empirical referents." ^[40]

The fact of the case is, God is the one who originated language as his means of conveying truth of all kinds. Whether he speaks of himself or of thing related to his creative handiwork, the basic elements of communication (grammar, syntax, sentences) remain the same. In the midst of an extended discussion of the relationships of revelation and a rational-verbal communication, Carl Henry gives one entire chapter to "A Theistic View of Language". ^[41]

He therein states, “The biblical view implies that God instituted language as a vehicle for interpersonal communication and fellowship. In his relationships with mankind, he voluntarily employs language as a divine accommodation."  ^[42] Later on, he quotes Kenneth Kantzer to the effect that "the Christian ‘dares trust’ the scriptural language about God 'just because in the final analysis it is not language of his choosing.  ^[43] It is God's choosing among human language forms to select those which will best convey to us what we need to know about God Himself.’” ^[44]

In summarizing the chapter Henry notes  ^[45]  that

The modern speculative theories of the origin and scope of language do not seem to fit the facts of language; ... The study of linguistic phenomena is illumined by the scriptural emphases that God had in view the creation of a creature for rational-verbal communication with him, that man is made in the divine image (Gen. 1:26), that the Logos of God lights every man (John 1:9), and that language is a divine creation (Gen. 2:18-20)  ^[46]

3.     The Analogy of Christ

The third support for the doctrine is found in the analogy of Christ. The statement is often made that the Bible cannot be without error for the simple fact that fallible human instruments were involved in its recording.

For example, Emil Brunner states, "The Bible is the human, and therefore not the infallible, witness to the divine revelation in the Old Covenant and in the history of the incarnate Son of God."  ^[47]  Karl Barth claims that the biblical writers were "all vulnerable and therefore capable of error…if we are not to take away their humanity, if we are not to be guilty of Docetism. How can they be witnesses if this is not the case?"  ^[48]

The rebuttal to such a statement is much the same as the answer that might be given to the question: How can the person of Christ be sinless if humanity is sinful man and He is truly human? The fact is, humanity is not sinful per se. The first man was created sinless (Gen. 1:26-27, 31), and our Lord took on Himself the form of sinful flesh, not sinful flesh itself (Rom. 8:3).

Note well that the passage does not say en serki hamrtias (in sinful flesh) for this would have made Him, a partaker of sin; nor is it merely en sarki (in flesh) for then the bond between His manhood and sin would have been absent. The statement rather is en homoiomati sarkos hamartias, (in likeness of sinful flesh) and thus seems to mean He had a nature like sinful human nature, but had not Himself a sinful nature.  ^[49]

That His was a genuinely human nature without sin is repeatedly affirmed in Scripture (cf. Rom. 1:3; 9:5; 1 Tim. 3:16; John 1:14; 1 John 4:2; Phil. 2:7; Heb. 4:15; 7:26; 1 John 3:5). This genuinely human nature came to Him through the instrumentality of the Virgin Mary, a sinner (Luke 1:46-47); yet the sinlessness of the theanthropic person was made possible by the overshadowing Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35).

In like manner, just as sinfulness is not necessary to humanity, even though that humanity comes through a sinner, so fallibility is not a necessary part of the result of man's being the instrument of written revelation. As with Jesus Christ the living Lord, so with the written Word, there is the combination of the divine Holy Spirit and the human, sinful writers to produce a theanthropic book which is inerrant in the autographs. "By the Holy Spirit being borne along men spoke from God" (II Pet. 1:21, literal translation by the writer).

4.       Faith

A fourth pillar of support for the doctrine under consideration is faith. To hold to inerrancy is not to deny that there are problems, or that satisfactory answers are yet to be found to many of these problems. It is to acknowledge that when such problems are encountered, one places his trust in the Scriptures rather than in his own fallible understanding, recognizing that time after time in the past the Word has been vindicated. ^[50] This is not to close our minds to attempts to resolve difficulties, but to recognize that this can only be done through careful scholarship under the illuminating ministry of the Holy Spirit. ^[51]

Perhaps this is the place for a word regarding the matter of intellectual honesty. In this age of sophisticated superintellectualism, the accusation that the conservative holds to inerrancy only because of intellectual dishonesty seems to be particularly devastating.

This discussion should not be construed as a brief for strained interpretations or sloppy scholarship. Certainly, we do not want to be guilty of either. But is this the only alternative to an errant Bible? This is the impression that Mounce gives when he maintains that in conservative scholarship "all factual discrepancies are laid at the doorstep of errant, copyists….".  ^[52]

Several observations may be made regarding such a statement. In the first place, it is not true that all "discrepancies (apparent or actual) are dealt with in this way. In some cases, the problems are interpretive rather than transcriptive and in others it is readily admitted that satisfactory solutions are not yet ready at hand.

Furthermore, as Mounce himself f acknowledges later in the same article: "Some discrepancies have undoubtedly arisen in the course of scribal transmission. ^[53] No careful student of the Scripture should allow himself to be intimidated into thinking that appeal to the possibility of errors in transmission is a less than honest approach if he has pursued every other alternative scholarship affords, short of resignation to errant originals. It should be noted that such an approach as this is no more suspect then that which moves on the assumption that there were errors in the autographa. In the final analysis, neither viewpoint can be proved inductively, since the autographa are not available; whereas the view that maintains the originals are inerrant is the only view that is consistent with the Bible's teaching regarding its own origin and character (2 Timothy 3:16).

Another way in which the conservative's intellectual honesty is sometimes impugned is by suggesting that most attempts to harmonize passages that are apparently at variance with one another lead to unnatural results. Mounce suggests that this problem arises from foisting a twentieth-century concept of error upon writers who lived in another time and culture. Because of this, "the exegete is obliged to force a harmony, lf necessary, between all the apparent discrepancies of the Scripture." ^[54]

Again, certain observations are in order. The assumption that men of another day had different standards of truth from ours simply because they did not employ our so-called “scientific method” does not thereby mean they would be likely to call error truth. But, more important, this raises the question of the integrity of the Holy Spirit. Are the standards of truth for the eternal God changed from age to age? If apparent discrepancies do not arise from scribal error—and without question there are instances when the do not—it may be that proper harmonization is not possible at this time, because of information not now available to us.

“It may very well be that there are some passages which, save by strained and forced attempts, we cannot harmonize. If such is the case, by all means let us be sufficiently honest and candid to admit that we cannot harmonize the particular passages in question… ^[55]

It should be reiterated that the refusal to capitulate in the presence of unresolved difficulties is not intellectually dishonest. "If the situation respecting the phenomena of Scripture were static, then to hold a suspended judgment regarding difficult passages might be obscurantist, but in view of the progressive corroboration of many disputed points, it is a thoroughly reasonable position." ^[56]

Another frequently overlooked fact is that the so-called "closed-mind" approach is not just found among conservatives. ^[57] The kind of reasoning which turns to Scripture for authoritative pronouncements on other items of faith but categorically rejects Scripture’s witness concerning itself is at best suspect.

5.       The Providence of God

The final line of evidence in support of the inerrancy of Scripture is the providence of God. An understanding of this truth will further enable us to see that the human instruments do not render the written revelation of God fallible and erroneous. Warfield has written: "If God wished to give His people a series of letters like Paul's, He prepared a Paul to write them, and the Paul He brought to the task was a Paul who spontaneously would write just such letters." ^[58] This is a most biblical statement as is borne out by such a passage as Galatians 1:15-16 (cf. Jer. 1:5). Warfield continues:

"If we bear this in mind, we shall know what estimate to place upon the common representation to the effect that…we cannot get from man a pure word from God. As light passes through the colored glass of a cathedral window, we are told is light from heaven, but is stained by the tints of the glass,… so any word from God which passes through the mind and soul of man must come out discolored by the personality through which it is given…. But what if this personality itself has been formed by God into precisely the personality it is, for the express purpose of communicating to the word given through it just the coloring which gives it? ...

When we give due place in our thoughts to the universality of the providential government of God, to the minuteness and completeness of its sway, to its invariable efficacy, we may be inclined to ask what is needed beyond this mere providential government to secure the production of sacred books which should be in every detail absolutely accordant with the Divine will.

"The answer is, Nothing is needed beyond mere providence to secure such books--provided only that it does not lie in the Divine purpose that these books should possess qualities which rise above the powers of men to produce if heights are to be scaled above man's native power to achieve, then something more…is necessary. This is the reason for the superinduction…of the additional Divine operation which we technically call 'inspiration.' By it, the Spirit of God, flowing confluently in with the providentially and graciously determined work of men, spontaneously producing under the Divine directions the writings appointed to them, gives the product a Divine quality unattainable by human powers alone. Thus these books become not merely the word of godly men, but .the immediate word of God Himself, speaking directly as such to the minds and hearts of every reader." ^[59]

II.    It is Complete (Sufficient)

In chapter five we argued that special revelation is not ongoing; it has ceased. This, now, is an extension of that principle. Second Timothy 3:15-17 and John 20:30-31 indicate that what is written is sufficient. Scripture needs no complement such as traditions, an unwritten word or an inner light.

This is not to be construed as meaning that scriptures contain every revelation which God has ever given to man, but rather that it is the only supernatural revelation that he now has for man and that it is sufficient in all questions of faith and practice. "The Scriptures profess to lead us to God. Whatever is necessary to that end they must teach us. If any supplementary rule, as tradition, is necessary to that end, they must refer us to it. 'Incompleteness here would be falsehood.' But while one sacred writer constantly refers us to the writings of another, not one of them ever intimates to us either the necessity or the existence of any other rule.” ^[60]

The dangers of a revelation that is not complete are noted by Paul Wooley.

God does not today guide people directly without using the Scriptures. There are no divinely given “hunches.” God does not give people direct mental impressions to do this or that. People do not hear God’s voice speaking within them. There is no immediate and direct unwritten communication between God and the individual human being. If the Scriptures are actually sufficient, such communication is unnecessary.

On the other hand, if such communications were actually being made, every Christian would be a potential author of Scripture. We would only need to write down accurately what God said to us, and we would be legitimately adding to the Bible, for such writings would be the Word of God. ^[61]

Clark Pinnock gives a similar warning.

If Scripture were not sufficient for its end, informing us of the saving purposes of God, it could not stand as our sole authority. I t would have to be amplified and supplemented by a "Bible to the second power," namely the human ego whether a collective ego (trad1tion) or an individual one (the pope's or my own). If sufficiency is surrendered, the deficiency in Scripture has to be made up by some outside source, inevitably a human authority. ^[62]

III.    It Is Perspicuous (Comprehensible)

To say that the scriptures are perspicuous is not to deny the need for careful exegesis, nor to deny the presence of mysteries. It is to say that we do not need the aid of a church or a priesthood. At the same time, we do need the Holy Spirit who is promised to every Christian (1 John 2:20-27). Many things are difficult to understand but all things essential to faith and practice are clearly revealed. (see also Ps. 19:7-8; 119:105, 130)

IV.     It Is Living

This truth, sometimes referred to as the Doctrine of Animation, is set forth in such passages as Hebrews 4:12; 1 Peter 1:23; cf. John 6:63. This characteristic of scripture is not to be construed in any magical sense but in conjunction with the work of the Holy Spirit. This conjoint relationship is best seen in a comparison of Ephesians 5:18 and Colossians 3:16 and their surrounding contexts.

The parallel historical and literary contexts of Ephesians and Colossians are widely recognized. Both documents were written by Paul during the same period of his life from a Roman prison. The development of each epistle is remarkably similar in many ways and, although the emphasis in each varies (Ephesians upon the church, the body of Christi Colossians upon Christ the head of the church), they are complementary in their instruction. When you come to chapters five and six of Ephesians as compared with chapters three and four of Colossians the literary parallels are marked as seen in the following schema

Contextual Parallels Between Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3
Ephesians 5 -- 6	Colossians 3 -- 4
EPH 5:1 Therefore be imitators of God, as beloved children; 2 and walk in love, just as Christ also loved you, and gave Himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God as a fragrant aroma. 5:3 But do not let immorality or any impurity or greed even be named among you, as is proper among saints; 4 and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. 5 For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure person or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7 Therefore do not be partakers with them; 8 for you were formerly darkness, but now you are light in the Lord; walk as children of light 9 (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth), 10 trying to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. 11 And do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them; 12 for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret. 13 But all things become visible when they are exposed by the light, for everything that becomes visible is light. 14 For this reason it says, "Awake, sleeper, And arise from the dead, And Christ will shine on you." 5:15 Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men, but as wise, 16 making the most of your time, because the days are evil. 17 So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is. 18 And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit, 19 speaking to one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody with your heart to the Lord; 20 always giving thanks for all things in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God, even the Father; 21 and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ. 5:22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her;… EPH 6:1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2 HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER (which is the first commandment with a promise), 3 THAT IT MAY BE WELL WITH YOU, AND THAT YOU MAY LIVE LONG ON THE EARTH. 4 And, fathers, do not provoke your children to anger; but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord. EPH 6:5 Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; 6 not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. 7 With good will render service, as to the Lord, and not to men, 8 knowing that whatever good thing each one does, this he will receive back from the Lord, whether slave or free. 9 And, masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him.	COL 3:1 If then you have been raised up with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. 2 Set your mind on the things above, not on the things that are on earth. 3 For you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God. 4 When Christ, who is our life, is revealed, then you also will be revealed with Him in glory. COL 3:5 Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry. 6 For it is on account of these things that the wrath of God will come, 7 and in them you also once walked, when you were living in them. 8 But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth. 9 Do not lie to one another, since you laid aside the old self with its evil practices, 10 and have put on the new self who is being renewed to a true knowledge according to the image of the One who created him 11 -- a renewal in which there is no distinction between Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave and freeman, but Christ is all, and in all. COL 3:12 And so, as those who have been chosen of God, holy and beloved, put on a heart of compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience; 13 bearing with one another, and forgiving each other, whoever has a complaint against anyone; just as the Lord forgave you, so also should you. 14 And beyond all these things put on love, which is the perfect bond of unity. 15 And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body; and be thankful. 16 Let the word of Christ richly dwell within you, with all wisdom teaching and admonishing one another with psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with thankfulness in your hearts to God. 17 And whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father. COL 3:18 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord. 19 Husbands, love your wives, and do not be embittered against them. 20 Children, be obedient to your parents in all things, for this is well-pleasing to the Lord. 21 Fathers, do not exasperate your children, that they may not lose heart. 22 Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters on earth, not with external service, as those who merely please men, but with sincerity of heart, fearing the Lord. 23 Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men; 24 knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance. It is the Lord Christ whom you serve. 25 For he who does wrong will receive the consequences of the wrong which he has done, and that without partiality. COL 4:1 Masters, grant to your slaves justice and fairness, knowing that you too have a Master in heaven.

In the midst of these passages, which are clearly being developed along similar lines by the apostle, the filling of the Spirit (Eph. 5:1S) and the indwelling of the word of Christ (Col. 3:16) are said to lead to the same responses (speaking, i.e., teaching and admonishing, singing, and giving of thanks) and the same relationships (wives and husbands with one another; children and parents with one another; slaves and masters with one another). While the emphasis in the one case is upon the work of the Spirit and in the other upon the work of the Word, and they therefore cannot be equated, the interrelationship seems apparent. Neither the work of the Spirit nor the work of the word of Christ takes place in isolation from the other.

A.       Its Power Toward the Unsaved

The power of the scriptures as they are animated by the Holy Spirit is demonstrated in its influence on the lost. Regarding the unsaved we see that the scriptures have power to save (John 5:24; 2 Tim. 3:l5; 1 Pet. 1:23; 2 Pet. 1:4) and to judge (John 12:48; see also Rev. 1:16; 19:15).

B.       Its Power Toward the Saved

In relation to the believer the Word of God is able to sanctify and cleanse (John 17:17-19; 15:3); to perfect (1 John 2:5; cf. 1 The.s.2:13); and to edify (Acts 20:32).

 

V.     It is Authoritative

A.       Varying Viewpoints On Authority

In chapter three under the discussion of presuppositions a variety of viewpoints with regard to the authority of scripture were presented and it was suggested that the only valid one is the evangelical viewpoint which places final authority in the Word of God itself. As indicted there, this is a fundamental truth underlying the study of all theology.

Jesus himself expressly declared that he came not to destroy the law and the prophets but to fulfill them (Mitt. 5:7), and he dogmatically endorses the Old Testament Scriptures as the authoritative Word of God. Pierre Marcel rightly remarks that "from the manner in which Christ quotes Scriptures we find that he recognizes and accepts the Old Testament in its entirety as the true Word of God.” ^[63]

After stating that, "Jesus himself made the Scriptures the ruling norm.” ^[64]  Bloesch adds a footnote: 'It should be recognized that Jesus' ultimate criterion was not Scripture by itself but the Scripture and the Spirit together. He said that the Sadducees erred because they knew ‘neither the Scriptures nor the power of God’ (Mark 12:24; cf. John 5:39, 40; 14:15-17),”^[65]

Erickson similarly writes: The objective word, the written Scripture, together with the subjective word, the inner illumination and conviction of the Holy Spirit, constitutes the authority for the Christian." ^[66]  While both the Spirit and the Bible are in one sense authoritative, as far as the Christian faith and life is concerned, when one is isolated from the other, excesses are almost certain to evidence themselves.

An altogether different approach to authority is taken by David H. Kelsey. Instead of viewing the Bible as the God-breathed and therefore authoritative scripture he substitutes a view that may be described as functional. He states:

The “authority of Scripture” has the status of a postulate assumed in the doing of theology in the context of the practice of the common life of a Christian community in which “church” is understood in a certain way. In short the doctrine of “Scripture and its authority” is a postulate of practical theology. ^[67]

As Henry points out, however, the classical view of inspiration refuses to ground the authority of Scripture in the common life of the community of faith: it correlates that authority instead with a divinely imparted property of the scriptural texts. ^[68] This functional view has some fatal weaknesses which must be noted.

A sound reply to the functionalist view is that it can provide no objective reasons why any portion of Scripture ought to sustain a living experience of God in Jesus Christ or why such a living experience is to be found in Jesus Christ, or why such a living experience is to be found in Jesus Christ alone, or even that God… truly lives. Evangelical Christianity rightly emphasizes that the Bible functions as it does in human life because there is persuasive evidence for the ontological reality of God, for the authority of the Bible as divinely inspired Scripture, and for Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah of Old Testament promise. ^[69]

While we believe that the scriptures are verbally inspired and thus inerrant and, in turn, authoritative in a primary sense, it does not necessarily follow that the resultant accurate record is always a record of words or ideas that accord with God's will, ways, and the truth. As Thiessen writes of the relation of inspiration and authority,

…usually the two are identical, so that what is inspired is also authoritative for teaching and conduct: but occasionally that is not the case. For example, Satan's statement to Eve is recorded by inspiration, but it is not true (Gen. 3:4-5).

The same thing can be said about Peter's advice to Christ (Matt. 16:22) and the declaration of Gamaliel to the counsel (Is 5:38-39). Since none of these represent the mind of God, they are not authoritative, although they are found in the Bible.

The same thing can be said about texts that are taken out of their context and given a very different meaning from the one they have in their contexts. The words still are inspired, but the new meaning is not authoritative.

So then, we should regard every statement (of Scripture) as both inspired and authoritative, unless there is some hint in the context that the latter is not the case in a given instance. ^[70]

Some portions of scripture are normative in their authority, that is, they are to be adhered to as a basis for faith and practice, as a rule for doctrine and conduct. Other portions are what might be called historicel1y authoritative, that is, they are accurate as to the record of the event, statement, etc., but not necessarily intended to be normative for faith and practice. ^[71] Some examples of "normative” passages would be 2 Timothy 3: 16; Deuteronomy 6:4-5; Romans 3: 23; 1 Corinthians 15: 3- 5; 1 Peter 1:15. Historical authority would be true of passages like Genesis 33:4-5; Matthew 10:1; Acts 6:2-4; Romans 15:20.

B.       Evidences of Authority

Among the evidences for the authority of scripture are the following. It is God-breathed (2 Tim. 3:16). The Old Testament is attested to by Christ (there are thirty-five quotations from or references to the Old Testament by Christ in the Gospels) and the New Testament is anticipated and provided for by Christ (John 16:13). The authority of the Word is borne witness to by the Holy Spirit (1 Thess. 1:5) and was accepted by the early believers with apostolic sanction and approval (1 Thess. 2:13). Furthermore the scriptures vindicate their own claims to authority by their saving and sanctifying power; by their historical accuracy; and by their fulfillment of prophecy.

VI.     Its Contents Are Genuine

By this statement we simply mean that the individual books of the Bible are not forged or spurious. That is, they were written by whom and when it is claimed. The data in support of this contention are the province of Old and New Testament introduction so will not be treated here. See such works as Roland Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament and Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction.

VII.     Its Contents Are Credible

This means that the scriptures are not corrupt as to text. It refers to the truthfulness of the records and the unity of the text. Extensive treatment of issues relating to textual criticism may be found in Harrison, op. cit.; Gleason L. Archer, Survey of Old Testament Introduction; F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are they Reliable: Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament; Guthrie, op. cit. For a good summary statement see Henry Clarence Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, revised by Vernon D. Doerksen, pp. 56-59.

References:

Return to Syllabus

AncientPath Network Dallas, TX 77523, USA

Copyright © 2007 by AncientPath Network and the authors. All rights reserved. From our web sites at AncientPath.net and AncientLight.org, you may download the information and print it for yourself and others as long as you give it away and do not charge for it. In this case, free means free. It cannot be bundled with anything sold, nor can you charge for shipping, handling, or anything. It is provided for personal study or for use in preparation of sermons, Sunday school classes, or other non-commercial study.

051807