God's Inerrant Word: An International Symposium on the Trustworthiness of Scripture

Rating:
Summary: Scholarly defense of inerrancy
Review: Even though this book is over thirty years old, the issue of how we understand the authority of Holy Scripture in the life of the church is just as relevant today as it was then. The original event that precipitated this book was the needed response to Daniel Fuller's published views on "limited inerrancy," the view that the Bible is inerrant only in matters of faith and practice. This implies that there are minor historical and scientific errors in Holy Writ, but they need not concern us since these errors do not impact Christian life and doctrine.

The authors of the included essays argue vigorously that any admission of errors in the Bible at any level will prove disastrous for the church and our confidence in Scripture. The collection of essays came out of a Ligonier conference and represent the strongest argument against Dan Fuller's (and Fuller Seminary's) stepping away from a strict inerrantist view in favor of Scripture as "the infallible rule of faith and practice."

John Warrick Montgomery's "Biblical Inerrancy: What Is at Stake" tackles Dan Fuller's (and others like him) argument head on maintaining that any "limited inerrancy" eventually erodes the substance of Christian faith, just as it did in liberal Protestantism of the 19th and 20th centuries; e.g. the debate between Charles Augustus Briggs and B.B. Warfield that led to the eventual liberalization; i.e. apostasy, of Union Theological Seminary in New York City. Unfortunately, Montgomery's essay is probably the weakest and most frustrating in the book. If we really believe that the infinite, unlimited God humbled Himself to reveal Himself through the finite, limited human authors of the Bible, then what does that really mean on a practical level? Evangelical scholars who question a strict view of inerrancy are generally doing so not to diminish biblical authority (what would be the point in doing that?). Instead they are seeking to explore the human character of God's Word. Montgomery rightly emphasizes the divine nature of Scripture, but he does so at the expense of Scripture's humanity. Yes, many have emphasized the humanity of the text over and against the divinity of the text, but what profit is there going overboard the other direction?

The real gems in this book are the historical essays. J.I. Packer's "'Sola Scriptura' in History and Today" and "Calvin's View of Scripture", as well as Montgomery's "Lessons from Luther on the Inerrancy of Holy Writ" are valuable essays on the history of the inerrancy doctrine, though Packer's essays are more even-handed than Montgomery's. John H. Gerstner's "Warfield's Case for Biblical Inerrancy" cautiously admits to Warfield's tendency at least at one point to be open to the charge of docetism.

Several essays take aim at the neo-orthodoxy of Karl Barth's doctrine of Scripture, including John Frame's "God and Biblical Language: Transcedence and Immanence" and "Scripture Speaks for Itself", as well as R. C. Sproul's "The Case for Inerrancy: A Methodological Analysis." The authors rightly take on some of Barth's arguments, but they miss Barth's central point: if Jesus Christ is ultimately the Word of God, then even Scripture as God's Word written must be understood in light of that living Word. The best part of the those essays is Frame's wonderful discussion on Anthony Flew's parable of the invisible gardener. That discussion is worth telling and retelling again and again.

Extended analysis of various facets of inerrancy are found in Peter R. Jones' "The Apostle Paul: Second Moses to the New Covenant Community" and John Warrick Montgomery's "The Approach of New Shape Roman Catholicism to Scriptural Inerrancy: A Case Study".

Aside from J.I. Packer's, my favorite essays come from Clark Pinnock, "Limited Inerrancy: A Critical Appraisal and Constructive Alternative" and "The Inspiration of Scripture and the Authority of Jesus Christ." I like Pinnock here since even though he claims to be a strict inerrantist he is willing to address the positive contributions of the limited inerrantist viewpoint and propose a solution. His distinction between a "material error", something which has the appearance of an error, and a "formal error", a purely false judgment is thoughtful. For example, a figure of speech would be a material error, such as in " it was raining cats and dogs." Pinnock argues that there are "material errors" in Scripture but not "formal errors". I find Pinnock's proposal very helpful in dealing with a number of difficulties in Scripture, including the imprecise use of numbers in several Old Testament texts and statements that would not pass muster against modern scientific/historical reasoning, such as Jesus' statement that the mustard seed is "the smallest of all seeds." Modern botany would dispute this, but this statement was never meant by Jesus to teach botany. Rather, Jesus intended to teach something about his kingdom. Discerning the intention of the sacred writer is crucial to a proper view of inerrancy. Nevertheless, Pinnock does seem to jump back and forth at times, occassionally holding some sympathy for limited inerrancy and then coming back forcefully to defeat it. I even sensed something in John Warrick Montgomery's footnotes that he was not so pleased with Pinnock's way of arguing. So it really is not a surprise to find Pinnock writing ten years later in his _The Scripture Principle_ backing off from a strict inerrantist position, much to the consternation of several other authors in this book.

What bothers me about the "strict inerrancy" view is not that it is wrong. Rather, it is confusing. If the intention of Scripture is to teach us about God, then why should we expect the biblical writers to be unflinching experts in all matters of science and history? What purpose does that really serve? Strict inerrantists argue that the Bible is not a scientific or historical textbook, but they argue that all scientific and historical statements in Scripture are completely factual. So what's the deal?: should we believe Jesus' botanical statements about the size of the mustard seed and simply dismiss modern botany as a tool of the Devil? The strict inerrantists would never say that, but sometimes when they argue their case it is difficult to avoid that conclusion. Granted, some of the arguments presented by limited inerrantists and neo-orthodoxy followers of Karl Barth are not always that helpful, but at least they are trying to find a way to talk sensibly and faithfully about the divine/human mystery of the Bible.

Much of the arguments in these essays imply a slippery slope whereby a loosening of the reins in our understanding of inerrancy eventually waters down the Truth. I do not find this argument totally convincing. In the 30 years since this book was published, Fuller Seminary still upholds a solid, high view of Scripture and other core Christian doctrines (some would not agree, but then some would also say that Fuller is "too fundamentalist"). The idea of the frog slowly boiling in the kettle without knowing it is not always the case. Nevertheless, the authors are correct in that we should not let down our guard. It is all too easy to favour the humanity of the text at the expense of God's perfect authority.

If you are looking for a scholarly defense of strict inerrancy, this is probably one of the best sources around. Unfortunately, while I found myself agreeing with the intent of the authors, I found a number of the specific arguments presented to be wanting. My concern is that the weakness of a lot of conservative polemics against "limited inerrancy" are counter productive. Instead of inspiring confidence in Scriptural inspiration, it can actually undermine one's confidence if the strict inerrantist arguments come across as either forced or convoluted. Indeed, Holy Scripture is inerrant, but that does not guarantee that the defenders of inerrancy are inerrant in their propositions! As Donald Bloesch brilliantly points out in his _Holy Scripture_, sometimes it is important to defend Scripture against some well-meaning friends of the Bible. To use a military analogy, _God's Inerrant Word_ rightly fires away against the erosion of biblical truth in the church and the culture, but it does so while inflicting some casualties of "friendly fire." Strict inerrantists need to be careful not to be so trigger-happy.