The Importance of Inerrancy - Part 1
by Dr John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon

Previously we have introduced the subject of biblical inerrancy—the doctrine that the Bible is without error in the autographs, or original writings—and looked at the evidence for inerrancy in history and prophecy. Now, we will document why the subject is important and show the weakness of the alternate position.

Conservative Protestants who reject inerrancy, like their neo-orthodox predecessors in Europe, genuinely and sincerely believe they are helping preserve the substance of Christian faith. Obviously, they assume inerrancy is not a vital part of biblical faith and that the essentials of Christian faith will not be damaged if the doctrine is abandoned. However, the goal of many errantists, "protecting" the faith by ridding it of a "nonessential accretion" is honorable only if it can be determined that inerrancy is nonessential. For this reason, the position of the errantist needs careful evaluation as to the soundness of its views. If we acknowledge that inerrancy is nonessential, then we forfeit the most valid reason for defending it.²

Dr. Fred P. Thompson, a regular contributor to the National Association of Evangelicals periodical, United Evangelical Action, states his personal belief as follows: "I do not regard the doctrine of inerrancy helpful or relevant."³ In the words of Donald Dayton of North Park Seminary (owned and operated by the Evangelical Covenant Church) "increasing numbers of evangelicals" are coming to view inerrancy as "a positive hindrance to the understanding of the fuller and deeper significance of the Scriptures."⁴ He also observed that in The Battle for the Bible, Dr. Harold Lindsell had underestimated the extent to which higher criticism had infiltrated the evangelical church, a conclusion which Dr. Lindsell agreed with in his sequel.⁵

How important is the issue of inerrancy? If 1) the evangelical world is "split" over this issue (as it seems it must be), if 2) in the words of Dr. Kenneth Kantzer, editor of Christianity Today, "A battle is raging within evangelical circles today…"⁶, if 3) inerrantists are so concerned they established a scholarly society, the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, with a ten year plan to counteract "the drift from this important doctrinal foundation by significant segments of evangelicalism",⁷ then certainly the issues is nothing if it is not important. And yet this is just what some are saying—that the issue is unimportant.

As we noted in an earlier installment, the debate, by definition, centers around truth—and truth is always important. Charles Colson once believed of inerrancy, "It need not concern me" but later concluded "How wrong I was…it is relevant, indeed critical, for every serious Christian—layman, pastor and theologian alike."⁸ In the following pages we will briefly attempt to show some of the reasons why inerrancy must concern "every serious Christian." Dr. Lindsell states:

And, in a more lengthy assessment:

So declares the title of a book by noted Christian philosopher Rousas John Rushdoony, a leader in the Christian reconstruction movement.

In his text he documents that the concept of infallibility is inescapable—that of necessity men will accept the concept somewhere. If they deny it to the Bible, they will transfer it to another entity. For example, he shows how the controversial Catholic priest Pierre Teilhard de Chardin referred to the infallibility of the evolutionary process. Infallibility may be tied to any number of ideals—political theory or process (Marxism), Church or Pope (Roman Catholicism), aesthetic experience, even to man himself (intuition, rationalism, humanism) etc. Rushdoony observes:

If infallibility is a necessity, if it is a concept that all men will place somewhere regardless, then why not place it where it belongs—in God and His revealed Word?:

If inerrancy is inescapable and yet Christians do not accept it for the Bible, the church will suffer the consequences of a fallible divine revelation. Indeed it is already suffering, and its denial is taking an immense toll on individuals, churches, seminaries, Christian colleges, publishers, etc., and through them, on society itself. The results of the rejection of inerrancy and biblical authority can be seen most clearly in the cancerous tragedy of theological liberalism (e.g., The Jesus Seminar, Unitarian Universalism). With its denial of nearly every biblical doctrine and its leading men to eternal judgment in the arms of a solely human Jesus, it illustrates the far-reaching consequences of rejecting biblical authority.

The simple fact is that, claims to the contrary notwithstanding, apart from inerrancy, there can be no logical certainty of spiritual authority. Theologian Clark Pinnock argues:

Nevertheless, using a virtually inerrant text based upon inerrant originals is a far cry from using an errant text based on errant originals—with no certainty as to where truth or error lies. There is a considerable difference between 1) a God who has inspired truth and error and 2) a God who has inspired only truth with manuscript copies containing some minor, if expected, problems that we must grapple with. In the first instance, we would attempt to decide where God has made or permitted error—but with no hope of recovering an inerrant text or of having an absolute authority for our decisions. In the second instance we would attempt to decide where man has made an error in an attempt to recover as much as possible of the inerrant originals—but with a logical faith in the absolute authority of Scripture. There is all the difference in the world between a perfect revelation to begin with—which can be almost 99 percent recovered and is 100% contained in the variant readings—and an imperfect original revelation—faulty and unreliable—that we have no certainty over.

As Dr. Gleason Archer points out, if the Bible does contain mistakes in the original manuscripts, then it ceases to be unconditionally authoritative. It must be validated and endorsed by our own human judgment before we can accept it as true. It is not sufficient to establish that a matter has been affirmed or taught in Scripture; it may nevertheless be mistaken and at variance with the truth. So human judges must pass on each item of teaching or information contained in the Bible and determine whether it is actually to be received as true. Such judgment presupposes a superior wisdom and spiritual insight competent to correct the errors of the Bible. If those who would thus judge the veracity of the Bible lack the necessary ingredient of personal inerrancy in judgment, they may come to a false and mistaken judgment—endorsing as true what is actually false. Or else they may condemn as erroneous what is actually correct in Scripture. Thus the objective authority of the Bible is replaced by personal research, subjective intuition, or judicial faculty on the part of each believer, and it easily becomes a matter of mere personal preference how much of Scripture teaching he or she may adopt as binding.¹⁴

This can lead us to a hopeless, almost cultic subjectivism where we pick and choose the word of God within the Bible as it suits our fancy, or vainly attempt to sift the revelational matter from the nonrevelational, or to find the Gospel within the Gospel, etc. Remember Dr. Davis’ statement cited in an earlier issue that the Bible is authoritative for every Christian until he encounters a passage he cannot accept "for good reason"? Where has such subjectivism led many biblical scholars to if not into either a quagmire of skepticism and uncertainty or a new papalism of higher critical "ex cathedras"? Scholars of the so-called Jesus Seminar, for example, are at best intellectual agnostics on the teachings of Jesus and at worst practical atheists. We documented the consequences clearly in our The Facts on False Views of Jesus: Knowing the Truth About the Jesus Seminar (Harvest House, 1997).

One wonders, how can objective authority ever be derived from errant originals when human imperfection or subjectivism is the only criteria for discernment? As Old Testament scholar Dr. Gleason Archer states in a critique of a text advocating errancy:

Certainly the health of individual churches is also related to the quality of preaching in the pulpits. Yet the rejection of inerrancy has had tragic results here as well. As noted pastor and commentator Dr. James Montgomery Boice observed:

Another indicator of the church’s health is the honoring of God through practical holiness—in obedience to His Word. But if His word is uncertain, can God be so honored? Do not the current cultural whims increasingly eclipse the authority of biblical teaching and morality for those who reject inerrancy? Carefully examine radical Christian feminism—and see where it leads, or "Christian" parapsychology or the "gay church" or "liberation" theology or theistic evolution. It matters little if the rejection of inerrancy comes before the adoption of error or after—the result is the same. In rejecting clear biblical teaching there is no place left to stand except with the ungodliness or errors of the culture. To cover error with a cloak of Christian piety will not excuse such error and will certainly not bring glory to the One to whom glory is due.

The above considerations represent some of the issues involved which led the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy to state that inerrancy is "an essential element for the authority of Scripture and a necessity for the health of the church."¹⁷

(To be continued)