On Biblical Inerrancy

Recently in the past few years, there has been quite a few books released on the subject of biblical inerrancy (either directly or indirectly), as seen from Robert Yarbrough's article in the recent issue of Themelios (see here). This has spurred me to organise and put up some of my thoughts on this subject matter, which have been brewing inside for quite some time now.

Firstly, we must ask what do we mean by 'biblical inerrancy'? i.e. we need a definition. I think much of the discussion (or confusion!) often proceeds without defining the term, and it is often assumed what each other means when we say 'inerrancy of the bible'. Such an assumption can no longer be taken for granted for the sake of clarity in the discussion. For this, I follow the lead of Jason Sexton in the same issue of Themelios (see here) who suggests the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (henceforth CSBI) should be highlighted more as a starting basepoint for a definition in the discussion. We reproduce the summary statement of the CSBI which essentially covers what CSBI means by inerrancy:

1. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby toreveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge.Holy Scripture is God’s witness to Himself.

2. Holy Scripture, being God’s own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: It is to be believed, as God’s instruction, in all that it affirms; obeyed, as God’s command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God’s pledge, in all that it promises.

3. The Holy Spirit, Scripture’s divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness andopens our minds to understand its meaning.

4. Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its ownliterary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives.

5. The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited of disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible’s own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.

Secondly, we ask What is biblical inerrancy built on? i.e. What's the basis or evidence for biblical inerrancy? The best answer we can give in this regard is that it is a natural and logical conclusion from the twofold Scriptural evidence regarding the nature of Scripture and the fact that God does not lie. The two key passages on the nature of Scripture from 2 Tim 3:16 that 'all Scripture is God-breathed (theopneustos)' and 2 Pet 1:21 that 'men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit' lends us to a conclusion that the words of Scripture are the words of God, i.e. though written by human hands, the words are nonetheless the words of God, so much so that we can say that 'it has flowed to us from the very mouth of God by the ministry of men' (Calvin Inst. 1.7.5). Another way of stating it is that every word of Scripture is there as God intended it to be (Careful observation on 2 Tim 3:16 will also lead us to realise that the quality of being God-breathed or inspired is attached to the text of Scripture, and not to the writers or even to the recipients). The other set of passages would be those stating God does not lie (e.g. Tit 1:2, Heb 6:18). Together, these two truths lead to the natural and logical conclusion that since God spoke the words of Scripture and since God does not lie, all the words of Scripture must be true, or inerrant. The latest writer who has restated this argument is Timothy Ward in his book Words of Life (IVP):

"The claim that the Bible is inerrant is a conclusion that is directly drawn from what Scripture says about God, and about itself in relation to God. Scripture says, as we have seen, that it is breathed out by God, as his own words. In addition, in Scripture God states with great clarity that his character is such that he cannot lie, and that he alone is utterly true and trustworthy. (Titus 1:2, Heb. 6.18) The conclusion that the Bible is inerrant is essentially derived from linking these two related truths closely together." (see here for the quote)

Thirdly, we ask What are some objections to biblical inerrancy? They can be summarised to a few main categories.

Firstly, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy almost seems to lead one to lean towards an almost mechanical dictative mode of Scripture writing, resulting in a non-present or at best, present-by-name only kind of human agency. I think this is an unfair caricature. The CSBI clearly states the involvement of human agency (see summary statement 2 'written by men', and Article VIII 'We affirm that God is 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'). The key is in the superintendence of the Spirit. Rather, those who object to biblical inerrancy on this count have to ask themselves if there is any hidden assumption within them that human agency must necessitate error. If so, this assumption is not necessarily true. We make dozens of statements every day that are completely true. This point is captured in the CSBI under Article IX '[...] We deny that fortitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God's Word'.

Secondly and somewhat related to the first, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy 'flattens' the nature and genres of Scripture by reducing Scripture to merely propositional facts, which are determined as either true or untrue. Carson, picking up on Vanhoozer's work in speech acts in distinguishing between the locutionary (what we mean in saying something), the illocutionary (what we do in saying something) and the prelocutionary (what we bring about in saying something), has this to say: "We cannot say that every passage of Scripture conveys the truth [because of the genre of certain passages], but we can say that every passage is inerrant, i.e. never affirms in matter of fact what is false [considering the illocutionary effects]" (own comments added) (The Gagging of God, 166). Perhaps Carson's statement might help to shed some light on how we can proceed with calling the Bible inerrant while recognising the variety of genres within the Bible, and the rich and complex ways in which these different genres appeal to truth? In any case, this is definitely an objection which must be thought through deeper in discussions of inerrancy (something which the CSBI, unfortunately, does not address much).

Thirdly, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is an argument based on rationalism. One of the latest writers who have taken this line of argument is A.T.B. McGowan in The Divine Spiration of Scripture (Nottingham: APOLLOS, 2007). The clearest articulation of his objection to the term biblical inerrancy comes in pages 113-119. McGowan first highlights that inerrancy is 'at best, an implication [of the doctrine of inspiration of Scripture] rather than a biblical doctrine'. This, we agree with him. The next question is if such an implication is legitimate, which McGowan does not think so. He views that this implication is highly rationalistic:

"Their [referring to the Princeton theologians of Hodge and Warfield] reasoning was essentially simple: in order to develop a solid epistemology, we must have propositional truth that can be guaranteed with scientific accuracy. We must then handle that truth by using a scientific method. The result is thus a belief in the inerrancy of the autographa and a theological method that reduces Scripture to a set of propositions under the theologian's control." (p.117).

McGowan views such an approach, in turn, limits God to act in a way that conforms to our expectations. "It assumes that our desire for epistemological certainty must be satisfied and it can be satisfied only through the receiving from God of inerrant autographic texts." (p.118).

McGowan's concerns and what he is trying to achieve must be clearly heard and understood in its context. Having done that, however, we have two genuine difficulties with his proposal. Firstly, is the doctrine of inerrancy such an illegitimate implication as McGowan makes it out to be? We think not. Rather, it seems to be a most natural and logical implication that flows from the two truths of God speaking and God not lying (in saying this, however, we are not negating our 2nd point about the differentiated genres of Scripture). In fact, one has to ask if the implications or conclusions of two truths are so clear, then doesn't that make the implication achieve the status of the truth itself? I'm thinking here of the Doctrine of the Trinity. Nowhere is the doctrine of the Trinity mentioned outright in Scripture, but the implications from the whole voice of the Scriptures is so clear that it is right to draw the implications and the doctrine of the Trinity from the witness. The other observation to make is also what forms the base or foundation for the doctrine of biblical inerrancy? Is it the evidence from Scriptures leading to one drawing the conclusion? Or is it the argument of the inerrant autographa? It seems to me to be the first rather than the second. Secondly, I think McGowan in presenting his case has fallen into the error of what he said those on the inerrantist camp has committed - boxing God up. He writes further in his book:

"My argument is that Scripture, having been divinely spirated, is as God intended it to be. Having freely chosen to use human beings, God knew what he was doing. He did not give us an inerrant autographical text, because he did not intend to do so." (p.124, my emphasis)

The above statement is too quick in the light of the discussion. It would have been better to leave things more in a nuetral position rather than to push the argument so hard and risk committing the same error McGowan accuses the other camp of doing.

Nonetheless, McGowan has reminded those of us who hold onto biblical inerrancy to ever be clear of why we hold on to the doctrine (from a natural and logical conclusion of the evidence in Scripture rather than from an epistemic standpoint bordering on epistemic pride), and to be mindful of the way we go about presenting it.

Finally, we ask What's the way forward? It's clear to me that discussion of biblical inerrancy is largely linked to the nature of Scripture. Our discussion of inerrancy hinges on how we understand the nature of Scripture, mainly how we understand the divine and human agencies in Scripture coming together. Whatever the most recent proposal provided (e.g. John Webster's proposal of the creaturely reality of Scripture being sanctified to serve in the saving economy of God's self-communication), there are entailments for the doctrine of inerrancy. Perhaps a way to proceed forward is to take the idea of inerrancy to focus more on the content of Scripture, rather than the form (of the words) of Scripture. By focusing on its content (of which of course the words play a part in forming it), Scripture is shown to be true in what it affirms because of the fulfillment of the promissory nature of it, seen most evidently in the gospel of our Lord Jesus. Francis Watson captures this idea well in his summary article 'An Evangelical Response', in The Trustworthiness of God: Perspectives on the Nature of Scripture (ed. Paul Helm and Carl Trueman; Leicester: APOLLOS, 2002), 285-89. He states:

""Evangelical" discussions of the trustworthiness of Scripture often seem to bypass the euangelion. [...] The result is a doctrine of scriptural "trustworthiness" or "Authority" in which Jesus himself is relatively marginal. [...] The writings of both Testaments converge on the figure of Jesus and on the triune divine identity disclosed in Jesus, and this convergence is the basis of their authority and trustworthiness." (p.288)

In conclusion, then, what's my view on biblical inerrancy? I think I would see myself as a 'soft' inerrantist. I'm still an inerrantist in the sense that I'm not willing to forsake the term and go for others (be it 'infallibilist' or 'limited inerrantist'). I think there's too much at stake in dropping the term and adopting a new term, because the implications of the other camp will automatically be assumed in whatever new term that is adopted, mainly Scripture has errors, something which I do not agree with. But yet, I see myself as a 'soft' inerrantist, in that I really agree with Francis Watson that a better way to discuss inerrancy is to begin with the content of Scripture in the truthfulness it bears to Christ, rather than to begin with the form of the words. This also accounts better for the variegated nature of the genre of Scripture.