Introduction
This paper will examine the authority of Scripture, biblical inspiration, and various views of biblical inerrancy and infallibility. It looks at whether full inerrancy as defined in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is essential for establishing the authority of Scripture or whether infallibility (including “limited” or “flexible” inerrancy) is sufficient. It will analyze the Scriptural basis for plenary and verbal inspiration, which underlies the argument for inerrancy and considers the phenomenology of Scripture. Finally, the paper examines the benefits and problems of full inerrancy. The paper argues that “full” inerrancy is not essential for establishing the authority of Scripture and that infallibility of Scripture is sufficient.
The Authority of Scripture is Essential
The authority of Scripture is essential for the health of the church. In 2 Timothy 3:15-17, Paul praises Timothy for knowing the Holy Scriptures which can make him “wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”[1] If the authority of Scripture is lost, the church has no basis for its teaching and no authority for rebuking and correcting. Scripture gives us objective standards for righteousness, makes us wise for salvation, and equips us for “every good work.” A society without objective standards of correct behavior will descend into chaos, and the same applies to the church. Moreover, Christians who reject the authority of the Bible will regard their own preferences as the highest authority, even if they violate the clear word of Scripture or the teachings of the church. As Australian theologian Michael Bird notes, without a clear acceptance of Scripture’s authority, only those parts of the Bible will be treated as authoritative that “agree with a particular political ideology, whether that is the identity politics of the radical left or the syncretistic mix of nationalism and civil religion of the religious right.”[2] British theologian N.T. Wright argues that the authority of Scripture is delegated, that is, it is “the authority of God exercised through Scripture.”[3] Wright notes that Jesus insisted on Scripture’s authority in his interactions with Pharisees and Sadducees (e.g. Matt 15:6-9, Matt 22:9, John 10:35).[4] Bird argues that “treating the Bible as God’s word, a word that is authoritative, normative, and to be obeyed, is the evangelical view.”[5] Elsewhere, Bird notes that the Holy Spirit “is the authority that establishes the Word itself.”[6]
The early church affirmed the authority of Scripture. Oliver and Oliver write: “The idea or principle of Sola Scriptura in the writings of the Church Fathers was expressed in (at least) three ways, namely the supreme authority, self-sufficiency, and clarity of Scripture.”[7] This authority was linked to the apostolic tradition.[8] The authors buttress this argument by quoting Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Hilary of Poitier, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nyssa, and Augustine, who in the City of God deemed it the paramount authority.[9]
The Reformation clearly affirmed the authority of Scripture, as is apparent in the term Sola Scriptura. According to Oliver and Oliver, both Luther and Calvin treated Scripture as the primary theological resource. They also made use of the Church Fathers, but as subsidiary resources.[10] “Luther applied the idea/principle of Sola Scriptura in his arguments. For him, the authority of Scripture was above everything.”[11] Robert Kolb notes that throughout his career, Luther referred to Scripture as the Word of God.[12] Kolb likewise writes that “Calvin regarded the Bible as God’s Word while simultaneously honoring its human authorship.”[13] Roman Catholics also affirmed the authority of Scripture at the time of the Reformation, but they granted the Pope authority over its proper interpretation and Scholastics pressed it into an Aristotelian framework, essentially making the Pope and Aristotelianism the ultimate authority.[14]
D.A. Carson attributes the decline in acceptance of Scripture’s authority to the Enlightenment and especially the historical-critical method applied in German biblical studies beginning in the nineteenth century. He cites the conclusions of Klaus Berger, professor at Heidelberg, about the results of German New Testament scholarship. “Berger concludes by insisting that historical criticism in Germany has promoted atheism, splintered churches, and converted no one to Christ.”[15] This is not limited to Germany. Michael Bird quotes a statement from Union Theological Seminary in 2018: “While divinely inspired, we deny the Bible is inerrant or infallible. It was written by men over centuries and thus reflects both God’s truth and human sin & prejudice. We affirm that biblical scholarship and critical theory help us discern which messages are God’s.”[16] The results will tend to confirm the political and theological preferences of the scholars. Bird is not arguing that everything in the Bible is equally authoritative for us today. He lays out six principles that determine whether a specific biblical statement is applicable as a command to us, with the most important being the “unique and final authority of Jesus.”[17]
Inspiration of Scripture
Theories of Inspiration
The authority of Scripture depends on its inspiration, which is the justification for deeming it the word of God. The word “inspiration” is a translation of the Greek theopneustos, which can literally be rendered “God-breathed,” as is done in the NIV translation of 2 Timothy 3:16 quoted earlier. Article VI of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (hereafter CSBI), issued in 1978 by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, affirms that “the whole of Scripture all its parts, down to the very words of the original, were given by divine inspiration.” This is the definition of plenary (the whole of Scripture) and verbal (its words) inspiration.
It is difficult to formulate a well-developed doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture, since the Bible “does not present a full-fledged doctrine of Scripture,” according to Millard J. Erickson.[18] He identifies five theories of inspiration common in the literature.[19] The “intuition” theory, common among liberal theologians, is that inspiration refers to a high degree of insight by the authors, but not the direct working of the Holy Spirit. The “illumination” theory proposes that the Holy Spirit influences the writers to heighten their normal powers, so that they have an increased sensitivity to spiritual matters. In the “dynamic” theory, the Holy Spirit directs writers to thoughts or concepts, but the writers choose their own words and so maintain their own styles. The “verbal” theory extends the work of the Spirit to include selection of the words used to convey the message. Finally, the “dictation” theory argues that God dictated the entire Bible to the largely passive authors. Erickson’s view is that God directed the thoughts of the writers (dynamic theory) but at times was so precise that He chose the very words the writer used (verbal theory).[20] The Bible at times even suggests that God dictated specific passages, such as Revelation 2 and 8.
Michael Bird examines difficulties with plenary and verbal inspiration in light of the phenomena of Scripture, such as the different styles used by the authors, and concludes that the dynamic view is the best model for inspiration and not the verbal theory that the CSBI seems to affirm.[21] Bird cites Benjamin B. Warfield in arguing that Scripture results from the confluence of the Holy Spirit and human authors in writing the text.[22] A problem with the doctrine of plenary and verbal inspiration is that, in practice, it is difficult to distinguish it from the dictation theory, which essentially eliminates the human element that Article 8 of the CSBI affirms. Philosopher William Lane Craig offers a “middle knowledge” view of inspiration that, he argues, allows for both plenary and verbal inspiration as well as free human agency. Craig writes, “God knew what the authors of Scripture would freely write when placed in certain circumstances. By arranging for the authors of Scripture to be in the appropriate circumstances, God can achieve a Scripture which is a product of human authors and also is His Word.”[23] Mark D. Thompson argues that Warfield would go further. To achieve the Pauline epistles, God prepared a Paul who “spontaneously would write just such letters.”[24] This is in line with Craig’s middle-knowledge argument. But Warfield also asserted “throughout the whole of his work the Holy Spirit was present, causing his energies to flow into the spontaneous exercises of the writer’s faculties, elevating and directing where need be, and everywhere securing the errorless expression in language of the thought designed by God.”[25] This would be consistent with the dynamic theory. Warfield does not explain how the Holy Spirit superintends this, only that He does. Article VII of the CSBI affirms that “the mode of divine inspiration remains largely a mystery to us.”
Deductive Support for Plenary and Verbal Inspiration
The doctrine of plenary and verbal inspiration is deductively derived, that is, based on what Scripture says about itself. John Feinberg, who affirms verbal and plenary inspiration, identifies 2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21, John 10:35, and John 17:17 as the didactic passages that establish the doctrine.[26] Like Feinberg, Erickson argues that inspiration is plenary, that is, that all of Scripture is inspired. While this might seem obvious from 2 Timothy 3:16, an examination of the Greek text raises doubts. The verse is normally translated as “All Scripture is God-breathed …,” but it could also legitimately be translated “All God-breathed Scripture …”.[27] Erickson points to 2 Peter 1:19-21 and John 10:34-35, coupled with Luke 24:25-27 and Luke 24:44-45, as indicating that the entire Old Testament is God-breathed.[28] Moreover, he argues, 2 Peter 3:16 as well as 1 John 4:6 extend Scripture from the prophetic period into their own time.[29] In 2 Peter 1:19-21, Peter affirms that the prophetic message is completely reliable and that “no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” This clearly indicates a strong divine influence, but it neither teaches that all Scripture is prophetic nor is it specific enough to show that the Holy Spirit gives the prophets the very words that they use. In John 10:35, Jesus says that even a single word, “gods,” in Psalm 82:6 is authoritative and notes that “Scripture cannot be set aside.” This verse is powerful support for the authority of Scripture and that even the specific words can have authority. It does not, however, say that all words in Scripture have the same authority. One should also note that Jesus used it to disarm His opponents who were ready to stone Him for blasphemy. Finally, in John 17:17, Jesus prays to the Father and says, “your word is truth.” This verse can be used to argue for Scripture as being the word of God and true but is not sufficient to establish plenary and verbal inspiration.
To summarize, the doctrine of plenary and verbal inspiration is affirmed in the CSBI and derived deductively from Scripture using four main verses. A closer examination of these verses leaves some doubt about whether Scripture teaches that inspiration was plenary and that every word in Scripture was given by the Holy Spirit. The dynamic theory of inspiration would allow the writers to choose their own words, at least in many cases, and would explain the differences in authorial styles.
Inerrancy and Infallibility of Scripture
Definition of Inerrancy and Infallibility
The basic meaning of “inerrancy” is “without error.” Erickson defines the inerrancy of Scripture as meaning that “the Bible is fully truthful in all of its teachings.”[30] It is similar to “infallibility,” which used to mean the same thing but in recent years “has been used as an alternative to ‘inerrancy,’ meaning in some usages that the Bible was not necessarily accurate in all of its factual references, but that it accomplished the divine purpose.”[31] Michael Bird also defines “infallibility” as being more flexible than inerrancy: “Biblical teachings are true and without falsehood in all that they affirm, with specific reference to God’s revelation of himself as Savior.”[32] The question of inerrancy is very important among American evangelicals. According to Bird, the issue of inerrancy has been “the defining issue within the evangelical camp” in America, leading to “all sorts of debates, denominational breakups, and institutional divisions.”[33] He further writes, “For many American evangelicals, inerrancy is kind of like your passport and residency visa within the evangelical tribe; without it you can expect to be deported.”[34] In number 4 of its short statement, the CSBI affirms that “Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives.” This is what Erickson describes as “full inerrancy.”[35]
David S. Dockery, a renowned theologian and now president of the Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, developed a typology of the positions on inerrancy held by Christians. Gabriel Desjardins lists them as “(1) mechanical dictation, (2) absolute
inerrancy, (3) critical inerrancy, (4) limited inerrancy, (5) qualified inerrancy, (6)
nuanced inerrancy, (7) functional inerrancy, (8) inerrancy is irrelevant, and (9) biblical
authority.”[36] According to Dockery, fundamentalists essentially affirm mechanical dictation (1),[37] while evangelicals accept either absolute inerrancy (2) or critical inerrancy (3), and moderates the positions of limited inerrancy (4), qualified inerrancy (5), nuanced inerrancy (6), or functional inerrancy (7). Liberals, on the other hand, reject the word inerrancy and take positions (8) “inerrancy is irrelevant” or (9) “biblical authority,” which is really a misnomer.[38] Absolute inerrancy (2) and critical inerrancy (3) both affirm inerrancy as defined by the CSBI, but differ in their use of critical methodologies, such as form and redaction criticism.[39] Inerrancy types (4) through (6) would fall under Erickson’s category of “limited inerrancy.”[40] Limited inerrancy (4) affirms that the Bible is inerrant in matters of faith, salvation, and ethics, but not in other matters.[41] Qualified inerrancy (5) is similar to limited inerrancy (4), but adherents affirm the Bible’s veracity as a presupposition of faith.[42] Nuanced inerrancy (6) argues that different forms of inspiration, and hence inerrancy, should be applied to different texts. This ranges from dictation for the Ten Commandments to authorial freedom for poetry.[43] Functional inerrancy (7) affirms that the Bible is infallible in its purpose, which is to bring people to salvation and helping believers grow in godliness but is not inherent in factual matters.[44] Erickson applies the term “inerrancy of purpose” to this position.[45] Positions (8) “inerrancy is irrelevant” and (9) “biblical authority” reject inerrancy. Those who hold position (8) point to the divisions that inerrancy disputes cause in the church and argue that a focus on inerrancy hinders serious biblical scholarship.[46] Finally, position (9) “biblical authority” affirms that the Bible contains errors, but these do not limit its authority as a sacred text.[47]
Views of Various Theologians
Full inerrancy, or Dockery’s positions (1) through (3), is based on a deductive approach.[48] R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, writes: “Do we really believe that God breathed out and inspired every word of the Bible? Do we believe that the Bible, as the Word of God written, shares God’s own perfection and truthfulness? Do we believe that when the Bible speaks, God speaks? If so, we affirm the inerrancy of Scripture without reservation or hesitation.”[49] New Testament scholar and apologist Mike Licona describes the deductive argument for full inerrancy in a syllogism:[50]
- God cannot err.
- The Bible is God’s Word.
- Therefore, the Bible cannot err.
The argument depends on how inspiration is understood. If plenary and verbal inspiration is correct, then the argument appears impeccable. If, however, God permits the human authors more freedom and only ensures that Scripture achieves His purposes, then some form of limited inerrancy or infallibility is more likely correct.
Licona argues for what he calls “flexible inerrancy,” which he defines as follows: “the Bible is true, trustworthy, authoritative, and without error in all that it teaches.”[51] While this conforms to Erickson’s basic meaning of inerrancy,[52] it is broader than the CSBI definition and probably falls in the category of Erickson’s “limited inerrancy” but possibly Dockery’s “critical inerrancy”. Licona affirms the divine inspiration of Scripture but questions whether it is plenary and verbal. Instead, he affirms the middle knowledge view of William Lane Craig, which allows the authors much freedom in what they write. Licona argues that this is more consistent with what we see in Scripture, and so his view is partly phenomenological.
Kevin J. Vanhoozer, a theologian at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, supports an “Augustinian” concept of inerrancy, by which he means “faith seeking understanding.”[53] He argues for a “well-versed” doctrine of inerrancy, arguing that we must first understand the author’s intent and be “alert to the importance of rhetoric as well as logic.”[54] He emphasizes that the Bible must be properly interpreted and “is true not in everything it mentions but in what it affirms.”[55] Accordingly, his definition of inerrancy is that “the authors speak the truth in all things they affirm (when they make affirmations), and will eventually be seen to have spoken truly (when right readers read rightly).”[56] By “right readers” he means “right-hearted and right-minded readers: those who read in faith and humility, not to mention the general prerequisites for literary competence.”[57] This means understanding not only the language but also the literary form.[58] While he affirms the truth of the literal sense of a passage, by this he means the “speech act content,” that is, what the author intends to say.[59] For example, when Jesus said that the mustard seed is the smallest seed (Matt 13:31), He was “not affirming as scientific fact the proposition semantically expressed by his sentence” but “communicating truth about the kingdom in terms his audience could understand.”[60]
Michael Bird argues that the discussion about inerrancy reflected in the CSBI is a uniquely American phenomenon. “For the most part,” he argues, “global churches have focused on Scripture as ‘infallible’ and ‘authoritative.’” By ‘biblical infallibility,’ we mean that the biblical teachings are true and without falsehood in all that they affirm, with specific reference to God’s revelation of himself as Savior.”[61] His quarrel with “inerrancy” is that it often means “freedom from error in all that is mentioned in Scripture – regardless of whether it pertains to historical, scientific, or theological claims – while infallibility is more modest in scope and pertains only to matters of faith and doctrine.”[62] More specifically, Bird objects to the CSBI’s view of the genre of Genesis 1-3, which he terms defective.[63] He also objects to the implicit assumption reflected in Article 14 that biblical veracity “rests on the harmonization of discrepancies” and cites the minor differences between the synoptic Gospels regarding the healing of a blind man near Jericho .[64] He also objects to the assumption in Article 16 that inerrancy has always been “integral to the Church’s faith throughout its history,” arguing that its current form results from debates in the modern context. Finally, he accuses the CSBI of “theological colonialism,” arguing that most evangelicals outside of the United States are content with the concept of “infallibility.”[65]
Full Inerrancy or Limited Inerrancy/Infallibility?
Which view is preferable: full inerrancy or limited inerrancy/infallibility? A problem in defining the question should be noted at the outset: Those who affirm full inerrancy would also affirm infallibility. If the Bible is “free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit” (CSBI Article 12), it will also be without error in all that it teaches, as the CSBI’s Article 11 affirms. In this paper, infallibility refers to a position that rejects “full inerrancy” but affirms “infallibility” as Michael Bird defines it. Another problem is with the lack of nuance. Bird, for example, prefers the term “infallible” to “inerrancy,” yet his views would probably fit Dockery’s definition of “limited inerrancy” or possibly “critical inerrancy.” Licona’s views likewise fall under the term “infallible” but can also be classified as “limited” or “critical” inerrancy. Similarly, Vanhoozer affirms the CSBI, but his emphasis on understanding literary forms or genres puts him in the “critical inerrancy” camp. In fact, Vanhoozer writes that his well-versed approach is a combination of Dockery’s third and sixth types (critical inerrancy and nuanced inerrancy).[66] Mohler’s more hard-line view clearly falls under “full inerrancy,” but his staunch positioning might go beyond even the CSBI and reflect his interpretation of certain texts, such as the account in Joshua 6 of the Battle of Jericho, as Vanhoozer points out.[67]
Phenomenological Arguments Against Full Inerrancy
There are many differences between parallel accounts in Scripture. This is not necessarily bad: if all accounts of the same event were identical, one could conclude that the authors copied each other. Still, these differences are a challenge for the doctrine of full inerrancy and must at least be harmonized.
Mike Licona argues that the Gospels belong to the genre of Greco-Roman biography, and that the authors used the conventions common for such biographies.[68] The purpose was to “reveal the character of the subject through the person’s sayings and deeds.”[69] The genre “provided authors a license to depart from the degree of precision in reporting that many of us moderns prefer.”[70] Licona examines fifteen parallel pericopes in the Gospels. One example is the account of Jesus’s healing of the centurion’s servant. In Matthew 8:5-6, the centurion asks Jesus directly to heal his servant. In Luke 7:3, on the other hand, the centurion sends some Jewish elders to ask on his behalf. Licona explains the difference this way: “Because Matthew tends to present abbreviated versions of stories paralleled in Mark and Luke, this is likely an example of Matthew compressing the narrative and transferring what a messenger had communicated to the literal mouth of the one who had sent the messenger.”[71] Compression was a literary device that Greco-Roman biographers used. Vern Poythress makes much the same argument in his analysis, although he begins with the possibility of several stages of events: First the representatives came, then the centurion himself.[72]
It should be noted that some discrepancies between the Gospels are harder to harmonize. An example is the healing of the blind man or men at Jericho. In Mark 10:46-52, Jesus heals a blind man, Bartimaeus, as Jesus leaves the city. In Luke 18:35-43, the (unnamed) man is healed as Jesus enters the city. In Matthew 20:29-34, the healing takes place when Jesus leaves the city, but here He heals two blind men. Licona argues that ancient biographers did not emphasize chronological accuracy, and so this could explain the difference on whether the healing took place as Jesus entered or left. As for one- or two blind men, Licona suggests it could be Matthew’s preference for doublets.[73] Poythress also examines these passages and offers conjectures by Calvin and Craig Blomberg but concludes that we do not have the final solution.[74]
The question is whether these differences are compatible with full inerrancy of the CSBI. Article 12, which states that Scripture is “free from all falsehood, fraud, and deceit,” would suggest they are. In all cases, there are differences in details that could be considered falsehoods (though not fraud or deceit). But Article 13 denies that Scripture should be evaluated “according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose.” As Greco-Roman biographies, the Gospels’ purpose is not to provide a precision of detail that modern standards would require. Many supporters of full inerrancy would not accept this argument.
Another difficulty is the differences between Scripture’s accounts of creation and prehistory in Genesis 1-11 and the findings of modern science. If Genesis 1-11 is treated as history, there are obvious contradictions, as young earth creationists affirm and so reject any form of evolution. If Genesis 1-11 is treated as a different genre, such as an etiological myth, as William Lane Craig suggests, the problem disappears.[75] This appears to violate Articles 12 and 18 of the CSBI, so it is probably incompatible with full inerrancy. Less rigorous definitions of inerrancy or infallibility see no contradiction. There are likewise differences between the history of Israel as recorded in the Bible and the findings of modern archaeology. For example, most archaeologists argue that Jericho was not a walled city at the time of Joshua’s conquest reported in Joshua 6. Moreover, many scholars wrestle with the morality of the biblical accounts of Israel’s genocide in Joshua.
Benefits and Problems with Full Inerrancy
The greatest benefit of the “full inerrancy” position is certainty. If one affirms with Mohler that “When the Bible speaks, God speaks,” the Bible’s authority is unquestioned.[76] It serves as a bulwark against theological liberalism. Norman Geisler and William Roach argue that the CSBI “helped reverse decades of the drift from inerrancy in one of the largest Protestant denominations in the United States— the Southern Baptist Convention. Other crucial schools and denominations that were drifting in the wrong direction were also influenced to change course.”[77] These included Bethel Seminary in Minneapolis, Gordon Cromwell Seminary, and Wheaton College, but not Fuller Seminary, which has not affirmed the CSBI. Moreover, if the Bible is fully inerrant, preachers and teachers need not fear that they are passing on incorrect information when they affirm the events of Genesis 1-11.
Some full inerrantists talk about a “slippery slope,” the end of which is abandonment of the historic faith. Mohler, for example, argues: “I do not believe that evangelicalism can survive without the explicit and complete assertion of biblical inerrancy. If we question full inerrancy, we will stumble down a slippery slope.” Similarly, “Without a total commitment to the trustworthiness and truthfulness of the Bible, the church is left without its defining authority, lacking confidence in its ability to hear God’s voice. Preachers will lack confidence in the authority and truthfulness of the very Word they are commissioned to preach and teach.”[78]
There are also problems with the “full inerrancy” stance. First, the doctrine of full inerrancy is not explicitly taught in Scripture but is “a corollary of full inspiration.”[79] If our understanding of inspiration is faulty, so is our doctrine of inerrancy. It was argued earlier that the didactic verses on which plenary and verbal inspiration is built do not teach this unambiguously. Second, it has been argued that the phenomena of Scripture do not support full inerrancy. Third, the doctrine of full inerrancy causes fissures in the church and hinders scholarship. J. Merrick and Stephen M. Garrett recount how New Testament scholar Robert Gundry was forced out of the Evangelical Theological Society for asserting that parts of Matthew’s infancy narratives were midrash and hence not intended as historical fact.[80] Norman Geisler attacked Mike Licona for arguing that the account of the saints rising from the dead when Jesus died (Matt 27:52-53) was not historical but used as an apocalyptic device.[81] has been attacked for arguing that. Fourth, emphasis on inerrancy can cause Christians to focus on propositions and learning correct information rather than “submitting to the regeneration of the Holy Spirit.”[82] Fifth, a focus on full inerrancy entails a “slippery slope” of its own. Michael Bird argues that it is pastorally dangerous. “It means that if some young Christian comes across a passage of Scripture that is historically or ethically challenging, then they are faced with the choice between belief and unbelief.”[83] A sixth problem is practical: We do not have the original manuscripts but copies, which are good but not inerrant. Finally, the doctrine of inerrancy does not guarantee orthodoxy, as Jehovah’s Witnesses, who deny the Trinity, show.
Both full inerrancy and infallibility affirm an authoritative Bible. The problems described above for full inerrancy do not apply for infallibility.
Conclusion
This paper argued that the authority of Scripture is essential, since the church needs an authority for “teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,” (2 Tim 3:16). It examined the inspiration of Scripture and concluded that the didactic verses on which the deductive argument is based (2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21, John 10:35, and John 17:17) are insufficient to establish the doctrine with certainty. It also examined various views of inerrancy and infallibility and examined the phenomenology of Scripture, which poses difficulties for the doctrine of full inerrancy. The paper looked at benefits of the doctrine of full inerrancy but also at the problems it poses. Given that both full inerrancy and infallibility affirm the authority of Scripture, the paper concludes that evangelicals can in good conscience abandon full inerrancy, although this is not mandatory, but they must uphold the infallibility of Scripture.
[1] Quotes are from the New International Version of the Bible.
[2] Michael F. Bird, Seven Things I Wish Christians Knew about the Bible, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2021), 72.
[3] N.T. Wright, Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today, (New York, NY: HarperOne, 2013), 22 (italics his).
[4] Ibid., 42.
[5] Bird, Seven Things I Wish Christians Knew about the Bible, 72.
[6] Michael F. Bird, Evangelical Theology: A Biblical and Systematic Introduction, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2020), 705.
[7] W.H. Oliver and E. Oliver, “Sola scriptura: authority versus interpretation?” Acta Theologica, 40(1) (2020): 105.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid., 106-107.
[10] Ibid., 111.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Robert Kolb, “The Bible in the Reformation and Protestant Orthodoxy,” in The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scripture, ed. D.A. Carson (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016), 95.
[13] Ibid., 105.
[14] Ibid., 93.
[15] D.A. Carson, “The Many Facets of the Current Discussion,” in The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scripture, ed. D.A. Carson (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016), 18.
[16] Bird, Seven Things I Wish Christians Knew about the Bible, 70.
[17] Ibid., 78.
[18] Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 172.
[19] Ibid., 174-175.
[20] Ibid., 184.
[21] Ibid., Evangelical Theology, 714-718.
[22] Bird, 708.
[23] William Lane Craig, “‘Men Moved By The Holy Spirit Spoke From God’(2 Peter 1:21)
A Middle Knowledge Perspective on Biblical Inspiration,” in Philosophia Christi, Vol. 1, Issue 1 (1999), 45.
[24] Mark D Thompson, “Warfield on Inspiration and Inerrancy,” The Reformed Theological Review,. 80, no. 1 (2021): 43.
[25] Ibid.
[26] John S. Feinberg, Light in a Dark Place: The Doctrine of Scripture, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018), 94.
[27] Erickson, Christian Theology, 177.
[28] Ibid., 178.
[29] Ibid., 178-179.
[30] Erickson, Christian Theology, 189.
[31] Ibid.
[32] Bird, Michael F. “Inerrancy is Not Necessary for Evangelicalism Outside the USA,” in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy, ed. James R.A. Merrick and Stephen M. Garrett, 145-173, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013), 163.
[33] Bird, Seven Things I Wish Christians Knew about the Bible, 55.
[34] Ibid., 58.
[35] Erickson, Christian Theology, 191.
[36] Gabriel A. Desjardins, “The Spectrum of Inerrancy: An Exploration of David S. Dockery’s Typological Contributions to the Inerrancy Debate in Evangelicalism,” Studia Universitatis Babeș-Bolyai, 66/1 (2021), 70.
[37] Dockery, David S. “Biblical Inerrancy: Pro or Con?” The Theological Educator 37, (December 1988), 18.
[38] Desjardins, “The Spectrum of Inerrancy,” 70.
[39] Ibid., 82-83.
[40] Erickson, Christian Theology, 191.
[41] Desjardins, “The Spectrum of Inerrancy,” 85.
[42] Ibid., 86.
[43] Ibid., 87.
[44] Ibid., 89.
[45] Erickson, Christian Theology, 191.
[46] Desjardins, “The Spectrum of Inerrancy,” 91.
[47] Ibid., 92.
[48] Desjardins, “The Spectrum of Inerrancy,” 71.
[49] Mohler, R. Albert Jr. “When the Bible Speaks, God Speaks: The Classic Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy,” in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy, ed. James R.A. Merrick and Stephen M. Garrett, 29-58 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013), 30.
[50] Licona, Michael R. Jesus, Contradicted: Why the Gospels Tell the Same Story Differently, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2024), 194.
[51] Ibid., 206.
[52] Erickson, Christian Theology, 189.
[53] Vanhoozer, Kevin J. “Augustinian Inerrancy: Literary Meaning, Literal Truth, and Literate Interpretation in the Economy of Biblical Discourse” in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy, ed. James R.A. Merrick and Stephen M. Garrett, 199-235 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013), 206.
[54] Ibid., 200
[55] Ibid., 207.
[56] Ibid., 207.
[57] Ibid., note 24, 207.
[58] Ibid., 211.
[59] Ibid., 220.
[60] Ibid., 221.
[61] Bird “Inerrancy is Not Necessary for Evangelicalism Outside the USA,” 163.
[62] Ibid.
[63] Ibid., 147.
[64] Ibid., 148.
[65] Ibid., 154-155.
[66] Vanhoozer, “Augustinian Inerrancy,” note 42, 214.
[67] Vanhoozer, Kevin J. “Response to R. Albert Mohler Jr.” in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy, ed. J. Merrick and Stephen M. Garrett, 71-76, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013), 74.
[68] Michael R. Licona, Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? What We Can Learn from Ancient Biography, (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2017), 3-4.
[69] Ibid., 4.
[70] Ibid., 5.
[71] Ibid., 130.
[72] Vern S. Poythress, Inerrancy and the Gospels: A God-Centered Approach to the Challenges of Harmonization, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 22-27.
[73] Licona, Why Are There Differences, 135.
[74] Poythress, Inerrancy and the Gospels, 229-234.
[75] Craig, William Lane. In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2021), 160.
[76] Mohler, “When the Bible Speaks, God Speaks,” 29.
[77] Geisler, Norman L, and William C Roach. Defending Inerrancy: Affirming the Accuracy of Scripture for a New Generation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2011.
[78] Mohler, “When the Bible Speaks, God Speaks,” 31.
[79] Erickson, Christian Theology, 200.
[80] J. Merrick with Stephen M. Garrett, “Introduction: On Debating Inerrancy,” in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy, ed. James R.A. Merrick and Stephen M. Garrett, 9-25, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013), 11.
[81] Michael R. Licona, “When the Saints Go Marching In (Matthew 27:52-53): Historicity, Apocalyptic Symbol, and Biblical Inerrancy,” https://www.risenjesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2011-eps-saints-paper.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2025, 3:00 p.m. CET.
[82] Merrick and Garrett., “Introduction: On Debating Inerrancy,” 14.
[83] Michael F. Bird, “Response to R. Albert Mohler Jr.” in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy, ed. James R.A. Merrick and Stephen M. Garrett, 65-70, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013), 68.
Bibliography
Bird, Michael F. Evangelical Theology: A Biblical and Systematic Introduction, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2020.
Bird, Michael F. “Response to R. Albert Mohler Jr.” in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy, ed. James R.A. Merrick and Stephen M. Garrett, 65-70. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013.
Bird, Michael F. “Inerrancy is Not Necessary for Evangelicalism Outside the USA,” in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy, ed. James R.A. Merrick and Stephen M. Garrett, 145-173. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013.
Bird, Michael F. Seven Things I Wish Christians Knew about the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2021.
Carson, D.A. “The Many Facets of the Current Discussion,” in The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scripture, ed. D.A. Carson, 16-50. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016.
Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978)
Craig, William Lane. “‘Men Moved By the Holy Spirit Spoke From God’(2 Peter 1:21)
A Middle Knowledge Perspective on Biblical Inspiration.” Philosophia Christi, Vol. 1, Issue 1 (1999): 45-82.
Craig, William Lane. In Quest of the Historical Adam : A Biblical and Scientific Exploration. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2021.
Erickson, Millard J. Christian Theology, 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013.
Feinberg, John S. Light in a Dark Place: The Doctrine of Scripture. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018.
Geisler, Norman L, and William C Roach. Defending Inerrancy: Affirming the Accuracy of Scripture for a New Generation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2011.
Kolb, Robert. “The Bible in the Reformation and Protestant Orthodoxy,” in The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scripture, ed. D.A. Carson, 93-116. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2016.
Licona, Michael R. Jesus, Contradicted: Why the Gospels Tell the Same Story Differently. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2024.
Licona, Michael R. Why Are There Differences in the Gospels? What We Can Learn from Ancient Biography. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2017.
Licona, Michael R. “When the Saints Go Marching In (Matthew 27:52-53): Historicity, Apocalyptic Symbol, and Biblical Inerrancy.” Risen Jesus website: https://www.risenjesus.com/wp-content/uploads/2011-eps-saints-paper.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2025, 3:00 p.m. CET.
Merrick, James R.A. with Stephen M. Garrett, “Introduction: On Debating Inerrancy,” in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy, ed. James R.A. Merrick and Stephen M. Garrett, 9-25. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013,
Mohler, R. Albert Jr. “When the Bible Speaks, God Speaks: The Classic Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy,” in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy, ed. James R.A. Merrick and Stephen M. Garrett, 29-58. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013.
Oliver, W.H. and E. Oliver. “Sola scriptura: authority versus interpretation?” Acta Theologica, 40(1) (2020): 102-123.
Poythress, Vern S. Inerrancy and the Gospels: A God-Centered Approach to the Challenges of Harmonization. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012.
Thompson, Mark D. “Warfield on Inspiration and Inerrancy.” The Reformed Theological Review. 80, no. 1 (2021): 29–48.
Vanhoozer, Kevin J. “Augustinian Inerrancy: Literary Meaning, Literal Truth, and Literate Interpretation in the Economy of Biblical Discourse” in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy, ed. J. Merrick and Stephen M. Garrett, 199-235. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2013.
Wright, N. T. Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today. New York: HarperOne, 2013.