Considering the Inerrancy series that we are broadcasting here on the blog from TUP, I thought that I would follow it up with this post.

Greg Jones was an evangelical Christian, active in his church, a regular preacher, teacher and served on the elder board. He says that he was “addicted” to fundamentalism. He slept, ate, and drank the truths of Christianity. After a decade of faithful service to the church, he is now a professing atheist who rejects the “naivety” of all that he held to so dearly. Why? Well, as he tells the story, he says that he was awakened out of his slumber of fundamentalism through many encounters with “the truth.” Chief among these encounters was when he finally realized that the Bible was “full of errors.” He describes his turn by referencing the discrepancies that he found throughout Scripture and being unable to come to a way to reconcile them. “For some time” he describes, “I was the best at answering the skeptic with regards to any objection that he could levy against the Scripture. I knew how to reconcile any supposed contradiction. It became like an art form that I was proud of. No matter how difficult the problem, I could find a way out. After a time, I don’t know why, but I began to reflect upon the lengths that I had to go to make it all fit together. I realized that the “art” of answering the contradictions became a subjective smokescreen that I raised not only to those I was responding to, but also myself. I had to be honest with myself. John says ‘No one who is born of God sins,’ then turns around and says ‘If anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father.’ Which one is it? There are literally hundreds of problems like this in Scripture. My answers may have satisfied those I taught, but they no longer satisfied me. Eventually I realized (sadly, I might say) that I had to let go of the inerrancy of Scripture. Once I did that, I had to let go of Christ.” (This was adapted from a true story).

This description is a common testimony of many who have “walked away from the faith.” But this blog is not about “walking away from the faith” per se, but with the dangers of the doctrine of inerrancy. When Greg rejected the doctrine of inerrancy because of his inability to reconcile the discrepancies, did this necessarily mean that he had to walk away from the faith? Is the doctrine of inerrancy so central to the Christian faith that if one were to deny it, he or she should pack their bags and search for a new worldview? In other words (and let me be very clear), if the Scriptures are not inerrant, does that mean the Christian faith is false?

Most of you know that I hold to the doctrine of inerrancy. Not only this, but I believe in the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy (a very conservative document). Each year, I sign the required membership form for the Evangelical Theological Society, reaffirming my belief that the Scriptures, in the autographa, are without any errors whatsoever- historical, scientific, or theological.

Having said this, I believe that this doctrine, while important, is not the article upon which Christianity stands or falls. I believe that the Scriptures could contain error and the Christian faith remain essentially in tact. Why? Because Christianity is not built upon the inerrancy of Scripture, but the historical Advent of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Christ because man, lived a perfect life, died an atoning death, and rose on the third day not because the Scriptures inerrantly say that these events occurred, but because they did in fact occur. The truth is in the objectivity of the event, not the accuracy of the record of the event. The cause and effect must be put into proper place here. The historical event of the incarnation caused the recording of Scripture, Scripture was not the cause of the events. Again, Christianity is founded upon the Advent, not the inerrant record of the Advent.

Think about this: Do we only trust the historical records of those accounts that have an inerrant witness? Are the ancient histories inerrant? I have never heard anyone say that Polybius (c.200-after 118 BCE) was inerrant in his records of Roman history, yet we treat him as generally reliable. As well, Josephus (37- after 93 CE) is seen as a generally reliable Jewish historian, but not inerrant. Those who write history books for our schools today do not have to submit a resume with credentials of inerrancy before they are approved by the publishers to write upper-level history textbooks do they? No. Why? Because it is a well accepted understanding that people can give a reliable and truthful witness, even if they are not inerrant. What if we followed the example set by Greg in the above story. Once we find a discrepancy of any kind in any work, this renders the entire work untrustworthy. If this were our method of historical inquiry, we would be completely agnostic to all of history. We would end up saying that all works written by historians of past are complete lies and fabrications, because they are not inerrant.

Thankfully, this is not the dilemma that is presented to us in understanding history (or any other discipline). We understand that people, while errant, can give us generally trustworthy accounts. Those who hold positions as universities professors, scientists, engineers, historians, mathematicians, politicians, and just about every other career must rely upon the general trustworthiness of the witness of other errant individuals.

Let’s take this same approach with the Scriptures for a moment. Let’s assume that the Scriptures are not inerrant. (Please, at least attempt to go there with me!) Let’s take it a step further and say that the Scriptures are not inspired at all. Here then is the situation: the Scriptures are a collection of 66 ancient historical records, given through various types of literature. The records, like any other record, may have errors-historical, scientific, or otherwise. Now that we are rollin’ let’s say that John did indeed make a mistake about the number of women who came to the tomb of Jesus after His resurrection. Does this make the testimony of John completely false? Does this mean that the entire testimony of John is now wrong at every turn? Of course not! Any historian who followed this methodology would quickly find himself out of a job, for he would have no sources for his research. If the Scriptures were like any other records of history with minor discrepancies, then this would not justify a total rejection of the events they record. Their credibility is based upon the assumption of general historic reliability as evidenced through the rules of historic inquiry-which does not include a criteria for inerrancy.

Let me take this one more step further. The fact is that we don’t even need the Scriptures in order for Christianity to be true. Remember, the Christian worldview is Christocentric (centered around the Advent of Christ), not bibliocentric (centered around the Bible). It is because of God’s grace that we even have the record of Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. But if for some reason God had decided to withhold His grace and not record these events in Scripture, does this mean that the events did not take place? Of course not. Christ death, burial, and resurrection are historical events that happened whether or not we have inspired records.

You may say to me, how would we know about the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ had it not been recorded? This is a good question, but you must first take this next step of concession. Not only is it true that Christianity is not dependent upon inerrancy, inspiration, and recording of the events, but it is also not reliant upon our knowledge of the events. Theoretically speaking, God could have sent His Son to die for the world and raise from the grave and not told anyone at all and Christianity would still be true. The point is that Christianity stands or falls upon the historical truth of the Advent of the Son of God, not the record of these events through Scripture. How God decides to communicates these events, should He choose to do so, is not the issue. I suppose He could have used unwritten tradition, the testimony of angels, dreams and visions, or direct encounters.

Now, apologetically speaking, there is no reason whatsoever for one to reject the general historical reliability of the Scriptures if presented as such. If one were to accept the Gospels, for instance, like any other historical writing, then they would have to be persuaded of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth based upon honest and solid historical inquiry. If they did not, then their methodology is flawed by other unjustifiable presuppositions such as the impossibility of miracles.

Why did Greg feel compelled to reject the entirety of Christianity because of a few supposed errors? Because that is what he was taught by conservative, well meaning Christians. I believe that we often times, in our zeal for the Scriptures, create a false dilemma suggesting that belief in inerrancy and total rejection of the Christian message are the only two options. These are not the only two options. The Scriptures can be generally reliable historical accounts and the Christian faith still be true.

To those of you who are struggling with or reject the doctrine of inerrancy, while I believe you are wrong, this does not mean that you have grounds to reject the historicity of the death, burial, and resurrection of the Son of God as recorded in Scripture. There are 27 ancient documents that have historical credibility that must be referenced just like any other ancient document (not to mention the witness of dozens of first and second century historical documents that are not included in this New Testament canon). If you reject Christianity based upon your belief of the errancy of these documents, you must also reject all the records of ancient history.

To those of you who believe in the inspiration and inerrancy, your belief is on solid ground (see here for videos defending inspiration and inerrancy). But please be careful to not to create a false dilemma concerning a strict adherence to the Evangelical persuasion. While the authority of God’s word is of central importance, Christianity is Christocentric, not bibliocentric. Christ is still Lord, even if the Scriptures were never written.

What is the danger of inerrancy? Making it the doctrine upon which the Christian faith stands or falls.


C Michael Patton
C Michael Patton

C. Michael Patton is the primary contributor to the Parchment and Pen/Credo House Blog. He has been in ministry for nearly twenty years as a pastor, author, speaker, and blogger. Th.M. Dallas Theological Seminary (2001), president of Credo House Ministries and Credo Courses, author of Now that I'm a Christian (Crossway, 2014) Increase My Faith (Credo House, 2011), and The Theology Program (Reclaiming the Mind Ministries, 2001-2006), host of Theology Unplugged, and primary blogger here at Parchment and Pen. But, most importantly, husband to a beautiful wife and father to four awesome children. Michael is available for speaking engagements. Find him everywhere: Find him everywhere

    30 replies to "The Danger of Inerrancy"

    • C Michael Patton

      Yes, Joanie. You are right, we would have the oral traditions which, while not as reliable as written traditions, would attest to its truthfuness. As well, there are dozens of extrabiblical sources written withing the next century.

      This is important, not so people will feel comfortable questioning or denying inerrancy, but so that the house rests on the proper foundation.

    • richards

      I read this same argument by Dan Wallace some time ago, and I have to tell you, it was liberating. Not that I do not hold to inerrancy, but that I saw the circularity of arguing for Christianity on the basis of inerrancy.

      Thanks Michael and thanks Dan!

    • Vance

      Coming from a fundamentalist background (father was an Assembly of God pastor for 25 years), I was always the odd duck out because I was willing to consider varied definitions of infallible other than “strict literal historical narrative”.

      I happen to be a Gideon (president of the largest Camp in my district), so I have a great reverence for Scripture, and hold that it is entirely true and correct and, in very important ways, infallible. I believe that it accurately and correctly presents the message that God wants to get to us, which may or may not have anything at all to do with providing exact historical facts or narratives. Which may include a wide variety of literary styles common during the times that the stories were first told and the texts were first written.

      Having a university degree in ancient history, I tend to view these texts as an historian, and I understand how people of that time thought and told stories about the past. One thing I can say for sure is that they did not ever think about stories from their past as strict historical narrative. They would still consider their stories absolutely true and even God given, but would not all expect that they conveyed strictly literal facts or dialogue, etc. There is a reason why Herodotus was considered the Father of History (and he was even dicey by our standards).

      It is a false standard to apply our modern scientific sensibilities to ancient people. We value stories about the past, history, only to the extent that it is tells things with strict literal facts. To the extent it does not, it is not true and not trustworthy. So, since we want to consider the Bible true and trustworthy, we insist that it MUST meet our standard for what that is. The ancients would have seen it very differently.

      So, it does not bother me if early Genesis tells the story of true and historical events using figurative and symbolic language. It would not even bother me if some of the early patriarchal stories were epic and may not have been entirely historically accurate. They are still entirely TRUE in the most important sense of the word. I know that is hard for us to get our modern heads around, but I think it is what we have to strive to do.

      As for how we “would know” without the Scripture, in particular the New Testament, think about all those Christians for a couple hundred years who had only scraps of the NT, if anything. What about those who came to Christ (and still do) after HEARING the Gospel.

    • NorbertJ.

      Hi Michael,
      it is truth, that the Bible can be regarded as a historical source because the Bible contains records of historical events. In this (historical) aspect of the Bible, even if the Scriptures contains small errors or discrepancies, the Christian faith remain in tact.

      But there is an other aspect of the Bible. It defines the standards for my christian worldview, my belifs and my everyday life. And this aspect of the Bible is for Christians as important as the first (historical) aspect, if not even more important.

      Does it matter for the historicity of the resurection that women came to the tomb of Jesus after His resurrection and saw the empty tomb? Yes, it does.

      Does it matter for the historicity of the resurection what was the EXACT number of women who came to the tomb of Jesus after His resurrection? No, it does not, in the sense that if John did indeed make a mistake here, it does not make the testimony of John completely false.

      Does it matter for my everyday christan life what was the exact number of women who came to the tomb of Jesus after His resurrection? No, it does not.

      But here came the important question: if the Bible contains errors in description of historical events (more easily verifiable by comparision with external or internal evidences), then could we trust the Bible in areas, where the Bible seems to be the ONLY source of truth (for example assurance of salvation)?

      Greetings for all the Writers and Readers of the PaP blog.

      Norbert

    • ChadS

      Hi All,

      I would like to offer another perspective on the inerrancy of the Bible. This post and replys suggest that Biblical inerrancy extends to scientific and historical facts. As a Catholic, we are taught that the Bible is inerrant when it comes to teaching faith and morals and all things necessary for salvation. If you look at Scriptures that way you don’t have to tie yourself into knots wondering if there were two women at Jesus’ tomb, or maybe it was 3 or 10. Did Jesus feed 5000 people or was it 5,030?

      As another poster mentioned the various books that make up the Bible, while truly being God’s word, are also human works that come from a particular time and world view. We have to remember that when we read them.

      So instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water like the fundamentalist who became the atheist we can say maybe the exact or particular facts may not be accurate we can say with 100% accuracy that all that is needed for salvation is indeed in there.

    • C Michael Patton

      Norbet,

      You question is a good and valid one. I would say that it does matter on a different level in matters of faith and practice. That is why many would opt for an “infallible” Scripture, where Scripture is only “infallible” in matters of faith and practice, rather than an “inerrant” Scripture, where Scripture speaks accurately on all matters it touches.

      This battle raged in Protestant circles in the 70s especially between Fuller Seminary and Dallas Theological Seminary. Those who opted for an infallible Scripture were thought of in many circles as headed down a slippery slope where all doctrine was up for grabs because the matters of faith rested on historical accuracy.

      I am still an inerrantist, but I don’t think those who deny it are necessarily heading down this slippery slope. Why? For one, the fact that they did not go down the slippery slope. Most of those who went this direction are those who love the Scriptures and are committed to its authority. And for another, because the history, as I have argued above, does not have to be inerrant to be reliable. The second gives forth to the first.

      That’s where I am at as of 1:22 Sunday, July 15 2007. 🙂

    • C Michael Patton

      Chad, I agree with you that the doctrine is primary. In fact, as I mentioned to Norbet, this is not just a Catholic distinction, but a Protestant one as well. Although, historic Protestantism has seemed to hold to a more inerrantist view.

      But from my readings of the Catholic documents, you as well hold to inerrancy. See here. Esp 3:11: “Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation.”

    • Saint and Sinner

      CMP,

      I’ve got the feeling that you wrote this as a response to my comment on another post that the visible church should excommunicate errantists. I still hold to that position.

      Our source of disagreement comes from the fact that we have two totally different epistemologies. You’re an evidentialist, and I’m a presuppositionalist. Presuppositionalism is not just another apologetic methodology; it is a totally different sub-worldview. It takes the Triune God of Scripture and his revelation as the very starting axiom of all knowledge, and in fact, the only sure foundation for knowing anything for certain.

      Scripture presents itself as more epistemically ultimate than human rationalism (i.e. in the Enlightenment sense), empirical theories, and even eye-witness events:

      “Rather, let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, ***as it is written***,”
      (Romans 3:4; Notice he cites Scripture as trumping the scholarly opinion, scientific theory, etc. of every man on the planet.)

      “But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’ ”
      (Luke 16:31; Notice that it does not say, “If they do not believe even if someone rises from the dead, then they will certainly not believe the Scriptures.” Rather, the Scriptures are a more sure witness to the Resurrection than someone being raised from the dead in front of our eyes!!! Good-bye evidentialism!)

      “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures…”
      (1 Corinthians 15:3-4; This passage is usually cited by evidentialists as proof of their method. In reality, this supports presuppositionalism. Paul knew for *certain* that Christ rose from the dead because *the Old Testament* said He would! The proceeding list of eye-witnesses (and the argument from the Resurrection in general) was given as a faith-booster for Christians, not a faith-establisher. Compare this with 1 John 1:4: The preceding claim of being an eye-witness to the Son of God was so that their “joy may be made *complete*.” It did not establish the truth of Christianity, but rather, boosted the faith of those already believing.)

      “Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory? Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures [the Old Testament].”
      (Luke 24:26; The Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament should have been enough for Cleopas and the other individual to *know* that Christ rose from the dead, *not* the eye-witness testimony of the women.)

      “Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so”
      (Acts 17:11; When it comes to epistemology, this passage is second in importance only to Luke 16:31. Notice that it does not say, “…for they received the word with great eagerness, having become like Sherlock Holmes and Watson, traveling to Judea and cross-examining every alleged eye-witness to the Resurrection to see whether these things were so.” Instead, they could know that Jesus was the Messiah by examining the Pentateuch!)

      “…The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever.” (Isaiah 40:8)

      “If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (*and the Scripture cannot be broken*)…” (John 10:35)

      ***The inerrant propositional revelation of Scripture is the *foundational axiom* of Christianity.***

      You said, “Why did Greg feel compelled to reject the entirety of Christianity because of a few supposed errors?”

      Because:
      a.) His spiritual father was the devil, his eyes were blinded to the truth, Scripture is spiritually appraised, and he was incapable of accepting the truth due to his spiritual status (John 8:43-44, John 12:39-40, 2 Corinthians 4:4, 1 Corinthians 2:14, Romans 8:7, John 6:64-65).
      b.) He was intellectually lazy. He only read the simplistic arguments of infidels and became an apostate because of it. He should have called a professor at DTS or Westminster, asked for the best Conservative commentary on that specific book of the Bible, and compared the two sides.
      c.) His thinking was uncritical. He simply accepted the presuppositions of historical-critical scholars rather than examining them.
      d.) He was impatient. Archaeology has a track record of making charges that the Bible is unhistorical disappear.
      e.) He didn’t give Scripture the benefit of the doubt. There are constantly new discoveries that shed light on the writing style of ancient documents which, in turn, show that a surface-level contradiction between two narratives can be reconciled.

      So, I have no sympathies for such a man. “…but they went out, so that it would be shown that they are not of us” (1 John 2:19).

    • ChadS

      Hi Michael,

      Yes I would agree totally with you that I hold Scripture to be inerrant. Actually as I wrote that post this morning I was referencing “Dei Verbum” (the document you so kindly provided a link to in your post). I believe it would benefit any and all Christians to read Vatican II’s “Dei Verbum,” in it you will find a strongly worded and uncompromising view of Scriptural inerrancy.

      Before becoming Catholic I was raised in a mainline Protestant denomination. As far as I can recall we were always taught that Scripture was inerrant in regards to faith and morals. Although the denomination I belonged to was open to most ranges and degrees of interpretation regarding Scriptural inerrancy, infallibility etc.

      Although I’m too young and never travelled in the circles occupied by the Dallas Theological Seminary and Fuller seminary it would be interesting to know more about the lines and contours of their debate. I guess I’ll have to do a little research.

      ChadS

    • C Michael Patton

      Saint, I too hold to presuppositional apologetics. Presuppositional apologetics comes in many varieties of application, but it does not exclude evidence in the slightest. Even Van Til would have room for the use of evidence.

      Presuppositionalism is just that, a presupposition behind the worldview to which one holds. This type of argument does not excude that presupposition or the validity of such arguments.

      Also, I did not get this from your comments. While I would not completely exclude someone who could not reconcile particular parts of Scripture from service, I would exclude them from teaching so long as it was not simply a hermeneutical difference (like so many times it is).

      You said:
      a.) His spiritual father was the devil, his eyes were blinded to the truth, Scripture is spiritually appraised, and he was incapable of accepting the truth due to his spiritual status (John 8:43-44, John 12:39-40, 2 Corinthians 4:4, 1 Corinthians 2:14, Romans 8:7, John 6:64-65).

      I don’t think these people would necessarily say that God was lying, but that the authors were mistaken or simply following the common knowledge of the day.

      You said:
      b.) He was intellectually lazy. He only read the simplistic arguments of infidels and became an apostate because of it. He should have called a professor at DTS or Westminster, asked for the best Conservative commentary on that specific book of the Bible, and compared the two sides.

      I think that this is rather simplistic and impossible to test. He may simply not have intellectually accepted the proposals for reconciliation. He cannot make himself believe something he just does not believe.

      You said:
      c.) His thinking was uncritical. He simply accepted the presuppositions of historical-critical scholars rather than examining them.

      Again, this may be the case, but I still contend that this is an easy out. There are some problem in the Scripture which are VERY hard to reconcile.

      You said:
      d.) He was impatient. Archaeology has a track record of making charges that the Bible is unhistorical disappear.

      True.

      You said:
      e.) He didn’t give Scripture the benefit of the doubt. There are constantly new discoveries that shed light on the writing style of ancient documents which, in turn, show that a surface-level contradiction between two narratives can be reconciled.

      True, but can you always expect people to?

      As one conservative Evangelical said, “Liberals cannot find a contradiction because we make the rules for finding one so difficult that it is beyond anyones ability to find a legitimate discrepancy.” There is humor in this, but also much truth.

      I like your two last statements, but I would say that we need to start first with the historicity of Scripture when evidence is the issue. The presupposed authority is there either way.

    • Saint and Sinner

      CMP,

      You said, “Saint, I too hold to presuppositional apologetics. Presuppositional apologetics comes in many varieties of application, but it does not exclude evidence in the slightest. Even Van Til would have room for the use of evidence.”

      I would agree. However, my point was that the very basis upon which the apostles and the early Christians *knew* that Christianity was true was because they believed in God’s inerrant Word. Inerrancy was foundational to their worldview.

      Also, inerrancy in revelation is a corollary to God’s character.

      You wrote, “I don’t think these people would necessarily say that God was lying, but that the authors were mistaken or simply following the common knowledge of the day.”

      I was speaking of that specific apostate’s spritual state (which in turn, will determine whether he believes in Scripture).

      You wrote, “I think that this is rather simplistic and impossible to test. He may simply not have intellectually accepted the proposals for reconciliation. He cannot make himself believe something he just does not believe.”

      You might be right, but it is my universal experience with atheists.

      You said, “Again, this may be the case, but I still contend that this is an easy out. There are some problem in the Scripture which are VERY hard to reconcile.”

      Which is why you wait patiently and give Scripture the benefit of the doubt. Determining who the last Chaldean king of Babylon was before its fall to the Persians was “VERY hard to reconcile”. Now, it’s not.

      You wrote, “True, but can you always expect people to?”

      God expects us to, and unbelief has disastrous consequences since it accuses God of being a liar. The apostate you mentioned above is going to find out the hard way on the day of judgment.

      You wrote, “As one conservative Evangelical said, “Liberals cannot find a contradiction because we make the rules for finding one so difficult that it is beyond anyones ability to find a legitimate discrepancy.” There is humor in this, but also much truth.”

      I’m not trying to be jerk when I say this but…so what? I KNOW that Scripture MUST be the Word of God via transcendental argument. Everything else, including those “rules,” stem from that presupposition. In fact, God *demands* that we start with this presupposition.

      Thanks for the conversation. Again, I’m not trying to be argumentative. God bless.

    • veritas83

      Michael – I do not understand something:

      The Cross is revealed to us through the Word. Without the Cross people will not be saved. Without the preaching of the Word people will not be saved (Romans 10:13-17). God did not choose to reveal Himself through magic tricks or totem poles, rather He chose a more sure word of prophecy. It is the foundation for the central truth of the cross. If we take away the foundation we erode the credibility of the Cross.

      Stephen Stallard

    • C Michael Patton

      Stephen,

      I agree that God’s word is of vital importance to our salvation, but my point was that ultimately it does not make Christianity true. It simply attests to its truthfulness. It is the primary source from which we get the message, but the source of the message and the truthfulness of the events behind the message are not the same thing. In other words, truth is not subject to its proclaimation, much less subject to its accurate proclaimation. Christ did not die of the cross because the Bible says so, the Bible says so because He died on the cross.

      Does that make sense.

    • Vance

      The Bible nowhere describes itself as “the Word”. In fact, the Logos is used to describe Christ. The NT did not even exist when the “Word” was being discussed, and it definitely was not referring to the OT. The Scripture contains the Gospel of Christ, but that Gospel was being spread and preached long before the collection of texts we call the Bible, or even “the Word” as we now use the term, was collected.

      The Bible is a collection of texts which contain that early presentation of the Gospel message, and it is a collection that God has ordained and guided us to because the particular texts were inspired by Him to aid us in our walk and guide us to correct belief.

      So, God is revealed to us through Scripture, that is true, but God revealed his new covenant to believers for a few hundred years before many had the full collection of texts we now call the New Testament.

    • Saint and Sinner

      Vance,

      You said, “The Bible nowhere describes itself as “the Word”.”

      What about these:

      “…The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever.” (Isaiah 40:8)

      “If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (*and the Scripture cannot be broken*)…” (John 10:35)

      CMP,

      You said, “Christ did not die of the cross because the Bible says so, the Bible says so because He died on the cross.”

      “But all this has taken place to fulfill the Scriptures of the prophets.” (Matthew 26:56)

      “‘Was it not *necessary* for the Christ to suffer these things and to enter into His glory?’ Then beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.” (Luke 24:26)

      These things happened because God said in His Word (which cannot be broken) that they would.

    • C Michael Patton

      What I meant is that the Bible does not bring about reality, it is a record of reality.

    • Diggadonkey

      CMP,

      You stated, “I believe that we often times, in our zeal for the Scriptures, create a false dilemma suggesting that belief in inerrancy and total rejection of the Christian message are the only two options.”

      I agree. But I’ve seen an even worse false dilemma and poison in the church advocated by many a King James Onlyist who takes this a step further by teaching that one either:

      A) believes in the inerrancy of the King Jame Bible

      or

      B) denies inerrancy and is a categorical “bible doubter” for not believing that God has perfectly preserved His word as found in the Authorized KJB.

      I can’t count how many times these advocates have categorically labeled me “apostate” and “doubter” and “spiritually blind” and “my own final authority” for not believing this notion that the KJV is alone the perfect, inspired and inerrant word of God. As somone who has endorsed inspiration and inerrancy for over 20 years, it’s quite a slap in the face from my supposed brothers in Christ, and it’s worse than being told I haven’t yet received the “2nd blessing” of the Spirit.

      Regards
      -Steve

    • C Michael Patton

      Steve, you are exactly right about the issues of the KJV Only group. While their intentions are good (preserve the truth of God’s word), their methods and implications are beyond any method of verification that is common to historic inquiry. The degree of certainty that they wish to produce is not unlike that of the Roman Catholic view of infallible authority, only their Magisterium convened just once in 1611.

    • Diggadonkey

      I dare say that they are in essence putting the church in an epistemological straight jacket on this issue of certainty. Ironically, they condemn as “insane” [doubters] those of us who refuse to be constrained by this narrow and unwarranted viewpoint.

    • wlesieur

      CMP
      If the Scriptures have errors (be it many or very few) how do you, I or anybody know which is error and which is not?
      wlesieur

    • C Michael Patton

      I don’t believe that they do, but in the case that they did, it would be a matter of historical inquiry, just like every other document where study would be made of both internal and external evidence.

    • […] at Ancient Hebrew Poetry has a good discussion and link to another blog  Parchment and Pen, where Michael writes regarding the doctrine of inerrancy.  (I know, I’m now guilty of the dreaded me-too […]

    • George F Somsel

      Years ago while in seminary I wrestled with this problem. There were simply too many problems which absolutely could not be reconciled even if one were willing to jump through hoop after hoop, and I was on the verge of chucking the whole thing like your character Greg Jomes in the original posting. I was and am a Calvinist, however, and I see concrete evidence for the teaching of the Perserverance of the Saints in my own life. God would simply not take his grubby hands off me. Then along came Bultmann. Suddenly it all became clear. It was not the myth as contained in the scriptures which was the important point but the message which the myth contains. No, I’m not an inerrantist nor do I think the scriptures are infallible in matters of history or science or even of faith, but I do believe that through them God conveys to us the message of his love for his creation and most specifically for man. An infallible scripture is a terrible burden for the modern man. It requires him to either be blind to the facts or to be dishonest in dealing with the facts or to reject the scripture. I will have none of that. Despite all of my wrestling with the issue I found that “no man will pluck them out of my hand”, not even I can do this myself.

    • Ryan

      Hi Michael,

      Thanks for your thoughtful and thought-provoking theological work. This post brought up a question for me in relation to your last post on the Calvinist vs. Arminian debate:

      You state here, and correctly, I believe, that it is the life, death and resurrection of Christ that are the center of Christian faith and the means of salvation, and the Scriptures need not even have been written for this to be true. This begs the question for me, that if God has saved the elect unconditionally and requires no response, why did God even bother to tell us about Jesus? God would have, in Jesus, accomplished God’s purpose: saving the elect. It seems to me that the simple fact of God having preserved a record of Jesus is evidence of God requiring a response. No?

      Blessings,
      Ryan

    • C Michael Patton

      Ryan, I believe you are correct. We could have been His children and, theoretically (like with the Scriptures), not known it. But as a Father of children, I suspect that the greatest thing that a child can discover is that He is a child of God. Therefore, theoretically, this could be the case, but practically God wants us to know Him.

      I hope that helps. It is a good question.

    • Ryan

      What, then, do the Scriptures have to do with our salvation, other than simply letting us know about it?

    • C Michael Patton

      The same thing that conversation has with a marraige. Without it, how would the relationship develop? But this is certianly going to take this thread off track!! 🙂

    • Reg Schofield

      To give you what for me was a roller coaster ride , I went form a hardcore inerrancy advocate , to seeing all sorts if contradictions and after going through that valley of both arrogance and doubt have reaffirmed that doctrine with a vengeance. Many books helped along my path back and writers from Sproul ,Horton and in particular James White, help me realize that taken as they are , the scriptures are an amazing consistent document that given humility on my part and time , with deep study , I found all the problems begun to fall away like a late fall trees leaves …till I was left with the realization , I will never know all the mysteries of this word till I go to God or Christ comes again but it is truth , period!!
      Plus as I have seen around me many people , who begin to deny and let go of this doctrine , I yet seen them not begin to surrender other teachings . In fact in my life as I struggled with this issue , I was rationalizing all sorts of things which even lead to a more tolerant view of sin in my own life and a broader view of salvation.
      I’m not as charitable as I used to be concerning this teaching and when I see someone beginning to let it go as if it didn’t matter . If we have a faith grounded in history , then that narrative is worth defending and upholding. Granted we must learn to read the bible in all its unique ways but I affirm and stand by the assertion that as given in its original languages it was without error and even in the manuscripts we have , I now have more confidence in declaring that it is God speaking , not just men prone to error and deception!!

    • C Michael Patton

      Thanks for the imput Reg. That is helpful.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.