Inerrancy

Inerrancy is an anthology of essays originally presented by scholars at the International Conference on Biblical Inerrancy in 1978. Though this book is over 30 years old it still gives an adequate attempted defense of the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy that many evangelicals profess today. That being said, this book is short of convincing. I will only critique the chapters that I had most disagreement with.Chapter 1, written by John Wenham, attempts to argue that Jesus viewed the scriptures as inerrant. Wenham argues that Jesus' mention of OT events demonstrate that He believed said events were historical. This is a complete non-sequitur. Wenham also adds that if these events were not historical then "Jesus' reference to them was meaningless". This, however, is not correct at all. The references would not have been meaningless to his hearers who did indeed take them as historical. Wenham also asserts that Jesus' repeated declaration of "Have you not read...?" is equivalent to Him saying "Do you know that God has said...?", however he fails to substantiate this assertion and thus leaves it unwarranted. Wenham then deals with Jesus supposed abrogations of the OT (You have heard it was said...But I tell you). Wenham actually does a good job of demonstrating that Jesus was not exactly overturning OT laws but only the faulty interpretations of it. However, there are still a couple of instances where Jesus did indeed oppose OT law. These instances regard Jesus' cleansing of all foods and His teaching on divorce. Wenham attempts to show these as not abrogations of the OT but I was not convinced. Thus, Wenham failed to show that Jesus did indeed view the OT as inerrant.Chapter 4, written by J. Barton Payne, attempts to demonstrate that higher criticism of the Bible cannot affect inerrancy. Payne states that "Criticism becomes warped only when coupled with presuppositions that turn it into dishonest, unobjective criticism." However, Payne fails to see (as will be demonstrated below) that the a priori loyalty to the doctrine of inerrancy is in itself a presupposition that does not allow errors in the text and thus results in the very definition of unobjective criticism. Payne argues that the Bible cannot be made subject to negative criticism because scripture is the very Word of God. Thus, the Bible becomes the authority on all biblical criticism. Payne obviously is blind to the incredible circularity of his argument. Payne states that "we are committed to the validity of God's inerrant Word". Therefore, if scholarship shows that a portion of the Bible may be historically suspect, the believer must plug his ears with his fingers and keep ignoring it (Im paraphrasing). Then, Payne asserts that " any view that subjects the written word of God to the opinions and pronouncements of men involves unbelief and disloyalty towards Christ." Payne seems oblivious to the fact that the Bible is interpreted by the subjectivity of humans nonetheless and thus is subject to our own discernment whether he likes it or not.Chapter 9, written by Paul Feinberg, attempts to give an adequate definition of inerrancy. Instead of giving a full critique of his argument I will deal with one quote from his that undermines his entire chapter. He asserts that "to divorce inerrancy and authority is impossible." What Feinberg is contending is that if something is not infallible or inerrant then it cannot function as an authority. This, however, becomes a problem for Feinberg himself. Since Feinberg is a human being then he is not infallible nor inerrant. Therefore, based on his own standards Feinberg cannot function as an authority and thus his entire chapter should be ignored.Chapter 11, written by RC Sproul, argues that the testimonium of the Holy Spirit (and only the Holy Spirit) can give us complete assurance and certainty that the Bible is inerrant. Sproul seems to be oblivious to the fact that this actually negates faith. Sproul quotes Calvin who states "it is foolish to attempt to prove to infidels that scripture is the Word of God. This cannot be known, except by faith." Sproul seems to miss the self-refuting sentence in Calvin's last statement. If inerrancy can be known then faith is not needed. But this is not the end of Sproul's problems. If the testimonium gives us certainty in inerrancy then what gives us certainty in the testimonium itself? It cannot be the Bible because then the argument would be circular. No, the certainty of the testimonium lies in our own human philosophy (which formed the testimonium) which cannot achieve the certainty it desires. Thus, the certainty of inerrancy is grounded in something that cannot produce certainty which again leads us to uncertainty (the very thing Sproul was trying to avoid).Chapter 12, written by Robert Preus, attempts to argue that the view of the Bible held by the early church fathers through Luther was one of inerrancy. Preus is correct that the early church fathers through Luther held the Bible in a high light, but he is incorrect in attaching the doctrine of inerrancy to this view. Though the early church fathers viewed the Bible as without errors, they did not interpret it in an "inerrant" light. For instance, many church fathers came across abhorrent passages in the OT and recognized them as such. Origen viewed the OT genocides as evil. Thus, he was forced to conclude that the event was not meant to be read literally but allegorically. Similarly, Gregory of Nyssa viewed the tenth plague in Egypt (the killing of the firstborn) as abhorrent and was forced to read it allegorically as well. Now the modern formulation of the doctrine of inerrancy rejects these forms of dehistoricizing passages (CSBI Article XVIII) and thus many early church fathers would not have fit into the category of an inerrantist as is now understood.Lastly, even if everything in this anthology were valid in everything it touched on, it still would fall short of making the case for inerrancy. This is because the argument would boil down to this: the Bible is inerrant because the Bible claims it. But, this in itself is not enough to establish this doctrine. Something is not inerrant simply because it makes the claim. Therefore, while this book makes a good effort at salvaging this doctrine, it fails to convince.

All, I have to do is re-quote the "Neo-Calvinist"'s review:I had to purchase and read this book for a seminary class that I took this past year. To be quite frank, I was very disappointed with it. There are only a few essays in the book that show substantial scholarship and solid writing (e.g. Walter Kaiser Jr.'s). Most of them tend to be reactionary in tone and contribute little to the discussion of inerrancy. I was especially frustrated by the ad hominem attacks on men like G. C. Berkouwer (c.f. Krabbendam's essay where he essentially says that Berkouwer either must have been living in great sin or not been a Christian to hold such a view of inerrancy).A second problem I had with the book was its naive reliance upon Enlightenment philosophical categories to define the term "inerrancy." Most of the writers implicitly seemed to think that for something to be true it has to be "scientifically accurate" (granted, they would probably deny this; however, the underpinnings of Scottish Common Sense Philosophy are clearly there). The result is that the contributors often miss the point of the teleological thrust of Scripture. They are so concerned about proving the Bible to be a coherent, rational scientific text-book that they seldom stop to ask the questions: "what is the purpose of the Biblical text?" and "am I imposing an unwarranted philosophical framework upon the text which leads to unnecessary problems and dilemmas?"In conclusion, I was also frustrated by the lack of real engagement with the topic. Most of the authors set up weak straw men of their opponents and talked past the real issues. As noted above the last essay by Henry Krabbendam degenerated into an ad hominem fist fight. While I understand why the authors are determined to defend their version of inerrancy (i.e. they are worried that Christianity will crumble from within if the God breathed character of Scripture is abandoned), I was still disappointed by what I perceived to be a mis-handling of the issues (compare the responses in this book to Millard Erickson's irenic, thoughtful discusion of inerrancy in his book Christian Theology).

This book does not shy away from the questions but tackles them head on and walks through how the Bible can be inerrant even with what may seem like contradictions. Perfect for the believer trying to gain a foundation as well as the skeptic that is concerned that the beliefs are based on falsity. It is worth your time. It is an academic read as Norman Geisler edited this book and is renown for not making things in laymans terms. Take your time and walk slowly through the depth of scripture and find how the surface may not be as it seems.

In today's world the attacks are relentless on the Bible and will only get worst. We need more than ever to have a solid foundational concept of the Word of God. This excellent in-depth study of what Scripture says of itself along with many of the best works for and against Bible inerrancy is just what the doctor ordered. This book tackles the toughest questions and objections from Scripture itself. I love it because it is not one sided, but brings out objective views and then brings balance to the issue from what Scripture says. I highly recommend this work for every Pastor, teacher and leader today.

Giseler presents an excellent compilation of material in defense of his position on the inerrancy of the Holy Scriptures. With his usual thoroughness, the author provides an academically accurate resource for Biblical research.

I think it is a book for believers and nonbelievers in the Bible to read to get an idea of the supernatural greatness of tha Bible,that it really has come from God.

My daughter was pleased to receive this book for Christmas. As a theological student she shall be able to make good use of it.