TBC Newsletter, July 1994 - Denison - Inerrancy Definitions & Qualifications

In an address to the 1993 statewide meeting of Texas Baptists Committed, I made the statement that “inerrancy” is a term with some eight definitions and twelve qualifications.¹ In recent days several persons have requested more information regarding this statement. This paper is intended to be a brief, nontechnical documentation of my statement and thus an answer to these requests. I will conclude with a brief statement of my own approach to the “inerrancy” of Scripture.

DEFINITIONS

The word “inerrancy” first came into common use in the nineteenth century.² Across subsequent years, numerous definitions and characterizations of the word have been suggested. In fact, the word has been employed in such divergent and contradictory ways that in 1978 some three hundred scholars gathered in Chicago to attempt a general definition of the term.³ Unfortunately, this noteworthy effort has not served to resolve the confusion which still surrounds the word.

Today at least eight different definitions of “inerrancy” are to be found in the works of leading, conservative scholars. This list is by no means exhaustive, as still other approaches will undoubtedly continue to be formulated. However, the following list illustrates the difficulty in using inerrancy as a simple test of orthodoxy today.

First, we might state a “general” definition for inerrancy. Here Clark Pinnock’s statement would describe what is probably the most popular approach to the term: “Inerrancy simply means that the Bible can be trusted in what it teaches and affirms.”⁴ This definition would use “inerrant” in the simple sense of “trustworthy.” As a common-sense description, then, “inerrant” would simply mean that we can trust the Bible. Used in this way, the word provides no clarification over what Baptists have always believed and said about the Bible.

Second, “formal” inerrancy makes the claim that “Scripture does not contradict itself.”⁵ Adherents of this approach would argue that the Bible contains no contradictions with its own claims, but would not necessarily contrast biblical statements with those of scientific and other extra-biblical materials.

Third, “material” inerrancy expands the above definitions greatly: “Scripture does not lie or deceive or err in any assertion it makes.⁶ The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy offers a similar definition: “inerrant signifies the quality of being free from all falsehood or mistake and so safeguards the truth that Holy Scripture is entirely true and trustworthy in all its assertions.”⁷ Some interpreters refer to this approach as “strict” or “full” inerrancy. This definition claims that the Bible contains no “errors” of any kind, and is often what so-called “inerrantists” mean by the term. However, they qualify this definition in important ways, as will soon be shown.

Fourth, there is an approach which might be termed “soteriological”: the Bible is “inerrant” in all its teachings regarding salvation. The Roman Catholic Church adopted this definition at Vatican II: “the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted to put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation.”⁸ In this understanding, the Bible speaks without any error when it leads to saving faith, but may or may not contain errors in other areas.

Fifth, adherents of “limited” inerrancy claim that the Bible is without error in matters of faith and morals, but may or may not contain errors in other areas such as science, geography and history.⁹ This approach would expand the scope of inerrancy beyond soteriology, but not to the point of the “material” definition.

Sixth, there is a less common approach is called “indefectibility.” By this definition the unified truth presented by the Bible is considered to be reliable or “inerrant,” but not necessarily its individual words or statements.¹⁰ In this method the overall doctrines and truths of Scripture are without error, but the specific words or claims of the texts may or may not contain errors.

Seventh, “secondary” inerrancy applies to the quotations and speeches recorded in Scripture. Adherents of this definition would argue that the Bible records these speeches inerrantly, but this does not guarantee the inerrancy of the content of these speeches.¹¹ For example, Luke records Stephen’s speech of defense exactly as he delivered it (Acts 7), but this does not guarantee that Stephen’s words were themselves inerrant.

Eighth, there is a very popular approach called “purposive” or “intentional” inerrancy. This definition states that the Bible is inerrant in accomplishing its intended purpose, whatever that purpose might be. As Pinnock claims, “inerrancy is relative to the intention of the text.”¹² Advocates of this approach would note that the Bible does not intend to be a book of science, history, or geography, and thus would not purpose to speak without error in these areas. God has preserved an inerrant text in all areas which he intends the Bible to address.

As one can easily see, these eight definitions vary significantly with one another. Each can claim conservative, scholarly adherents. This diversity of approaches to the meaning and usage of “inerrancy” demonstrates the unsuitability of the word as a general test of orthodoxy regarding the Scriptures.

QUALIFICATIONS

The “material” view of inerrancy is by far the strongest claim of the eight definitions sketched above. Those who adhere to this definition insist that the Bible is “free from all falsehood or mistake and so… is entirely true and trustworthy in all its assertions.”¹³ It is important to note, however, that even these “strict” inerrantists accept several very important qualifications to their definition. A brief survey of these qualifications will further show the unsuitability of “inerrancy” as a simple test for belief in the trustworthiness of God’s word.

One: all “inerrantists” will immediately note that their claim applies only to the original manuscripts of the Bible, not to the copies we possess today. They will admit along with all responsible exegetes that the copies now extant have many problems, some more significant than others. There are contradictions between manuscripts, omissions and additions. While we can trust that the copies we now possess provide the substance of the original texts with a high degree of accuracy¹⁴, no one can responsibly claim that our copies mirror exactly the original texts. And since these original “autographs” no longer exist, it seems that we will never possess their exact content.

(continued)

As a result, “inerrancy” is claimed for documents we cannot possess or examine. It is not claimed for the texts we do possess. Two related, damaging results follow. One, this claim can be a depreciation of the texts we do possess. Their preservation is a miracle of God,¹⁵ one made less significant by this claim that only the originals are “entirely true and trustworthy.” Two, this claim can cause us to have even less confidence in the Bibles we now own. If a text must be inerrant to be “entirely true and trustworthy” and our current Bibles are admittedly based on manuscript copies which do not possess this character, then our modern texts could be seen to be less than true or trustworthy today. In this case the argument for inerrancy produces the exact opposite of its desired effect. And yet this qualification is claimed by all who call themselves “inerrantists.”

Eleven other qualifications of “inerrancy” follow. They are taken from Robert Preus’s paper, “The Inerrancy of Scripture,”¹⁶ and are chosen for this purpose because Preus is himself a strong defender of “material” inerrancy in fact, I cite his definition of the term above).¹⁷ They will be numbered two to twelve below.

Two: “Inerrancy does not imply verbal exactness of quotations.”¹⁸ This means that the New Testament writers may or may not quote the Old Testament or other extrabiblical documents with precise accuracy.

Three: “Inerrancy does not imply verbal or intentional agreement in parallel accounts of the same event.’’¹⁹ Since different writers work from different perspectives and/or purposes, their accounts will naturally differ.

Four: inerrancy does not preclude figurative speech, rounding of numbers, and other imprecisions of language.²⁰ In other words, the Bible does not employ “modern scientifically ‘precise’ language.²¹

Five: inerrancy does not preclude popular phrases and expressions used in its day. Here Preus cites such phrases as “bowels of mercy,” “four corners of the earth,” and the statement that Joseph is the father of Christ,” and claims: “No error is involved in the use of such popular expressions.”²²

Six: inerrancy does not require scientifically precise language in describing the things of nature. For example, biblical statements that the earth is motionless and circled by the sun (see Eccl. 1:4-5) and that a bat is to be classed with birds (Lev. 11:19) are phenomenal and thus not “errant.”²³

Seven: inerrancy does not preclude the use of mythology or folklore, language which would be considered unscientific today (see Job 3:8 and Is. 34:14).²⁴

Eight: inerrancy does not require historiography of modern standards. Chronology, genealogy, and other matters of historical record can be imprecise or interpretive.²⁵

Nine: inerrancy does not require that the biblical author understood the “full divine implication” of all his words.²⁶ In this way the New Testament writers do not commit error when they offer a new and/or different interpretation of Old Testament statements (for example, see Matthew’s use of Hosea’s prophecy, Matt. 2:15/Hosea 11:1).

Ten: inerrancy does not preclude the use of non-precise descriptions of the biblical books by their authors and/or editors. For example, the book of Proverbs begins with the self description, “The proverbs of Solomon” (Prov. 1:1). While Solomon did not write the book per se or even all its contents (see chs. 30- 31), this title is a non-precise, general, and thus acceptable description for the book.²⁷

Eleven: inerrancy does not require that etymologies in the Bible conform to modern analysis or usage. As Preus states, “The ancients are not thinking of etymologies in the modern sense.”²⁸

And twelve: inerrancy is to be accepted as a faith assertion, not the result of an inductive study of the evidence at hand. Preus makes this claim clear: “inerrancy is always to be accepted on faith!… no corroborating evidence for Biblical assertions is necessary or sought for.”²⁹ Belief in the inerrancy of the Bible is not founded on or subject to evidences for its veracity. As a result, no evidence can dissuade an inerrantist from his conviction.

In addition to Preus’s qualifications, two others may be mentioned briefly. First, many inerrantists preclude as “error” apparent contradictions in the Scriptures which may one day be harmonized. Two, many use their word with the qualification that other problems with the Scriptures which cannot be solved now may be solved one day when more information is available. By the use of these qualifications a apparent problem with the Scriptures can be dismissed.³⁰

CONCLUSIONS

For the sake of clarity and emphasis, three conclusions should be restated. First, “inerrancy” is a term so variously defined that common usage as a test of orthodoxy is impractical and misleading. When one is asked if he is an “inerrantist,” his or her first response must be: “By what definition?” Surely a “limited” inerrantist and a “material” inerrantist do not share an identical view of Scripture. They are both “inerrantists,” and yet by each other’s definitions they are not. The word is flawed as a simple test for one’s belief in the trustworthiness of the Bible.

Second, “inerrancy” applies only to the original manuscripts, and thus is a theoretical claim at best. Since we do not possess these documents, we cannot test this claim. And further, this claim can actually depreciate our trust in the documents we do possess. Since they admittedly do not mirror exactly the originals, they do not meet this necessary test of truthfulness.

Third, “inerrancy” is so qualified by its employers that again, common use as a test of orthodoxy is untenable. When asked if we are “inerrantists, we must ask, “With what qualifications?” Those accepted by some will be rejected by others.

(continued)

For these reasons, I do not use the word “inerrant” to describe my personal understanding of God’s word. I do, however, believe that the Bible is exactly what it claims to be: “God-breathed” in its entirety (2 Tim. 3:16). I personally believe that every word was given by God, through men. In a mystery akin to the Incarnation, I believe that the Bible is both divine and human. The words of Scripture bear the characteristics of both their Author and their authors. They are absolutely trustworthy as the words and word of God.

I further believe that God has preserved his word in the texts we possess today. Our copies of the original autographs have been given to us through a process which God has protected. I therefore reject the implication that since only the originals are “inerrant” our copies are somehow less acceptable. I have given my life to preach, teach, and seek to live by the word of God I have today.

My rejection of the word “inerrant” is thus in no way a challenge to the absolute trustworthiness of God’s word. This trustworthiness I accept and preach wholeheartedly. Rather, it seems clear to me that any word with at least eight definitions and twelve qualifications has lost its value as a simple, common test of anything. Let us cease insisting on certain words of men and return to proclaiming the word of God. The one is not the other.

¹See the transcript of my address: “Standing For Freedom and Grace: A Personal Response,” Texas Baptists Committed (October 1993), 4.

²Mark Noll, “A Brief History of Inerrancy, Mostly in America,” The Proceedings of the Conference on Biblical Inerrancy, 1987 (Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1987), 9; hereafter cited as Proceedings.

³This statement, with nineteen articles of affirmation and denial, is called “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.” It has been widely circulated; one record of the statement in full is Evangelicals and Inerrancy, ed. Ronald Youngblood (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1984), 230-9; hereafter cited as Evangelicals.

⁴Clark H. Pinnock, The Scripture Principle (San Francisco: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1984), 78.

⁵Robert Preus, “The Inerrancy of Scripture,” Proceedings, 49.

⁶Ibid.

⁷“Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy,” in Evangelicals, 237; italics theirs.

⁸Dei Verbum, art. 11; quoted in Richard J. Coleman, “Reconsidering ‘Limited Inerrancy,’” Evangelicals, 163.

⁹See Coleman, 165-66.

¹⁰See Coleman, 166-67.

¹¹See Rex. A. Koivisto, “Stephen’s Speech: A Case Study In Rhetoric And Biblical Inerrancy,” Evangelicals, 217-29.

¹²Pinnock, The Scripture Principle, 78.

¹³“Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy,” 237.

¹⁴Here it is comforting to note the often-quoted assessment of the outstanding textual scholar F. F. Bruce: “The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the New Testament affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice” (F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, 5th ed. rev. [Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1960], 19-20).

¹⁵A number of excellent treatments of this fascinating story are available. One of the best is F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1988).

^l6Robert Preus, “The Inerrancy of Scripture,” in Proceedings, 5l-55.

^l7See note 6.

¹⁸Ibid, 51.

¹⁹Ibid.

²⁰Ibid, 52.

²¹Ibid.

²²Ibid.

²³Ibid., 52-53

²⁴Ibid., 53.

²⁵Preus, 5 4 .

²⁶Ibid.

²⁷Ibid., 54-55.

²⁸Ibid., 55.

²⁹Ibid.

³⁰For further discussion of problems with the use of “inerrancy,” consult Clark. H. Pinnock’s articles, “What Is Biblical Inerrancy?” and “Parameters of Biblical Inerrancy” in Proceedings, 73-80 and 95-101.

Back to July 1994 Contents