Is God as Good as His Word?

Controversy over the Bible once again seems to be approaching the boiling point, but with a difference. In most previous contests over Scripture, those who accepted it as the Word of God written were pitted against those who did not. This time the contest rages among evangelicals, those who outwardly agree on both its divine origin and its divine content.

The central issue appears to be the same—inerrancy. On one side dedicated evangelicals are lining up to defend the historic position of biblical conservatives: the Bible is without error and therefore utterly trustworthy. On the other side, a surprising array of equally dedicated evangelicals is forming to insist that acceptance of historic Christian doctrines does not require belief in an inerrant book. This latter group maintains that where “inerrancy” refers to what the Holy Spirit is saying through biblical writers, the word is rightly used; but to go beyond this in defining inerrancy is to suggest “a precision alien to the minds of the Bible writers and their own use of Scriptures,” as one statement put it.

There are scholars who pay cordial homage to the full authority of Scripture and declare their full confidence in the “inspiration of both Testaments as the written Word of God.” Then they go further to say that they do not deny “the infallibility of the Bible.” Thus they imply a distinction between inerrancy and infallibility, terms that in evangelical circles have often been considered interchangeable.

The issue may be divided into three parts: (1) Can the question of scriptural authority be distinguished from the question of scriptural inerrancy? (2) Can scriptural authority for “getting out the Gospel” with full force and effect be maintained without a belief in biblical inerrancy? (3) Is one’s position on authority derived from one’s position on inerrancy, or is it the other way around? Historically, evangelical scholars have said no to the first question. Scriptural inerrancy and scriptural authority have been considered to be one and the same, inseparable. Inerrant (without mistakes) and infallible (fully authoritative) have been considered interchangeable terms. The person having trouble with fundamental Christian doctrines was known by his refusal to accept the Bible as being without error.

The person who rejected the Gospel was assumed to be unable to accept the Bible as the Word of God written (and therefore inerrant). To impress upon him the Bible’s claim (its authority), one trotted out all the evidence available to establish its accuracy. If one could prove that Ezekiel’s prophecies were correct, or that a whale could really swallow a man, one might persuade an infidel to consider the Gospel.

When neo-orthodoxy came along, it frankly identified its rejection of doctrinal fundamentalism with a rejection of textual fundamentalism. Neo-orthodoxy had problems with a literal fall because it had problems with inerrancy. Classical fundamentalism assumed, on the other hand, that one who truly believed the Bible was without error could be counted on to accept everything it taught in the literal sense.

What has made it a new ball game today is the emergence of a new type of evangelical. These persons accept the cardinal doctrines of Christianity in their full and literal meaning but agree that the higher critics have a point: there are errors in Scripture, and some of its precepts must be recognized as being culturally and historically conditioned.

The new type of evangelical does not identify inerrant with infallible. Persons who warmly endorse the phrase “an infallible rule of faith and practice” may cringe at the phrase “the inerrant Scriptures.”

In reaction, others have redoubled their efforts to make a case for textual impeccability. They imply that those who shy away from such “precision” are therefore holding the truth in unrighteousness.

The first point I want to make is that those who profess to accept scriptural authority while rejecting scriptural inerrancy are not playing fast and loose with the truth.

They do mean to retain “infallible” in their vocabulary. They embrace what they conceive to be God’s Word with all the warmth of the strictest biblical literalist.

Whether their commitment “gets out the Gospel” in all its power, or whether it can long be maintained without the belief in inerrancy, is another question. But their arguments suggest that something should be done that has not been done before: authority (and applicability) should be distinguished from inerrancy.

For example, were Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians culturally conditioned? Are they still strictly binding? This subject should be debatable apart from questions of inerrancy. The fact that Paul wrote by inspiration and that we have a totally accurate record of what he wrote does not really solve the problem of what to do with his instructions to women to cover their heads when they worship.

On the other side of the coin, the claim of feminists that women today should not necessarily keep quiet in church is not answered by arguments designed to prove there are no mistakes in Old Testament chronology.

To put it another way: a person may insist that he accepts the inerrancy of Scripture but may say he does not believe that a bystander in the Garden of Eden would have been able to hear actual words spoken by the serpent to Eve. Even so, he is not necessarily trying to deceive.

The second question comes closer to the heart of the issue: can scriptural authority have its full way short of an acceptance of scriptural inerrancy? Can one really embrace as “an infallible rule of faith and practice” a book one believes to contain errors, discrepancies, and contradictions?

Here is where the controversy rages. Increasingly, recognized evangelical scholars have been bold to say that they heartily believe and teach the doctrines given to the Church by the Holy Spirit through the biblical writers, but that they do not believe the Scriptures must be viewed as inerrant.

Sometimes the issue becomes more subtle because much of the evidence is subjective. Some take this position with utter, transparent candor. Others betray a mistrust of both authority and inerrancy.

A leading evangelical scholar recently wrote: “A viable view of inspiration does not demand inerrancy. I can accept the Bible as my trustworthy guide without closing my eyes to the fact that Paul’s views of marriage were peculiarly and uniquely his own.”

In a similar vein, a leading evangelical feminist wrote: “I do not disagree with any of the teachings of Scripture. I do disagree with distorted interpretations of Scripture based on patriarchal social patterns and neo-platonic philosophical systems.”

Both these persons profess to accept the Bible’s views—they reject only inerrancy, they imply. But both are clearly having problems with what the Bible teaches. The real issue resolves itself into whether Paul’s views were “peculiarly and uniquely his own” and whether First Corinthians merely reflects “patriarchal social patterns.” The issue is authority, not error!

At this point the leading Reformers such as John Calvin seem to come to the aid of the “infallible but not inerrant” school of thought. One can make a case for Calvin’s acceptance of inerrancy, but the Reformer did not ground his acceptance of scriptural authority upon his persuasion that the book in his hands contained no mistakes. He argued that one’s persuasion of the divine authority of Holy Writ comes from the inward testimony of the Holy Spirit and not from any outward proofs. “We believe neither by our own nor by anyone else’s judgment that the Scripture is from God,” Calvin wrote. “The certainty it deserves with us it attains by the testimony of the Spirit.”

Specifically: “They who strive to build up firm faith in Scripture through disputation are doing things backwards. The testimony of the Spirit is more excellent than reason.… Those whom the Holy Spirit has inwardly taught truly rest upon Scripture, and that Scripture is self-authenticated; hence, it is not right to subject it to proof and reasoning.”

The point would seem to be that one’s persuasion of the authority of Scripture is by faith; one accepts it as the binding Word of God apart from considerations of error or accuracy.

Isn’t that what the evangelicals quoted earlier are saying? Not quite. It must be acknowledged that one may with perfect validity accept Scripture as the binding Word of God apart from considerations of error or accuracy. This has not always been acknowledged by defenders of strict inerrancy, and it is the very heart of the current controversy.

But to say that one accepts the authority of Scripture apart from considerations of error or accuracy is one thing; to say that one accepts Scripture as authoritative even though it contains errors and contradictions is quite another.

It is one thing to say that one accepts Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians as God’s infallible and inerrant Word as given—subject to any necessary understanding of social conditions that may have been peculiar to the Corinthian situation. It is quite another thing to say that Paul’s views were “peculiarly and uniquely his own,” or that they reflected “neoplatonic philosophical systems.”

Too much of the debate between spokesmen for inerrancy and spokesmen for non-inerrancy has been over issues that are really beside the point. When the subject of Scripture comes up, both sides bring up the mathematics of the Old Testament, or textual problems such as the quotation in Matthew 27:9 attributed to Jeremiah, which actually comes from Zechariah. One side sets out to resolve the problem in order to support infallibility, while the other side uses it to “prove” that inerrancy is impossible, while infallibility remains.

In the debate, both sides tend to overlook what is at issue—not the accuracy of the Bible so much as one’s attitude toward the Bible. Inerrancy, in the final analysis, refers not so much to demonstrable precision as to an attitude, a hermeneutical presupposition.

To illustrate: one may try to interpret and apply the Constitution of the United States with never a question as to its authenticity or accuracy; or one may try to interpret and apply the Constitution while openly wondering whether the language actually reflects what its authors had in mind (in the part about freedom of speech and of the press, for example). Both approaches view the Constitution as authoritative. But they will come out at vastly different places. And the difference derives not from the precision or imprecision of the text but from differences in approach to the text.

In the biblical debate, no one is making the so-called misquotation from Zechariah the key issue. But serious questions have been raised over the attitude with which some teachings of Scripture (about which no questions of accuracy or precision can be raised) are being used—with the excuse that the Bible must not be blindly taken to be inerrant. Supporters of inerrancy are saying that one who accepts the full authority of Scripture has no excuse for treating it that way! Again, inevitably the issue boils down to authority and not error.

Another consideration: to claim that infallible spiritual truth can be derived from sources that are human and fallible is to pave the way for accepting other human and fallible sources of spiritual truth.

Unlikely? It happens all the time. In the Christian-education programs of most of the major denominations, the daily newspapers, films, novels, and drama are all explored for the “truths” they convey. And why not? If the Bible conveys spiritual truth despite human errors and contradictions, why not use Ben Hur or the New York Times?

One cannot long support “infallible” without “inerrant.” Both imply not so much verifiability as impeccability—don’t touch! If I feel free to take issue with the text because it is fallible, it won’t be long before I feel free to take issue with the doctrine the text conveys.

The person who allows doubts about the reliability of Scripture to linger or to be nourished will soon discover that his confidence in the authority of Scripture is shaken. Finally, his effectiveness in the use of Scripture will diminish.

Belief in infallibility and belief in inerrancy ultimately derive from the same source—the inner persuasion of the Holy Spirit. Just as I, by faith, accept the teachings of Scripture as the Word of God, I, by faith, boldly affirm Scripture to be the inerrant Word of God written.

This brings me to the final point: the acceptance of inerrancy derives from an acceptance of authority and not vice versa. One does not first settle in his mind that the Bible is without errors and contradictions, and then hold that therefore one may have confidence in the authority of its precepts. One rather attains complete confidence in its precepts after which he discovers he can embrace inerrancy without a quibble.

This may not be an infallible order, but it is the general order. Part of the controversy today derives from the effort that contestants (especially supporters of inerrancy) have made to put the cart before the horse. Confronted with denials of scriptural authority, they have argued for scriptural accuracy. They seem to imply that if one is persuaded that Paul’s injunctions have been faithfully transmitted to the present day, one will be persuaded that what the apostle said must be obeyed. That doesn’t necessarily follow.

But when someone has trouble accepting the precepts of Scripture, is it the authority of it or the inerrancy of it that is giving him trouble? He may say he trusts the Bible although he cannot believe it is without error. But is that really his problem? I think not.

His inner disposition may issue in doubts about inerrancy, but what’s bothering him is probably not whether a man could really survive three days in the belly of a whale, or whether the ark could really hold that many animals. More likely, he is trying to cope with an unbelief of a more basic sort. The answer to his problem would probably not be a demonstration that a man can, indeed, survive in the belly of a whale and an ark could hold that many animals. It more likely would be a word addressed to that unbelief.

One could never change a Christian’s opinion that the Bible exhibits “patriarchal social patterns” by demonstrating that the Bible is without error. One might, on the other hand, be used by the Holy Spirit to quicken faith in the authority of Scripture.

Billy Graham says that at one point in his ministry he was discouraged with what he considered to be a lack of fruitfulness. Tracing the problem to nagging doubts about the inerrancy and authority of God’s Word, he fell on his knees in a fresh surrender to God. “Give me the grace to take your Word wholly and absolutely,” he prayed. From that moment on, he testifies, he was able to preach with conviction and with power. “The Bible says …” became not only a theme but a profound commitment.

Today Dr. Graham speaks with conviction about both inerrancy and normativeness. But the prayer that brought him to his present position was not “Show me the Bible is without error,” or “Show me what parts of it are normative,” but “Let me wholly accept its authority.”

Carl F. H. Henry phrased the issue somewhat more technically when he said, “Inerrancy is logically deduced from the doctrine of inspiration.” In other words, it is the conviction that Scripture is God-breathed that leads one to accept the Bible as being without error, and not the other way around.

I think Dr. Henry meant that inerrancy follows from authority. If any priority is to be given, it must be given to authority and not to inerrancy. Any appeal made must be to faith and not to reason. In much the same way that an appeal is made to accept Jesus Christ as the Son of God and Saviour of sinners, so the challenge comes to accept the Bible as God’s Word. That, really, is where the Spirit first challenges the human heart. “Believe the Gospel” essentially can be reduced to “Believe God’s Word!”

It is doubtful that anyone ever came to a personal conviction of the utter reliability of God’s Book by examining apparent discrepancies and errors to see if they could be resolved. That conviction is the fruit of personal commitment in faith; it follows the step of faith, as one is guided by the Holy Spirit to accept Scripture’s authority.

A resolution of the “problem” of Scripture, then, takes place on one’s knees.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.