FACING OBJECTIONS RAISED AGAINST BIBUCAL INERRANCY

W. RALPH THOMPSON, Th.D.
(Chairman, Division of Religion and Philosophy, Spring Arbor College)

I. Introduction

A study of the history of the church reveals that the Bible has often been an object of attack. Formerly, Scriptures were feared because they were believed to be the Word of God; hence the enemy concentrated on prohibiting their reproduction, dissemination and perusal. Now the strategy is more subtle and distressingly deadly. The current goal is to destroy the belief that the Scriptures are God's Word. When men become convinced that the Bible is but a human book, a record of man's religious strivings and evolution, its authority will be gone. Once sufficient doubt is cast upon the Bible as a body of objective truth, it will cease to be either an instrument of faith or a standard of practice. It can be cherished as literature, adorning our tables and filling our libraries; yet it will be no more authoritative than Aesop's Fables, nor more relevant than the Analeds of Confucius.

In times of doctrinal crisis, God has raised up men with incisive minds and consecrated hearts to point up the specious arguments which were being used, and to point out the way of truth. Such men are needed again.

Prominent terms in the current controversy over Scriptures are words such as "revelation," inspiration," "infallibility," and "inerrancy." Perhaps some definition is advisable. God has employed three stages in making divine truth known to man. Two of them were in the past; the other is a continuing present.

The first stage involved the impartation of truth. God revealed Himself, His will, and His provision to men whom He had chosen for that purpose. Having received the word of truth, they proclaimed it. The initial act of imparting divine truth to man is "revelation."

The second stage involved the preservation of the revelation which had been received. The Apostle Peter appears to have had the latter in mind when he announced that he would endeavor to make it possible that, to use his words, "ye may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance" (II Pet. 1:15). That is to say, he intended to record for posterity the divine truth which God had given him. "Prophecy of scripture," he said, "came not. .. by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." The act of "moving" (bearing along), that is to say the act of stimulating and superintending the minds of those men who had been the recipients of divine truth, as they wrote the things which they had received, is known as "inspiration."

The third stage also involves the work of the Holy Spirit. When He opens the mind and heart of the reader and illumines the printed page, a secondary revelation is experienced. In order that the unique quality of the primary revelation may be preserved, however, this secondary revelation might better be designated "illumination."

Some pros and cons of the claims that Scriptures are free from error will be discussed presently in this paper. This freedom from error is known as "inerrancy." "Biblical inerrancy" is a term that means that the Bible, at least in its autographs, contains no error. Some apply this claim of inerrancy only to the doctrines of the Bible which relate to man's life and salvation. Others believe that it also extends to biblical references to science and history.

The word "infallible" is sometimes used in speaking of the absence of error in Scriptures. In this sense the word becomes synonymous with the word inerrancy. Infallibility is a strong word, however, that many prefer to employ only when speaking about God.

Now let us consider the basis for the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.

II. The Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy

A. The Scriptural Position
The doctrine of biblical inerrancy arises, in the first place, from the logical premise that the infallible God of Truth would not and could not direct His human instruments to write anything that is false, even in its minutest details. Calvinists especially emphasize this point. The doctrine also arises from the teachings of Scriptures themselves. Let us look at some of those biblical declarations which seem to support this position.

In the passage in II Peter mentioned above, (1:21), the Apostle makes it clear that the prophets of Old Testament times did not speak according to the dictates of their own reason ("not... by the will of man"). Rather, they spoke what God caused them to say ("as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"). This statement seems to make invalid the argument that the prophets, because they were men, produced errant writings. The logic of this observation could, but need not, lead to the dictation theory of inspiration. It appears, however, that the Apostle is discussing only "prophecy" of Scripture (v. 20): "no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation." A further look at the context reveals, moreover, that he is discussing in particular one aspect of prophecy: foretelling, not forthtelling.

That which was proclaimed by God's prophets and apostles, however, is also described as God's word. Paul makes that quite clear, at least with respect to his own utterances, when he declares that the word which the Thessalonian church heard him preach was God's word, not his (II Thess. 2:13). Jesus upheld this same principle when He said to the Twelve, "He that heareth you heareth me" (Luke 10:16).

The Apostle Peter certainly considered Paul's writings to be the very Word of God. Speaking of them in his second epistle (3:15-16), he calls them Scripture ("as they do the other scriptures"). He indicates that Paul wrote with divine wisdom ("according to the wisdom given to him"). He also states that to twist Paul's writings is to lose one's soul ("which they wrest. . . unto their own destruction"). This last is a claim that one would hardly dare to make for errant or mere human writings.

The Apostle John speaks with no less confidence concerning the veracity of that which he had written in the fourth Gospel: "This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things [he says]; and we know that his testimony is true" (John 22:24).

On one occasion when Paul quoted both from the Pentateuch and from the Gospels he stated that he was quoting from Scriptures (I Tim. 5:18; cf. Deut. 25:4; Matt. 10:10; Luke 10:7). Thus in effect he called the Gospels "Scripture."

When the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews refers to Old Testament passages, be ?hey from the Law, the Prophets, or the Writings, he almost invariably puts the words into the mouth of God (Heb. 1:5; cf. Ps. 2:7; II Sam. 7:14; Heb. 1:6; cf. Deut. 32:43, LXX; Heb. 1:7; cf. Ps. 104:4; Heb. l:8; cf. Ps. 45:6,7; Heb. 1:9; cf. Isa. 61:l; Heb. l:13; cf. Ps. 110:1; etc.). Jesus goes so far at this point as to imply that a mere comment made by Moses-or was it Adam?-and recorded in the Bible is God speaking (Matt. 19:5; cf. Gen. 2:24). In another setting, Jesus repeats a short Old Testament statement which focuses attention upon one Old Testament word ("I said, Ye are gods"), and, in that context, declares that "the scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35).

The above are but a few of the many biblical witnesses to the inerrancy of Scriptures.

B. The Church's Position on Biblical Inerrancy
Until modern times, the church has steadfastly acknowledged the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy-a fact of considerable importance. Whether one quotes from the Westminster Catechism, or Calvin, or Wesley, or Clarke, or Hodge, or Pope, or Strong, or Wiley, the doctrine is essentially the same. Let John Wesley, in one of his comments on Scripture, speak for them all:

Every part thereof is worthy of God; and all together are one entire body, wherein is no defect, no excess.... The language of His messengers, also, is exact in the highest degree: for the words which were given them accurately answered to the impressions made upon their minds. (1)

Commenting on II Timothy 3:16, Wesley writes: "The Spirit of God not only once inspired those who wrote it [Scriptures], but.. . supernaturally assists those that read it with earnest prayer." (2)

Neo-orthodoxy characteristically emphasizes the clement of "encounter" in its approach to Scriptures. It defines the Bible as a word of man which may or may not become, for the reader, the Word of God. If and when God reveals to a given man some truth through the Scriptures, that portion of the Bible becomes the Word of God for him. Hence neo-orthodoxy holds that the Bible as such is not the Word of God; it simply contains the Word of God; At moments of "encounter" the errant writings of the Bible become the media through which God speaks.

This view of the Bible tends to be subjective, allowing those who hold it to deny the validity of those passages through which they themselves happen not to have had an "encounter." Thus Karl Barth finds no apparent difficulty in denying the existence of a personal devil, even though the activities of such a being are often described in the Bible; and even Barth himself admits the practical inescapableness of the devil's activities.

The neo-orthodox approach to Scriptures destroys them as an objective standard of truth and authority. It tends to leave every man to do that which is right in his own eyes. To the degree that the authority of the Scriptures is weakened, its high standard of ethical requirement disappears. This results in sin's blackness being neutralized. Confession of sin consequently ceases to be heard, and "Thus saith the Lord" no longer is proclaimed from the pulpit. Instead, strange forms of doctrinal error are heard. (3) A denial of the objective authority of Scriptures opens the floodgates, allowing paganism, impurity, and pandemonium to inundate society.

The school of thought headed by the late James Orr of Britain is an attempt to mediate between the older conservative position, held in more recent times by men like Hodge and Warfield, and the liberal position which is generally held by critical scholars. Orr maintains that the goal of inspiration is to communicate life and knowledge, and he draws support for his position from such Scriptures as II Timothy 3:1 6b and Psalm 19:7-1l. (4) In other words, since Jesus Christ and salvation are the heart of Scriptures, the doctrine of biblical inerrancy need concern itself only with those things in the Bible which relate directly to them.

In answer to Orr, the present writer suggests that a proper position on inerrancy must also take into account those biblical views presented earlier in this paper.

On the other hand, adherents to the traditional position would do, well to distinguish more clearly between the thing asserted in Scriptures and the thing signified. For example, to what extent does poetry in the Bible communicate truth? Also, one must ask to what extent inspiration applies to the utterances of men like Job's comforters? Or in what sense is the Book of Ecclesiastes inspired?

Traditional orthodoxy should take the initiative in acknowledging the problems which critical scholars have raised, and not fight as men with their backs to the wall. Otherwise, inquiring minds may by-pass them because they seem to be burying their heads in the sand.

III. Objections to Biblical Inerrancy

The present writer must confess that Scriptures present a number of problems which, as yet, he has found difficult to reconcile with a strict doctrine of plenary, verbal inerrancy. The limits of this paper allow for but a few examples.

A frequent objection to biblical inerrancy is raised because parallel accounts of events recorded in the Bible sometimes vary. Take, for example, the inscription on the cross. Clearly, there was but one inscription there, written in three languages, yet every Gospel writer states it differently. Matthew's account reads, "This is Jesus the King of the Jews"; Mark's says, "The King of the Jews"; Luke puts it, "This is the King of the Jews"; while John writes, "Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews." A combination of the four statements, "This is Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews," probably was what the inscription said, which makes each writer accurate as far as he goes; nevertheless, none of them, evidently, records the inscription exactly as it was written. If one of them did, obviously the other three did not. The present writer is still seeking a completely satisfying solution to this problem.

The problem often is raised too, about the angels at Jesus' tomb. Matthew and Mark mention but one angel, while Luke speaks of two. Mark says he was sitting, while Luke has them standing. In response to this apparent discrepancy, one might say that Matthew and Mark chose to mention only one of the angels while Luke mentions both; but it is more difficult to account for the differences of position stated by the gospel writers. Conceivably both may be correct, witnesses having viewed the angel(s) in successive positions.

Or take Esau's wives. In Genesis 26:34; 28:9 they are said to have been Judith, the daughter of Been the Hittite: Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite; and Mahalath, the daughter of Ishmael. Yet in Genesis 36:1-3 where his three wives are mentioned (one would suppose them to be the same three), the names are different. In the latter passage, the names of Judith and Mahalath do not appear at all, while the names of Adah and Aholibamah are introduced. The father of Bashemath is said to be Ishmael instead of Elon the Hittite, and there is an Anah whose name did not appear in the first listings. Incidentally, Anah's father is said to have been Zibeon, a Hivite.

It is possible that some of these wives and their fathers had more than one name. It is possible, too, that the Hittites and Hivites, or at least a given family among them, were so closely related that their names are used interchangeably. These answers, however, are mere theories which need substantiation.

Take a more serious critical problem. From the data presented earlier in this paper, evidence is strong that Jesus and the apostles adhered to biblical inerrancy. Yet when they quoted Scriptures they quoted from the Septuagint (LXX), which was the Jewish Bible of the first century A. D. The problem arises when it is remembered that the LXX was a translation, and anyone familiar with languages knows that a word-for word translation is impossible. Furthermore, many of the nuances of the original are lost in translation. If it be maintained that the LXX was in errant in an absolute literary sense, it must be asked if the Hebrew manuscript from which it was taken was also inerrant. It is obvious to one who takes a given passage which Jesus and the apostles may cite, and compares it with the Hebrew, be it the Massoretic text, the Samaritan text, or the text of Qumran, that the Hebrew and the LXX do not always say exactly the same thing. Because of that fact, English readers of such quotes become perplexed when they look them up in the Old Testament. Which, then, was the inerrant manuscript? To claim absolute inerrancy only for the autographs still leaves unexplained how Jesus and New Testament writers could claim inerrancy for the LXX from which they quoted.

Also, it sometimes appears that a New Testament writer applies an Old Testament passage entirely out of context. Matthew's use of Isaiah 9:1 2 (Matt. 4:12-16) will illustrate. Of course it might be said that the same Spirit who inspired the words at the beginning, making them fit the context in which the prophet used them, could have inspired the gospel writer to give them an application which fits his context. The superintending Spirit is not subject to human rules of hermeneutics.

IV. Conclusions

Since the battle over biblical inerrancy involves serious problems with which sincere seekers after truth on both sides are occupied, its significance cannot be dismissed lightly. But even more important is the magnitude of the results of the outcome of the issue. To renounce the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is to strip Scriptures of their status as an objective standard of divine truth. Since Christ and His apostles claimed complete inerrancy for the Scriptures, to renounce the doctrine is to cast serious doubts upon the Bible's statements about God, the world, the nature and duty of man, the way of salvation, and man's destiny. Although to accept the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, at this point at least, is to do so in the face of serious critical problems, the alternative to doing so is in effect to destroy Christianity itself.

The vital factor in choosing between the alternatives is not complete understanding of the supports that bridge the chasms along the way of faith, but a complete trust in the Person who is the object of faith. If His position is not dependable, then He is neither a safe Guide nor a safe Object.

The problem of biblical inerrancy reminds one of the question which evidently plagued the Twelve at one point in their training. Jesus had just announced that only those who ate His flesh and drank His blood could have eternal life (cf. John 6 :48f.). At this, most of the crowd, including former disciples, lost faith in Him and looked elsewhere for truth. The Twelve appear to have been perplexed, too. Jesus, sensing their problem, did not, as many of us would have done, hasten to explain exactly what He had meant. Instead, He simply asked, "Will ye also go away?" Peter, the spokesman for the Twelve, responded at once, "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe ,, and are sure....

That is it! Acceptance of the inspiration and inerrancy of the Word of God rests, in the final analysis, on the foundation of faith. Not blind, naive acceptance of the unreasonable, but a faith that is reasonable because of the character of Him in whom it is placed. Because Jesus put His stamp of approval so categorically upon the inerrancy of Scriptures, one must either accept His point of view on the matter or discredit Him as a teacher of truth. That we dare not do.

A significant sidelight to the dilemma of the Twelve is that later Jesus' meaning, when He was speaking of eating His flesh and drinking His blood, was made clear to them. But faith, in their case, preceded complete understanding.

So it is with the difficult doctrine of biblical inerrancy. The errant tribunal of human reason, lacking as it does much pertinent data, declares that at least some utterances of Scripture must be broken; nevertheless, with a strong faith in the living Word and in the rightness of Jesus' view of Scriptures, one can leave full understanding of critical problems until later. Happily, the science of archeology and other disciplines have already answered a significant number of the questions which critical scholars have raised. It is reasonable to believe that the rest of the problems will be solved in due time.

In the meantime, it is imperative that the Bible be considered both as an objective statement of truth and as a medium through which the Holy Spirit can bring the reader into a direct encounter with God. To approach Scriptures as objective truth prepares the mind and heart for the subjective experience. Not to approach them thus raises a barrier which the Spirit must overcome before He can be heard, if indeed He succeeds in being heard at all. Failure to approach Scriptures as the objective standard of divine truth conditions the reader to hear the voice of fallible reason or of carnal desire, voices which the individual may even mistake for the voice of Deity. How can one "try the spirits whether they be of God" unless there be an objective standard by which to try them? The holy Scriptures are that standard, that body of writings which our Lord and His apostles pronounced inerrant.

DOCUMENTATIONS

1. John Wesley, Explanatory Notes on the New Testament (London: Epworth Press, 1941), p. 9.

2. Ibid., p. 794.

3. Thomas Altizer is reputed to have told Paul Tillich on the night of the latter's death that his God-is-dead doctrine was the theology to which he had arrived by following Tillich's teachings to their logical conclusion.

4. Cf. Donald Walhout, Interpreting Religion (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963), pp. 348, 349.