Some thoughts on Biblical Inerrancy

   Many questions arise when the subject of biblical inerrancy comes
up.  Until the issue is resolved in one's own mind, he must exercise a
degree of faith in believing that God's personal message to him is
complete truth and must be heeded at all cost.

   There would be no problem if God had used the method He used on Mt.
Sinai in writing His entire message on the tablets Himself.  However,
He chose to use fallible men with different personalities and writing
styles to record His Word which is the final Authority of truth for
all mankind.  Thus, two main questions need to be addressed: 1) Can
the Bible be trusted as being totally free from error despite the
combination of the human mechanism with the Divine Source?  2) Would
one seemingly insignificant miscalculation or added opinion by the
writer be enough to invalidate the whole canon of Scripture?

   Harold Lindsell answers yes to both questions.  He says that
biblical inerrancy is intimately related to revelation, inspiration,
illumination, authority, and interpretation.

   Lindsell says that God reveals the truth about Himself through
revelation; general and special.  He says that general revelation is
no longer adequate in revealing God because of sin.  Sin has blinded
man's eyes to the beauty of God as seen in His creation.  This aspect
of God can only be revealed through the written word of God to the
regenerate mind.

   Special revelation is God revealing Himself through theophanies,
direct communication, and miracles.  All of these reached their
highest levels in the person of Jesus Christ, who directly revealed
the truth and will of God to men.

   Lindsell also says that God's Truth is given to man in the Bible
because the original autographs were completely free from error.  That
is, the workers "were preserved from factual, historical, scientific
or other errors" (p. 31).

   He also contends that anything that is inspired of God must be
infallible and this infallibility will either include all of scripture
or none of it.

   Various notions of inspiration are refuted by Lindsell such as the
dictation theory, the idea that any Christian could be inspired even
today, and the view of partial illumination with inspiration.

   Reasoning that the original autographs may have been a temptation
for idolatrous worship, Lindsell says that God chose not to retain
them for ages to come, but made sure that copies of them remained
errorless.

   Lindsell also believes that infallibility and authority are
inseparable.  If the Bible is not completely free from error, it loses
its authority over us.

   The more conservative view is challenged by a man named Pinnock.
Pinnock claims that to question that the Bible is without error
because of human limitations is not necessarily the first step towards
liberalism nor does it disregard the authority of scripture.  He asks
seven questions which cause one to think again about the alleged, and
sometimes apparent inconsistancies and numerical, chronological, and
genealogical errors that appear in a few remote and possibly
insignificant areas of Scripture.

1)  Is inerrancy scriptural?

   Pinnock believes that any reference to inerrancy should be toward
the autographs rather than  the copies of Scripture.  Jesus and Paul,
only having access to imperfect copies, would not have taught
inerrancy in regard to the copies, but rather to the autographs.  The
copies then were preserved as far as the intended teachings of the
Word, but minor details were subject to error if they were part of the
unintended teachings of Scripture.

2) Is inerrancy a logical corollary of inspiration?

   It is human logic that because the Bible is inspired it must be
inerrant.  God often delivers his Word through human instruments who
are allowed to err.  To say that the Bible is the only exception is
based only on human reasoning.

3) Is inerrancy meaningful?

   The imperfections of minor, virtually insignificant details does
not invalidate the doctrine of inerrancy.

4) Is inerrancy an epistlemological necessity?

   If God would have considered that a few minor errors in detail
enough to destroy the truth of Scripture, He would have preserved the
autographs.  Furthermore, the imperfect copies have proven themselves
as trustworthy through hundreds of years of victorious living by those
who trust them.

5) Is inerrancy theologically decisive?

   The debate over inerrancy has removed our attention from the more
important message of God's redeeming love to minor discrepancies that
use up precious time that could be used to share that redeeming love
with the lost.

6) Is inerrancy critically honest?

   While the list of difficulties with inerrancy hasn't changed and
many continue to direct their attention to it, other important issues
like reaction criticism and the history of transmission within the
Bible are neglected, thus hindering advancement in biblical
interpretation.

7) Ought inerrancy to be the test of evangelical authenticity?

   Honest questions about inerrancy are not evidence of weak
evangelical convictions, but reflect good judgement because they don't
just accept inerrancy on its basis of being the only logical answer.

   Pinnock goes on to say that a balance is needed to refrain from
slipping into the area of liberalism by questioning the authenticity
of the Bible (even though it may have errors in insignificant areas),
and yet, not to grasp into the air hoping for something concrete on
which to base our idea of biblical inerrancy out of fear of
compromising our assumption that what is inspired must be inerrant.

   I have no problem believing that the copies and translations that
were preserved are subject to human error.  I believe this may be the
cause of some minor errors in chronology or genealogy or numerical
miscalculations.  However, I cringe at the thought of the original
autographs, which are inspired, having so much as the slightest flaw.
Yet, Pinnock asks some very reasonable questions that make me think
twice about my preconceived ideas.

   At this point, I'm inclined to go along more with Pinnock, not
necessarily because his elaboration on the questions convinced me, but
because of the validity of the questions themselves.

   Lindsell couldn't convince me that authority and inerrancy must go
hand in hand.  This is where Pinnock seems to have the right idea.
Why should the authority of God's word be questioned by something as
insignificant as whether or not rabbits chew cud?

   Lindsell's circular reasoning was not backed with much hard-core
evidence, but was based on pre-conceived ideas and human logic.
However, I do appreciate the deep reverence and love for the Word of
God shown by both men.

   As I see the character of God, it seems just like Him to allow for
certain human limitations, or even blunders (as in the case of Paul's
forgetfulness in I Corinthians 1:12-17) in order to challenge us here
in the twentieth century to see if we will love each other despite our
differences and refuse to let this controversy divide us and help us
live down a reputation that, in many areas, we have already
established.

   Pinnock also made a good point in saying that the Bible is "without
error in all that it affirms" (p.68).  The intended teachings of the
Bible remain completely unblemished.  Again, this seems to be in
keeping with the character of God.  Just as sure as He graciously sent
the prophets to reveal truth about Himself in order to keep His people
from straying to far from the original law, so also He intervenes in
the translating and copying of His sacred Word to keep the truth alive
and working in the hearts of men.  Even in the days of Noah and the
Dark Ages, when truth and purity were nearly non-existent, a chosen
few still had the living truth of God in their hearts in order that
His Word would eventually be available to all men.  I'm sure glad He
made it available to me!

(The author is a student at Moody Bible Institute)

This article originated on
The Salvation Online Network