WesleyanTheology.com
  • Home
  • Theological Papers
    • The Trinity
    • Did Jesus Operate as God?
    • Only Begottenness and Submission
    • Should We Pray to Jesus?
    • The Minimum One Must Believe to Be Saved
    • Structure in the Trinity
    • Inerrancy and the Test of Truth
    • Inerrancy and WTS
  • Catechism
    • Prolegomena
    • Revelation
    • God
    • Man/Sin
    • Christ
    • Salvation
  • Apologetics
    • Engaging Unbelievers Philosophically
    • Apologetics links
  • Blog
  • Recommended Sites

Responding to an Erroneous View of Inerrancy

3/12/2014

18 Comments

 
Not long ago, an evangelical seminary’s dean, who claimed to believe in inerrancy, told me that trying to harmonize Scripture was inadvisable because Scripture was not always meant to be “historical on the level of precise detail.” According to his view, authors had taken the liberty to add details that didn’t actually happen (for example, when the gospel writers attempted to describe Peter’s denial of Jesus). So if we try to harmonize two passages with actually conflicting details, we may end up with a story that is less true than either of the original ones. So harmonizing is not recommended. This dean thought that we need to accept the main points as true, but that we can’t be sure about the details. The Bible is still considered to be inerrant though, because the biblical authors didn’t intend to be accurate in all the details.

One reason I disagree with this view is that if it were true, it would be impossible to distinguish between the details that the human author intended to communicate accurately (their actual truth claims), and those details with which the authors exercised artistic license. Thus we are not sure what to believe. Another reason I reject this view is that it creates a slippery slope past the line of truth (truth defined as those statements that correspond to reality). Once we cross that line by doubting this or that assertion in Scripture, I don’t see other stopping points that will keep us from sliding further away from the teachings of the Bible.

The greatest reason I reject this approach is that it makes God out to be dishonest. If the Bible really is the Word of God, then anytime we suggest that there are assertions in Scripture that don’t accurately represent reality (that are communicated as facts by the author), then the implication is that God is guilty of knowingly making statements that are factually untrue. But Titus 1:2 says that God cannot lie. So we believe that the Bible will always pass the test of truth.

This test of truth inquires whether or not a biblical author’s claims match reality.  The test first asks, “Does God (and the human author) intend through this statement to make a claim about reality?” Then it asks, “If so, does this intended communication match reality?” Those who believe that the Bible is God-breathed should always answer, “Yes” to that second question because if the Bible is God-breathed, every claim about reality in the original text of Scripture is true, and nothing will ever be shown to be false when properly interpreted.

For example, if the Gospel of John refers to two angels sitting in the tomb of Jesus after the resurrection (John 20:12), and the Gospel of Mark speaks of one angel sitting in the tomb (Mark 16:5), we should assume that John is right and that Mark is also right, even if we can’t understand how they can be reconciled. (In this case, it’s easy since Mark doesn’t say there was only one. We can assume that there were actually two but Mark was only concerned about pointing out one). How some alleged contradictions are both (or all) right we may never know, but it is safe to say that since all accounts are inspired by God and thus wholly true, attempting to harmonize the texts will normally get us closer to an accurate understanding of what happened than not attempting to harmonize the text. This is similar to the fact that a detective will likely come closer to figuring out what happened at a crime scene if he examines reports from a variety of reliable witnesses, and tries to piece the incident together.

We should not try to solve supposed contradictions by saying that the gospels were not meant to be historical on the level of precise detail. Even if the writing standards of that day allowed for the making up of details to fit the purposes of an author, both the internal and external evidence of the Gospels point to a concern for careful accuracy. The author Luke told Theophilus that he (Luke) had a “perfect understanding” of what he was writing about, and he wanted Theophilus to know “the certainty” of what happened (Luke 1:1-4). He mentioned eyewitnesses as his sources. Looking at the rest of the gospel, we can see that Luke dated events by known historical figures, such as Caesar Augustus and Cyrenius. The famous archaeologist Sir William Ramsay said, “Luke's history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness” Luke appears to have had a concern for “precise detail.”

External evidence for the historicity of the details of the gospels also includes Papias (contemporary of Apostle John), saying, “The Elder used to say this also: ‘Mark, having been the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately all that he mentioned, whether sayings or doings of Christ; not, however, in order….Thus Mark committed no error in thus writing down some things as he remembered them. For he took heed to one thing: not to omit any of the things he had heard, or to set down anything falsely therein.” So here is evidence attesting to the full accuracy of Mark’s gospel, with an acknowledgement that it wasn’t necessarily presented in chronological order.  We know that presenting events in history out of order wouldn’t entail factual error unless the author made a point of saying that one event came before another when the opposite was true.

Beyond these examples of internal and external evidence, we must return to the fact that these gospels are God-breathed. How could the “God of truth,” whose “Word is pure,” contaminate his Word with claims about reality that are not in some sense true (corresponding to reality)?

If the Bible is verbally inspired (God-breathed down to the very words), then there will be nothing in Scripture that is not true, when properly understood, even when written by men with limited, and even erroneous views of the world. I am speaking of not just the "main points," but also "incidentals" or "minor details."  We all agree that God is powerful enough to keep the Bible writers from crossing over the line from the true to the false. If everything in Scripture really is the Word of God, then that is what He did-- He kept them from claiming anything contrary to the way things really are. As evangelicals who profess to believe that the Bible is without error, we should be careful to resist the temptation to qualify inerrancy in ways that in the end denies the very thing we are trying to defend.

18 Comments
Ken Bladen
12/18/2014 01:07:30 am

I remember discussing this topic in the fall of 2014's blended session. As I read the blog and comments that followed which lead to the discussion, I was irritated by the intellectual snobbery and condescension that came from this seminary's dean. This kind of attitude has no place in Christian discourse. On top of this snobbery there were no supporting evidence for the "assertions" that were made. If I were going to assert that the authors of a particular genre in a certain age might have taken liberties with the "unimportant" details I might want to give examples of other who might have done so.

Reply
Paul
12/19/2014 02:18:52 am

If the details are false, it seems the entire testimony should be discredited. I am not a law expert, but if a witness's details are false, the obvious conclusion is that they are either lying or are at least an unreliable witness.

Reply
Eric
12/26/2014 01:29:43 am

I agree with Paul here that if someones testimony was at all false it would discredit the entire testimony. Praise God that that is not so with any of the writers who were inspired to write the Bible.

Reply
Luke
3/24/2015 04:18:43 am

I agree with this argument. In order to maintain the integrity of the Bible, we need to teach of the inerrancy of the Bible. We already have a promise of inerrancy from the writings of Paul, and we need to make sure that we maintain that doctrine of inerrancy. As soon as we begin to make assumptions of errors in the Bible, the foundations of our beliefs begins to weaken.

Reply
Mark
4/21/2015 11:29:10 am

When you think of inerrancy, the first impressions may be that you need to defend the Bible against error. This blog post came at this subject from the point of seeing the truth in God's Word. I think this is where the distinction must be made: the truth cannot be false.

Reply
Eric
4/28/2015 07:56:13 am

Having two different version of the same story to me proves that the authors were not merely dictating what God told them to write but writing with their own styles and personalities.

Reply
Chad DeWitt
5/3/2015 06:42:26 am

I think that when we try to harmonize the Scriptures by just simply saying that it is only true and reliable on the main points we create a bigger problem then what we are trying to solve. As Dr. Bird pointed out, we don't know what to believe and what not to believe at that point. What this leads to is fallible man deciding what is true and what is not true. If any of the details is not true then how can any of it be true. It is like when people say that the history or the science of the Bible is not true but if the Bible is not true in any area then how do we believe it at all?

Reply
Elijah Lloyd
5/6/2015 12:00:13 am

Like Dr. Bird said above, when we start questioning the little details and just saying that the authors used artistic license, when do we stop? What if it was all made up? If some of it is untrue, then which parts were true and which were added?

Reply
Joey Ellis
11/3/2015 05:35:55 pm

I agree with Dr. Bird....either the whole Bible is true or none of it is true. We cannot pick and choose what is right and what isn't right out of the Bible. This will ultimately lead to man making up his own religion and totally ignoring God.

Reply
Nathan
12/6/2016 10:11:05 pm

I definitely agree with Dr. Bird! The inerrancy of Scripture is of paramount importance to our faith, and when we bypass it with statements such as "The Bible is still considered to be inerrant though, because the biblical authors didn’t intend to be accurate in all the details," we are undermining the almighty God's ability to know all truth.

Reply
James Raisch
12/13/2016 10:04:07 pm

I found this article very insightful, Dr Birds view on the inerrancy of scripture is right on point, not only does he believe in the inerrency but he defends i superbly. I also really appreciated the fact that he does not undermine the authority of Gods word in any way shape or form and truly believes in the complete inerrency of scripture

Reply
Jason Albertson
12/31/2016 02:50:15 pm

I read a couple of that dean's blog posts about this topic, and some of your questions occurred to me too. If an author has the liberty to state untrue propositions, how do we know in which cases he used that liberty and in which cases he didn't?

On the other hand, I think there's a question we need to answer: what is the definition of "lie" in Titus 1:2, and from where do we draw that definition? I think that dean would say that within the context of Titus 1, "God, who cannot lie" refers to the God who will not fail to fulfill His promises. How would you respond to that assertion?

Reply
Nick
12/3/2018 05:27:49 pm

I do not understand how someone can believe that any part of the Bible is not correct. If that is the case, than there how can you have assurance of the things that you have not seen and cannot verify. What if those things are wrong? It is simply a better belief to hold that the Bible is 100% correct in all this history and teachings and let the world catch up to the Bible.

Reply
Blake S.
1/31/2019 07:51:34 pm

I agree with you completely! People ought to know how to reconcile two passages that seemingly conflict in scripture. Like you mentioned, it isn't necessarily about looking to outside sources or discounting what the original authors said.

Reply
Gregory Hinton
5/10/2021 05:36:32 am

I like the example you gave of a detective using evidence to piece together the truth. Certain things in the Gospels may seem to contradict one another, but I believe that those details which seem not to be the same as the other accounts of the same stories are not contradictory details, but simply different details.

Reply
Curtis Gordon
12/11/2021 11:39:07 am

Great article. I appreciate how you logically show the importance of taking in all the data and information before making a rash and unfounded generalization such as the seminary dean. Thanks for making this point and helping us see the inerrancy of the Scriptures even more clearly.

Reply
Zane H
5/14/2022 01:17:50 pm

The list of supposed contradictions has shrunk over the years. The case for believing the Bible is wholly accurate is as strong today as it ever has been. With so many seeming contradictions resolved by history or study, it is logical to give the authors the benefit of the doubt.

Reply
Eric James Miller
5/14/2022 11:23:23 pm

I agree that God does not lie. But a mistake is not a lie. A falsehood is not even a lie. If I tell you that it is not raining and it is raining, that is not necessarily a lie because I may have been convinced it was raining. What I said was false, but it was not intended to deceive.

In the same way, would you agree that if the Bible did have errors it would not make God a liar out of necessity because such errors need not be understood as deception?

Reply



Leave a Reply.

    Author

    Mark Bird teaches Systematic Theology and Apologetics, among other subjects, at God's Bible School and College, a regionally accredited Bible College in Cincinnati, OH.

    Archives

    February 2020
    April 2017
    March 2014
    May 2012
    July 2011

    Categories

    All
    Arminianism
    Calvinism
    God
    Prayer

    RSS Feed