The Logic of Inerrancy

The concept of biblical inerrancy is an ongoing and even contentious one. Two terms are used when discussing the question. One is "inerrancy" ... the absence of any factual errors. The other is "infallibility" ... The impossibility of making errors. Two sides of the same coin. It could not make an error and it did not make an error. Is it a valid doctrine? Is it rational? Is it ... biblical? That last one seems a little bit funny to me. Here's the basic line of reasoning: "The Bible never says it is inerrant." The problem is that those who use this argument don't see the problem. If the primary argument that the Bible is inerrant was based on the Bible's own statement that it was inerrant, we'd have a classic logical fallacy: Circular reasoning. "The Bible says it's inerrant. The Bible, being inerrant, cannot be wrong. Therefore, the Bible is inerrant!" Wrong. Sorry, but that's nonsense.

Does the Bible claim to be the Word of God? Absolutely! It only takes a basic search engine a brief moment to discover the phrase "Thus saith the Lord" thousands of times in the Bible. That's a claim to being God's Word. Then there's that whole "God-breathed" thing (so often minimized incorrectly as "inspired") that clearly states, "All Scripture is breathed out by God" (2 Tim 3:16). If it is God's Word, can God err? Of course not. Still, to make the argument from this that the Bible is inerrant would be circular. It's helpful to the believer, but not as a valid argument for someone who does not believe.

There are other popular arguments that we like, but just don't cut the mustard, so to speak. We like the one that says "The Spirit testifies that it's the Word of God." It is a true statement, but, again, not a valid argument. Others have testified, "The Spirit told me ..." with the part that follows being downright heresy. Shall we believe them, also? And there is the popular argument that believers offer that "It is the Word of God because it speaks truth to me." This may be a true statement and is nice confirmation to a believer, but, again, it's not a valid argument for someone who does not believe for a reason similar to the previous argument. If the Quran "speaks truth to me", have I validated it as God's Word? Still another argument is "the Church says so." It is a true statement. Orthodox Christianity has always held that God does not err and, therefore, His Word is inerrant. But you can see the same problem here, can't you? "The Church" says that the Pope is infallible. Oh, wait, no, we don't all buy that. Great! Now what? See? These types of things are true and are good as confirmation for those who believe, but not valid arguments. Comforting, but not convincing.

Is there an argument, preferably a biblical one, that would demonstrate inerrancy without relying on a biblical claim to inerrancy? Yes, there is. The argument would go something like this. If you have a messenger from God who declares the Bible to be God's Word, then that would be evidence that it is God's Word. Of course, how do you determine the authenticity of such a messenger? Well, according to Scripture, that was the primary function of miracles. If you recall, Nicodemus said, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him" (John 3:2). In fact, throughout John's Gospel he liked to use the word "signs" when others wrote "miracles" because that was the purpose. If a person showed up on the scene with abilities that humans didn't have -- only God would have -- then they must be a genuine messenger from God.

So, do we have a candidate? Yes! Jesus was a verified "teacher come from God". He taught that the Scripture "cannot be broken" (John 10:35). In fact, He said, "For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law ..." (Matt 5:18). The wording He liked to repeat was "It is written" to demonstrate that what He was saying was absolutely true and authoritative. Of course, that was the Old Testament. He also promised the Spirit who would lead His disciples into all truth. Jesus prayed, "Your word is truth" (John 17:17). And Peter, speaking of Paul's work, ranks it with "the other Scriptures" (2 Peter 3:15-16). So we have confirmation from God's authentic messenger, Jesus, that the New Testament would be written and confirmation from another of God's authentic messengers, Peter, that Paul's writings were Scripture. Paul's writings included this: "All Scripture is God-breathed ..." So the question becomes, "Does God make mistakes?"

But, look, this isn't just my line of thinking. I just summarized this piece by John Gerstner. So you go ahead and read it. You'll find a biblical and logical proof that the Bible is inerrant. Accepting it as such is, as always, up to you. Arguing, "No such argument exists", however, is a lie.

Defending Inerrancy ... Why?

I have on more than than one occasion (and more) defended the argument that the Scriptures in their original documents were without error. We can further conclude, based on the high level of confidence that we have better than 99.5% confidence that the texts we have are true to the original documents, that our Bibles are without error. Oh, there may be a minor translation mistake here or there. There may be a transcription error in a number or something. But the doctrine of biblical inerrancy holds that the Bible is 100% infallible and inerrant in what it teaches. I defend that.

Lots of people disagree. Lots of people wonder why I bother. "What's the point? Are you some kind of crazy fundamentalist whacko?" (because, as we all know, anyone who believes in the fundamentals of Scripture and, therefore, Christianity is a whacko). Some have argued, "You know, the Bible makes no such claim." Others have argued, "You know, if you're arguing from the Bible, you're arguing from circular logic. 'The Bible claims to be inerrant, so it is.' Logical fallacy." There are even those who will claim "I love the Bible, but your idea that it is infallible and inerrant cannot be true." In other words, there are lots of critics, and they even disagree with each other.

Why do I defend the doctrine? Well, it's simple. The question is not the book (technically "books"). The question is God. Consider this syllogism.

Premise 1: God cannot be wrong.
Premise 2: The Bible is God's Word.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Bible cannot be wrong.

In logic, arguments are valid if they logically agree, if the premises require the conclusion. This is a valid argument.

Now, in logic, there is a difference between a valid argument and a true argument. A valid argument means that the conclusion must follow the premises. A true argument requires that the premises be true. Are these premises true?

The claim of the Bible is that "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work." (2 Tim 3:16-17 ESV) The phrase you will often see for "breathed out by God" is "inspired by God". There is, in fact, a difference between these terms. "Inspired" is "breathed in". The word here is the opposite -- to breathe out. The idea is not how inspiring the writing was -- not the nature of the writing -- but the origin of the writing. Where did it come from? The biblical claim for Scripture is that Scripture is originated by God. It is God's Word. Thus, Premise 2 would be deemed truthful. Now, of course, we might consider a version of reality where God can be wrong (Premise 1), but if we're going to go down that route, we're going to have to stop being theists, let alone Christians.

Thus, we see that the syllogism is both valid and true. Therefore, the Bible cannot be wrong.

Some people question the inerrancy of Scripture. I would contend that 1) logic requires it and 2) theism requires it. Now, you can debate all day long about whether or not it's true, but understand, at the end of the day, if you arrive at the conclusion that the Bible is not inerrant (as I've defined in the first paragraph), you have also eliminated either the reliability of God and/or the Bible as the Word of God. Some people are fine with that. People who claim to be Christians either must not be fine with that or must not be Christians. It isn't the Bible that is in question; it is God.

Inerrancy in History

It is argued that the entire "inerrancy of Scripture" thing is a fabrication, a new thing. (Oddly enough, most of those who make this argument are fully invested in new things and happy to embrace them if they coincide with what they want to believe. Apparently, it is only when a belief opposes their preferences can a perceived "new thing" be considered bad.) But is it true? Is this a new thing?

Iranaeus (130-202 A.D.) believed in divine inspiration and argued that not a single detail, word, or letter could be considered insignificant. Clement of Rome (150-250 A.D.) said, "The Holy Scriptures which are given through the Holy Spirit ... nothing iniquitous or falsified is written." Origen (184-254 A.D.) said, "that not a jot or tittle was in vain in Scripture, that there was nothing in Scripture which did not come down from the fullness of the divine majesty." But it was really Augustine (354-430 A.D.) who pushed the inerrancy position. In his Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, Augustine said, "If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, 'The author of this book is mistaken'; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood." In a letter to Jerome he made statements like "only the Holy Scripture is considered inerrant" and "Scripture has never erred."

As it turns out, it is not a new doctrine. It is an original doctrine. As I said before, it is a biblical concept. Jesus said it, multiple times (Matt 5:18; Matt 24:35; John 10:35). It is based on the character of God (Heb 6:18; Titus 1:2). It is the claim of Scripture itself (Psa 119:160; 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21; 1 Cor 14:37; 1 Thess 2:13; 2 Peter 3:15-16) It is the historic position of the Church.

Why is it that it didn't become so absolutely clear until Augustine's day? Because no one was asking the question. First, the actual canon of Scripture wasn't settled until the 4th century, and many of that day weren't literate. It wasn't until the canon was "set in stone" and people started arguing about the content that inerrancy became an issue. But Augustine was taking on heresies brought about by a misuse of Scripture, so he had to establish a reliable source. Why did it become a big deal in the Reformation? Because the Roman Catholic Church was twisting the usage of Scripture and that needed to be corrected. Why is it that so many claim that it is a fairly modern, 19th century innovation? Because in the 18th and 19th centuries, the "Age of Enlightenment" included a direct assault on the reliability of the Bible and Christians needed to respond clearly and absolutely.

Christians need to respond clearly and absolutely today. Either God is reliable and the words He breathed are true or we have an insurmountable problem. Accusations ranging from "You're putting words in Jesus's mouth" to "You're being arrogant" to "You're conflating your opinion as God's view" (by, you know, quoting God's Word) don't change the reliability of God, His Word, or the biblical and historical claim that He is true and, therefore, His Word is true. Look, I don't imagine that someone out there who does not believe in inerrancy of the Bible is going to smack their forehead here and say, "Wow! Didn't know that! Thanks for clearing it all up and now I believe." Perhaps, on the other hand, someone who does but is questioning amidst the constant assault on God's Word these days can derive some measure of relief from this. Believe what you want about it, but don't buy the lie that it is a new doctrine without support or reason. On the other hand, good luck with defending the faith with a fallible Bible. Do not, in that case, refer to it as "the Word of God" because "fallible" and "Word of God" is a slap in God's face. Don't think this is not a defense of the Bible; it is a defense of God.

Inerrancy

"You know, the inerrancy of Scripture is not in the Bible," they'll tell you. Really? Oddly enough, many of those at war with biblical inerrancy consider themselves not only followers of Christ, but Christ-focused. So it's odd that they appear to have missed biblical inerrancy from the lips of Christ. It was Jesus who said, "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35), which, read in context, does not mean "inviolable", but "inerrant". And it follows logically. (Scripture claims not to be merely inspired, but "God-breathed" (2 Tim 3:16-17). That is, not "inhaled" by man ("inspire"), but "exhaled" by God.) If it is God who breathed it into human writers, if these writers were "carried along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21), then we're resting not on the veracity of human writers, but on the God who breathed it, the Spirit who carried it, the faithfulness of the Almighty. He is infallible and inerrant. The Word He breathed would have to be, too.

Part of the problem occurs in our failure to grasp the claim. We're not saying that it is inerrant in its precision. For instance, when Mark wrote that "the whole city was gathered together at the door" (Mark 1:33), we aren't looking at precision. We're looking at a representation of truth. Lots and lots of people were there. Nor are we referring to the problem of language. Time, culture, and comprehension all cause shifts. Copy errors, additions or subtractions, things happen that affect the texts we have. We understand more or less, better or worse. An industrial culture, for instance, might not comprehend the farm culture references as well as a farm culture would. The "inerrancy" claim is for the original texts, and to the extent that we grasp the original texts, we have inerrancy. Nor does inerrancy exclude the usage of language. Did Jesus say, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" Yes, yes He did. Did God actually forsake Him? Not the point. The point was capturing the sense of Christ on the cross, not a statement of fact. Inerrancy, then, says that the Bible expresses truth in its original texts without error. Our job is to figure out what that is ... as opposed to correcting some supposed error.

You'll hear that "inerrancy" is not a biblical doctrine and, therefore, a man-made one. It is "man-made" indeed if you consider it from the lips of the man, Jesus Christ. And, sure, human logic from the faithfulness of God (biblical) regarding the "exhaled by God" nature of Scripture (biblical) and the impact of the Holy Spirit on the writers (biblical) to the reliability of the Bible might be considered "man-made", but it would appear to me to be impossible to avoid as well. John Frame said that biblical inerrancy is "a place to live." Not proposition, not a claim, certainly not "recent", but a doctrine that shapes our lives and thinking, the structures our ways of understanding everything, that establishes truth and provides commonality among believers. Oh, and least Jesus thought it was true, even if some of His "followers" disagree.

A Qualified Success

There is a phrase, sometimes referred to as a logical fallacy, that you may have heard. It is "death by a thousand qualifications". Here's the idea. You may say you believe in X, but if you have to qualify X too much, you will render it meaningless and, therefore, nullify it. Seems reasonable on the surface. I mean, just say what you mean and don't bother with all those qualifications. You believe in "the inerrancy of Scripture"? Then you shouldn't have to explain that by this you mean that you're speaking about the original manuscripts and what you mean by "error" and in what context you are speaking and ... well, there shouldn't have to be all this talk. Inerrant or not? Make up your mind.

Given our day and our problem with simple English words like "marriage" and "love" and "the Gospel" and "Omnipotent" and "Sovereign" and ... oh, the list would be too long ... I'm afraid we've made it impossible to be simple. In a day when "love" can be defined as being hateful and "non-judgmental" is demonstrated by being judgmental and so on, "Just say it" doesn't really work anymore. For instance, I might be classified in my theology as a "Calvinist", but immediately there are errors associated with the term. No, I don't follow Calvin's teachings. No, I'm not a hyper-Calvinist. No, I'm not a fatalist. And so on ... almost ad infinitum. Words, they say, mean something, but we're just not so sure anymore what.

Over at The Gospel Coalition, Justin Taylor wrote a piece titled What does "Inerrancy" Mean? That's because it requires explanation. In the piece, Taylor quotes from John Frame's book The Doctrine of the Word of God, which includes an entire chapter on the doctrine of inerrancy. Because it requires explanation. Take, for instance, the problem of precision. Here's prime example. In 1 Kings Solomon built a fountain for his house. The text says "It was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and five cubits high, and a line of thirty cubits measured its circumference." (1 Kings 7:23) Well, now, see? That's an error. "Everyone knows that the circumference of a circle 10 cubits in diameter is 31.41592653589793 cubits. Clearly God doesn't know the value of π." So, does that make it erroneous? The term needs qualification. (Oh, and do you think anyone else would be called "erroneous" if they said "30" rather than "31.41592653589793" ... which, by the way, is not fully accurate?) Or take the problem of language itself. In Mark's gospel he claims at one point that "The whole city was gathered together at the door." (Mark 1:33) Now, does that require that every person (and non-person?) was actually standing at the door? Or is this a language tool (we call it "hyperbole") to simply indicate that there was a large crowd? I suspect that the anti-inerrancy folks would require of Mark what they would never require of themselves, and this would clearly be an error because surely not every single man, woman, child, goat, or horse cart was actually gathered at that door. Error? The term requires qualification.

The general definition is of biblical inerrancy is "The Bible can be trusted in what it teaches and affirms." But just how far do we take that definition? If it is reliable in what it affirms, does that mean there can be no errors of any kind? Or does it mean that it is trustworthy in all matters of faith and practice, but not necessarily in science, geography, that kind of stuff? (Called "limited inerrancy".) For instance, if the Bible accurately records something that someone says, but what they said was not accurate, is that an error? Some affirm that the Bible contains the Word of God without error, but is not itself in its entirety inerrant. You see, it gets ... sticky. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy says, on infallibility, "that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses." On inerrancy it says "that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit." They qualify that in the negative.

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 the use of free citations.

That's "qualification". We're not talking about technical precision. We're not talking about grammar. We're not talking about hyperbole. We're not talking about what they term "free citations". (For instance, quotes in the New Testament from Old Testament are not always perfect quotes.)

The premise of the position is the inspiration of the Scriptures -- God breathed it (1 Tim 3:16). If God breathed it, it cannot be wrong. Conversely, if God breathed it and it is wrong, what God exhaled was in error. Unacceptable. Does that mean that the texts we have today cannot contain any errors of any sort at all? No. First is the qualification of "original manuscripts". Subsequent copies could make transcription errors. Subsequent translations could make translations errors. Now, we can have a pretty high level of confidence that 1) the texts we do possess are nearly exactly the same as the original manuscripts, and 2) none of the very few remaining questions ultimately change anything of doctrinal consequence. After the "original manuscripts" concept, there are all those other qualifying concepts.

Does "inerrant" suffer the "death by a thousand qualifications"? Perhaps the word does. But I actually know of very few words today that don't require qualifications. But this doesn't mean that the doctrine is dead. First, "qualifications" are necessary for any complex concept. If "qualifications" kill concepts, we don't have many today. Second, premised on the "God-breathed" nature of Scripture, if you affirm error in any certain sense, you affirm that God was mistaken. Or you deny that God breathed it and it is nothing more than a nice book. Your choice. Third, the question isn't "error-free". The question is its trustworthiness in what it teaches and affirms. Without that, you have no basis for Christian doctrine. The whole trick at this point is to determine what it teaches and affirms. But, then, that has always been the case, hasn't it? Do I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture? Depends on what you mean. And, in fact, I suspect that you can't tell me what you mean ... without qualification.

The Marriage Test

I recently had an exchange with a self-identified "agnostic, humanist, and naturalist" that started with the topic of Biblical inerrancy. Of course, that wasn't his aim. His aim was to remove the Bible entirely. And I get that. Those who deny the existence of God, who are, by nature, "hostile toward God" (Rom 8:7), are certainly going to deny His Word. No surprise there. What is a surprise is the frequency and volume of those who classify themselves as "Christians" who deny that the Bible is God's Word. Oh, sure, they may affirm it's God's Word in speech, but when they deny that God breathed and maintained it without error, well, then, you only have a couple possible conclusions. If your Bible is fallible, either God is not God, or God is subject to His creatures who changed it, or the Bible is not God's Word. Look, it's a simple equation. God = infallible. If the Word we have is not infallible, it is not God's Word. Simple math.

But you can see the simple math from my agnostic antagonist, right? Here, it's easy. If the Bible is God's Word, then God exists, Christ is who He says He is, the entire faith is true, and the "agnostic, humanist, naturalist" is in trouble. And so is the Bible-denying "Christian".

Over at (the deteriorating) Christianity Today, Gavin Peacock, pastor of Calvary Grace Church, Calgary, Canada, wrote an article on inerrancy and, of all things, marriage. As it turns out (and as I've maintained along with those of the rest who hold this position), the Church affirmed inerrancy for the first 16 centuries. They debated at times "Is this one in?" or the like, but the question was never whether or not God's Word could be ... wrong.

I don't know. Maybe when I put it like that you see it. You see, if "inerrant" means "without error", it's opposite is "erroneous"--"wrong". And yet, self-professed Christians today argue that God was or is, well, wrong.

Gavin Peacock talks about the Church's history on the question, about how this current "No it isn't" position was the product of the skeptics of the 17th and 18th centuries, about how inerrancy was affirmed, denied, and reaffirmed. He (as I) points to the position as a parallel to Satan's "Did God say?" in the garden. But what I found most interesting was his connection between Scripture and marriage. He considers marriage a "litmus test" for biblical inerrancy--for a proper understanding and respect for Scripture.

There is no doubt that Scripture starts with the marriage of Adam and Eve (for the purpose of mutual support and companionship, and for procreation) (Gen 1:28; Gen 2:18,24), that it ends with marriage (Rev 19:6-9), and that marriage is a central depiction of Christ's relationship with His own (Eph 5:28-33). Marriage in the Bible is not incidental; it is central. So Peacock concludes, "Earthly marriage is crucial but not ultimate, God is, and marriage points to the person of Christ and how he relates to us. Affirming 'same sex marriage' destroys that picture. But it is the fruit of denying the inerrancy of God's Word." He goes on to say, "In other words, by the time a Church legitimizes 'same sex marriage', it has already ceased to be a Church."

I have no reason to disagree with the pastor from Canada. I think that marriage is not a peripheral, but a key issue, and in a much broader sense than just society, interpersonal relationships, or families. It is a key structure assigned by God for our benefit and for illustration, and people mess with that at their own peril. And I am convinced that the only way you can arrive at the conclusion that the thing going on between same-sex people is "marriage" is to first eliminate God's Word. But, then, when you do that, you're at the same position as my friend, the agnostic. And marriage is a valid litmus test.

Questioning Scripture

The numbers of folk even among Christians -- even among "evangelical" Christians -- who claim that the Bible is the Word of God, a God-breathed, inerrant, infallible text handed down to us through the centuries and protected by God for our use today is dwindling. There are a variety of views, of course, but that particular one is passing away. What other options are there?

The Bible is not applicable for today. You seem to think that this book can still be applied to the life and times of the 21st century. You think that because some 1st century guy wrote against, say, "fornication", that we shouldn't commit "fornication". Some of you nonsensical types think that just because some guy wrote, "I do not allow a woman to teach or usurp authority over a man" that it means that women shouldn't teach or usurp authority over men. Clearly that was a reference to the culture of the day and today women are much better educated and much more capable. But that's just an example. It's all over the pages of the Bible. The Bible preaches slavery and sexism and puritanical sexual morals and all sorts of obvious errors. It has been used to invade countries, repress races, kill suspected heretics and witches, and all sorts of immorality. We are much more advanced today, both in knowledge and in morality. We know that there is no difference between blacks and whites, males and females, gays and straights. The simple fact that the Bible did not seem to see this kind of obvious truth proves that it is irrelevant for today.

The Bible does not mean what it appears to say. Sure, sure, maybe the Bible is the "Word of God" (whatever you may mean by that), but, look, it's abundantly clear that it is necessarily interpreted by fallible readers. Frankly, it takes a whole lot more information than the common reader has to really understand what's going on in some of it. There are cultural issues in view that are not readily obvious and there are social issues in mind that we may not know and there are certainly language barriers to overcome and, well, it's all very difficult. It may say, for instance, that it's an abomination for a man to lie with a man as with a woman, but what does that mean? You may say that it means that it's an abomination for a man to lie with a man as with a woman, some ancient text version of "gay sex". But scholars suggest that it references illicit sexual behavior in pagan temple worship. And we're all agreed, I think, that performing pagan temple worship is against God's law. So, you see, it's a matter of private interpretation. The Bible doesn't always mean what it seems to say. And while we might agree that it is "inspired by God" (whatever you may mean by that), we will also agree that human interpretation is flawed ... at best. So certainty about meaning and texts and contexts is questionable at best and more likely unwise.

Since it's not actually written by God in any sense, it shouldn't be viewed as "inerrant" or "infallible" in any sense. The Bible is an ancient text. It was obviously written by humans -- and we all know that "to err is human". And, look, let's be honest ... you can't read the Bible with any thoroughness and not know that there are obvious errors and contradictions. Besides, it was written from the perspective of ancient cultures with outdated notions and outmoded values. Look, maybe there is some value to the book. It has nice things like "love your neighbor" which might be helpful. It has commonly understood morals like "Don't do to others what you don't want others to do to you." We're good with that. But the useful stuff is more rare than you realize and, frankly, the entire structure of the book is too weak to form opinions about what to pass as laws, what a "moral society" would look like, or whether or not my pet project should be completed (because the fact that I want it makes it "moral") or terminated (because you have some obscure belief in some dubious, ancient writings that suggest that some vague "deity" thinks -- in your highly questionable and bigoted opinion -- my pet project is "immoral"). It's a book. Get over it!

"Did God say ...?" That pretty much summarizes them all, doesn't it? If you're aware of the origin of the quote, you know that the originator used some truth, some shaded truth, and some lies to produce doubts and, ultimately, rebellion in the minds of his listeners. It isn't a new trick, then. But it sure is popular today. The fact that it's popular in the world (which we are promised will be opposed to us) isn't surprising. The fact that it is popular among those self-identifying as "Christians" and even "conservative Christians" (in some sense or another) is sad. The growing attempts at "new understanding" and revisionist interpretation is appalling. The suggestion that we, some 2000 years later, have finally come up with the truth that God Himself could never seem to get across to us in all those years is mind-boggling. But we know the source of the problem -- he who asked at the outset, "Did God say ...?" It does not bode well for Christendom and it does not bode well for those who go down that path. It's the kind of thing that I look at and say, "Thank God He is Sovereign!" But, then, that would only come from a view that answers, "Yes! God did say ...!"

Bibliolatry

It's a real word, apparently. You can look it up online. Wikipedia has a generic definition -- "the worship of a particular book". The Free Dictionary defines it simply as "excessive adherence to a literal interpretation of the Bible." Of course, "excessive" is not defined in this context, so it's not a helpful definition. The word is built on two other words: Bible and Idolatry. The accusation seems to be that people who believe that the Bible is inerrant are Bible worshipers. That's probably not an accurate understanding of the accusation, but that's the intent of the word. The idea is that we shouldn't hold the Bible in that high of regard. It's imperfect. Deal with it!

Interestingly, the accusation usually comes from Christendom rather than the anti-Christian world. Christians historically have indeed been "people of the Word". The claim of the Reformation was sola scriptura -- the Bible is the sole authority in matters of faith and practice. The truth, in fact, is that for most of Church history the Bible has been held as inerrant and infallible. (Why they use both terms is beyond me. I mean, if it's inerrant, it must be infallible, mustn't it? But, hey, no one asked me.) The split between the Roman Catholic Church and the Reformers was not about inerrancy, but about the Bible being the sole authority. (Roman Catholics also see the Church and Tradition as two other sources.) It wasn't until the 19th century that the question was even raised. And yet, in the last 200 years, "wise" scholars have determined that Church history has been wrong and the Church, united on this point, has been wrong and we are much smarter now to realize that it just can't be.

So what is the accusation of "bibliolatry" all about? Well, if you believe that the Bible is actually inerrant, you're placing too much trust on an unreliable book. In the '70's, Fuller Seminary (among others) shifted from "inerrant" to "infallible". (Something can be infallible in its claims while having errors in its content.) "You see," they assured us, "we believe that the Bible contains God's Word, but it is not actually God's Word and, as such, may have errors. It's just true in principle, not particulars." So here we are -- those of us who still believe that the Bible is the Word of God, inerrant -- no longer on the inside looking out. No, we're a dwindling minority. And the quickest way to shut us up is not via argument, but by ridicule. Thus the term, "bibliolatry". "You crazies ... you worship the Bible. Not us! We worship God!" But ... is it accurate? Is the accusation fair? Are we bibliolaters, even if that's hard to say?

I don't get the accusation. Oh, I suppose that there actually are folks who worship their bibles. Take, for instance, the Muslims who are offended if you sully their book. The book itself is sacred to them. Christians don't see it that way. I suppose there might be a few, but they're outliers. No, the Christian pejoratively referred to as "fundamentalist" (because that rotten Christian adheres to fundamental, biblical principles and rejects secularism) doesn't actually worship the book. So what exactly is the idea of "fundamentalist", of "inerrancy"? Well, the claim is that God breathed the Bible using human hands to write it. It filtered through their language and personalities, but God superintended the Bible to say what He intended it to say. Therefore, the Bible is God's Word written by humans. The claim, then, is not that the Bible is inerrant, but that God is inerrant. The claim is that an inerrant, infallible God saw to it that we had written down for our benefit what He intended us to know.

So my question is the counter. Is it the claim of these Christians who level the accusation of "bibliolatry" that God cannot or would not do such a thing? Is it their assertion that God was either incapable or unwilling to provide such a written record for us? And what was the failure mechanism? Did God just not conceive of the idea? Or did He fail to keep it in some satisfactory condition while Man degraded it? Did human Free Will override God's ability to maintain a reliable book? It seems to me the problem is not a problem of worshiping a book, but the apparent certainty of a God too small to bother with such a book. This God says, "Sorry, kids ... you're on your own. Good luck with that." And this is a much more educated, superior position to take than the foolish fellow who naively believes that God cares enough to see to such a writing and make sure it gets into our hands in a reliable fashion. Yeah, that's lame-brained. No, no, God has no such intent or capability.

And Paul's words echo in the background ... "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools ..."

Biblical Inerrancy

On my blog of late there have been conversations about biblical inerrancy. Is it a valid doctrine? Is it rational? Is it ... biblical? That last one seems a little bit funny to me. Here's the basic line of reasoning: "The Bible never says it is inerrant." The problem is that those who use this argument don't see the problem. If the primary argument that the Bible is inerrant was based on the Bible's own statement that it was inerrant, we'd have a classic logical fallacy: Circular reasoning. "The Bible says it's inerrant. The Bible, being inerrant, cannot be wrong. Therefore, the Bible is inerrant!" Wrong. Sorry, but that's nonsense.

Does the Bible claim to be the Word of God? Absolutely! It only takes a basic search engine a brief moment to discover the phrase "Thus saith the Lord" thousands of times in the Bible. That's a claim to being God's Word. Then there's that whole "God-breathed" thing (so often minimized incorrectly as "inspired"). And if it is God's Word, can God err? Of course not. Still, to make the argument from this that the Bible is inerrant would be circular. It's helpful to the believer, but not as a valid argument for someone who does not believe.

There are other popular arguments that we like, but just don't cut the mustard, so to speak. We like the one that says "The Spirit testifies that it's the Word of God." It is a true statement, but, again, not a valid argument. Others have testified, "The Spirit told me ..." with the part that follows being downright heresy. Shall we believe them, also? And there is the popular argument that believers offer that "It is the Word of God because it speaks truth to me." This may be a true statement and is nice confirmation to a believer, but, again, it's not a valid argument for someone who does not believe for a reason similar to the previous argument. If the Quran "speaks truth to me", have I validated it as God's Word? Still another argument is "the Church says so." It is a true statement. Orthodox Christianity has always held that God does not err and, therefore, His Word is inerrant. But you can see the same problem here, can't you? "The Church" says that the Pope is infallible. Oh, wait, no, we don't all buy that. Great! Now what? See? These types of things are true and are good as confirmation for those who believe, but not valid arguments. Comforting, but not convincing.

Is there an argument, preferably a biblical one, that would demonstrate inerrancy without relying on a biblical claim to inerrancy? Yes, there is. The argument would go something like this. If you have a messenger from God who declares the Bible to be God's Word, then that would be evidence that it is God's Word. Of course, how do you determine the authenticity of such a messenger? Well, according to Scripture, that was the primary function of miracles. If you recall, Nicodemus said, "Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him" (John 3:2). In fact, throughout John's Gospel he liked to use the word "signs" when others wrote "miracles" because that was the purpose. If a person showed up on the scene with abilities that humans didn't have -- only God would have -- then they must be a genuine messenger from God.

So, do we have a candidate? Yes! Jesus was a verified "teacher come from God". He taught that the Scripture "cannot be broken" (John 10:35). In fact, He said, "For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law ..." (Matt 5:18). The wording He liked to repeat was "It is written" to demonstrate that what He was saying was absolutely true and authoritative. Of course, that was the Old Testament. He also promised the Spirit who would lead His disciples into all truth. So it is that Peter, speaking of Paul's work, ranks it with "the other Scriptures" (2 Peter 3:15-16).

Now we have confirmation from God's authentic messenger, Jesus, that the New Testament would be written and confirmation from another of God's authentic messengers, Peter, that Paul's writings were Scripture. Paul's writings included this: "All Scripture is God-breathed ..." So the question becomes, "Does God make mistakes?"

But, look, this isn't just my line of thinking. I just summarized this piece by John Gerstner. So you go ahead and read it. You'll find a biblical and logical proof that the Bible is inerrant. Accepting it as such is, as always, up to you. Arguing, "No such argument exists", however, is a lie.

For further reference, here's D.A. Carson briefly on the inerrancy of Scripture and how essential it is to Christianity.