Some Thoughts On Biblical Inerr
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.
- 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 nonexistent, 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)
From Computers for Christ