Three more general or preliminary arguments are raised by theologians or churchmen against the idea of holding this doctrine of inerrancy. It will be said that it is not historic, that it is not biblical, and that it is not necessary. These may not concern the outright skeptic, and they may not be the sort of things covered in an apologetics course, when it comes to defending the Bible against its critics. However, anyone who has been in the church for long enough will feel the constant weight of these objections.

Inerrancy in History

There may be several reasons to locate this doctrine in the history of the church. One of those reasons is a matter of defense, because another persistent objection to biblical inerrancy is that it was an invention of old Princeton under Hodge and Warfield in their reaction to the challenges of modern critical scholarship. Others will argue that the seeds of this invention can be found in the Reformed scholastics of the seventeenth century. In this latter version of the argument, the motive has to change a little, and so what drove this invention was a rationalistic impulse to build an impervious foundation to their new “theological system.” 

In keeping with the fact that we do theology on the concept-level—rather than merely word-level—if we find that others articulated this concept, even if they did not use this word, then the object referred to by the sense of this word is what they meant. For example, Clement of Rome very early said, “Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit. Observe that nothing of an unjust or counterfeit character is written in them.”1 Irenaeus wrote, “The Scriptures are indeed perfect … All Scripture, which has been given to us by God, shall be found by us perfectly consistent.”2

Augustine said, “I have learned to hold the Scriptures alone inerrant … not one of their authors has erred in writing anything at all.” “When you find in Holy Scripture anything you did not believe before, believe it without doubt.”3 He anticipates the limited inerrancy folly by saying in reply to Faustus,

“We are bound to receive as true whatever the canon shows to have been said by even one prophet, or apostle, or evangelist. Otherwise, not a single page will be left for the guidance of human fallibility, if contempt for the wholesome authority of the canonical books either puts an end to that authority altogether, or involves it in hopeless confusion.”4

Or elsewhere,

“the most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the sacred books … For if you once admit into such a high sanctuary of authority one false statement as made in the way of duty, there will not be left a single sentence of those books which, if appearing to anyone difficult in practice or hard to believe, may not by the same fatal rule be explained away.”5

Can the same be found in Thomas Aquinas? Yes. He said, “Nothing false can ever underlie the literal sense of Holy Writ,”6 and elsewhere, “It is unlawful to hold that any false assertion is contained either in the Gospel or in any canonical Scripture, or that the writers thereof have told untruths, because faith would be deprived of its certitude which is based on the authority of Holy Writ.”7

After citing Augustine’s word-use to Jerome, Luther wrote, “Not only the words which the Holy Spirit and Scripture use are divine, but also the phrasing,”8 and we must believe “firmly that none of their writers have ever erred.”9 Calvin wrote that “in holding it, we hold unassailable truth.” We owe to the Scriptures “the same reverence as we owe to God Himself, since it has proceeded from Him alone, and there is nothing human mixed with it.”10 Or again, “it is not even enough to believe that God is trustworthy, who can neither deceive nor lie, unless you hold to be beyond doubt that whatever proceeds from him is sacred and inviolable truth.”11

William Perkins said of the inspired authors that, “they could not err in the things they delivered to the church. And therefore they were to be heard even as Christ Himself.”12 In his 1588 classic Disputation of Holy Scripture, William Whitaker argues that since the Holy Spirit could not slip in the slightest detail, neither, under His influence, could the human authors—not “any such slip can be found in Scripture.”13

For Turretin,

“The question is not whether the sacred writers (as men simply and in a divided sense) could err (for we readily grant this); or whether as holy men influenced by the Holy Spirit and in a compound sense, they did in fact err (for I think no one of the adversaries, except a downright atheist, would dare to say this). Rather the question is whether in writing they were so acted upon and inspired by the Holy Spirit (both as to the things themselves and as to the words) as to be kept free from all error and that their writings are truly authentic and divine. Our adversaries deny this; we affirm it.”14

The Belgic Confession, Article 5, says that we believe “without any doubt all things contain in [the Scriptures]”; and the answer to Question 21 of the Heidelberg Catechism includes in its conception of true faith, “conviction that everything God reveals in his Word is true.” Although the Westminster Confession only mentions the phrase “infallible truth” (I.5), it would be absurd to suggest that the contributors to that Assembly held to anything less than total inerrancy based on everything else that the section on Scripture states. 

Now Feinberg makes the point that for “a fair number of biblical and theological scholars of former days inspiration was synonymous with inerrancy.”15

Likewise the opposite view need not have operated under the same label. The substance of the limited inerrancy position predates even the Enlightenment, as we read this from the authors of the Synopsis of a Purer Theology:

“And here one ought not to pay heed to Socinus and several other Christians who grant that Holy Scripture is divinely originated in issues of special importance, but that its authors in situations and circumstances of lesser importance were abandoned by the Holy Spirit and could have erred.”16

But of course, the flip side to that coin is that if the Reformed Orthodox were arguing against limited inerrancy on the ground that it reserved some portions of Scripture that contained error, then the opposite position is that there is no portion of Scripture that contains error. 

Nor can this be reduced to “an American doctrine,” as N. T. Wright and others have attempted to do. It was Martyn Lloyd-Jones who wrote in defense of inerrancy of the whole of Scripture in this way:

“How can you differentiate between the facts and the teaching? How can you separate this essential message of the Bible from the background in which it is presented? Not only so, but there is certainly no such division or distinction recognized in the Scripture itself. The whole Bible comes to us and offers itself to us in exactly the same way, and as a whole. There is no hint, no suspicion of a suggestion that parts of it are important and parts are not. All come to us in the same form.”17

Even the more recent Roman Catholic Church has biblical inerrancy as part of their official teaching: “the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation.”18

Inerrancy in Scripture

The way that the Bible teaches its own inerrancy works the same way that it teaches anything else. There are two basic categories under which a thing “taught in Scripture” may be understood: first, by what is expressly written; second, by logical implication, or what the Puritans called “good and necessary consequence.” 

That said, the Bible teaches inerrancy by what is expressly written. We can arrange such passages into a few basic categories. We might consider inerrancy as purity: “The words of the Lord are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times” (Ps. 12:6). We can also conceive of inerrancy as a species of infallibility: “Scripture cannot be broken” (Jn. 10:35). Or else, we consider the Bible’s flawless record: “Every word of God proves true” (Prov. 30:5). 

Then the Bible also teaches inerrancy by good and necessary consequence. We can arrange these texts of Scripture in the form of a syllogism—two premises and a conclusion. If such an argument really is implied from Scripture, then naturally my premises have to be rooted in Scripture in one way or another. I must show my work. 

Premise 1. All Scripture is the word of God. “All Scripture is breathed out by God” (2 Tim. 3:16); “For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet. 1:21).

Premise 2. No word of God can be false. “Your word is truth” (Jn. 17:17); “All your words are true” (Ps. 119:160); “God does not lie” (Ti. 1:2); “It is impossible for God to lie” (Heb. 6:18); “for he cannot deny himself” (2 Tim. 2:13).

Conclusion. Therefore, no part of Scripture can be false. The conclusion follows by resistless logic.

We might also ask: What was Jesus’ view of Scripture? It was already well hinted at when speaking of the argument for the divine origin of Scripture. To be more specific, Jesus viewed the Scriptures as inerrant in all of its parts. Matthew 5:17, John 10:34, and Luke 24:44 show us that he viewed the Hebrew canon as a unity, that not even its slightest nuance of language could be in error, and that the Scriptures could not be broken or “violated.” He treated as genuine history those portions of the Old Testament most regarded by critics as myth. More than that. With respect to Adam, Noah, Moses, and Jonah, the Lord uses their historical reality—e.g., “Just as … so will be”—as either the ground that things are the same still, or the guarantee that He will act, whether in the resurrection or on the Last Day. The whole train of argument collapses if these are to be regarded as myth.  

One must choose at this point between Jesus and an errant Bible. If Jesus treated this all as objective truth in the ordinary sense, then either He was wrong and must be discarded altogether, or He was right and one’s low view of Scripture must be reassessed. John Wenham gave an impressive summary of the relevant Gospel passages:

“Jesus consistently treats Old Testament historical narratives as straightforward records of fact. He refers to Abel (Luke 11:51), Noah (Matt. 24:37-39; Luke 17:26, 27), Abraham (John 8:56), the institution of circumcision (John 7:22; cf. Gen. 17:10-12; Lev. 12:3), Sodom and Gomorrah (Matt. 10:15; 11:23, 24; Luke 10:12), Lot (Luke 17:28-32), Isaac and Jacob (Matt. 8:11; Luke 13:28), manna (John 6:31, 49, 58), the snake in the desert (John 3:14), David eating the consecrated bread (Matt. 12:3, 4; Mark 2:25, 26; Luke 6:3, 4), David as a psalm writer (Matt. 22:43; Mark 12:36; Luke 20:42), Solomon (Matt. 6:29; 12:42; Luke 11:31; 12:27), Elijah (Luke 4:25, 26), Elisha (Luke 4:27), Jonah (Matt. 12:39-41; Luke 11:29, 30, 32), and Zechariah (Luke 11:51). The last passage brings out Jesus’ sense of the unity of history and His grasp of its wide sweep. His eye surveys the whole course of history from ‘the creation of the world’ to ‘this generation.’ He repeatedly refers to Moses as the giver of the Law (Matt. 8:4; 19:8; Mark 1:44; 7:10; 10:5; 12:26; Luke 5:14; 20:37; John 5:46; 7:19). He frequently mentions the sufferings of the true prophets (Matt. 5:12; 13:57; 21:34-36; 23:29-37; Mark 6:4 [cf. Luke 4:24; John 4:44]; 12:2-5; Luke 6:23; 11:47-51; 13:34; 20:10-12) and comments on the popularity of the false prophets (Luke 6:26). He sets the stamp of His approval on such significant passages as Genesis 1 and 2 (Matt. 19:4, 5; Mark 10:6-8).”19

Inerrancy in Doctrine and Practice

The present pendulum swing against the worldview concept raises the question about the logical relationship between doctrines. Is it really the case that to compromise one’s position of doctrine A necessarily commits one to a compromise on doctrine B? Is this even the case about doctrines that “make or break” orthodoxy? Paul Feinberg raised this matter over a generation ago concerning inerrancy. In spite of holding to inerrancy, he wrote, 

“it is claimed by some who defend the inerrancy of the Bible that forfeiture of the doctrine of inerrancy leads inevitably to the denial of other doctrines that are central to the Christian faith. This, of course, is not necessarily true, though there are numerous examples that can be cited where this has in fact taken place. Likewise, an orthodox doctrine of Scripture is not an absolute hedge against heterodoxy in other theological matters. Some cults, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, have as a part of their doctrinal statement an excellent position on Scripture … Having said this, we have not settled the matter, since it would surely seem that the first step toward doctrinal purity would be a correct doctrine of Scripture.”20

If we remove a strict “necessity” from our analysis, we might say that there is a tendency—even if not an inevitability—for the belief that there are errors in God’s word to result in the disbelief in other specially revealed truths (even those essential to orthodoxy). Surely this is a fair way to put it. 

Authoritative preaching and orthodox teaching demand inerrancy. Biblical authority logically follows inerrancy. Turretin made this case,

“The authority of the Scriptures … depends on their origin … The authority of Scripture … is nothing else than the right and dignity of the sacred books” [and] “the divine and infallible truth of these books … is the foundation because he has the highest right to bind men to faith and duty.”21

Against similar claims by Muslims for the Quran, and the medieval Jew for the Kabbalah, Turretin argues that the evidence against this are the “lies and fables”22 contained in them. A real commitment to God’s authority in His Word demands that one see that the proposition from that authority be unassailable. One’s reasoning must be something like: “It must be true, since God has said so.” On the flip side of that connection, divine authority as the source of moral obligation is undermined if our pride entertains the notion that one knows better than God. Think of the example of Luther: “Unless I am persuaded … for popes and councils have erred … My conscience is held captive to the word of God.” Implicit in this famous speech at Worms was the inference: If inerrant, therefore ultimately authoritative, or conversely, if errant, therefore not of ultimate authority.  

Boice made this practical in a way that has become even more prophetic of churches in the generation after he wrote it. 

“Many preachers talk about the Bible. They say they believe it. But they do not really teach it. Why is this? The reason (whether the ministers or seminaries in which they are trained admit it or not) is that the majority of today’s preachers are no longer sure that the Lord has spoken in Scripture … They are just not sure of it. If the Bible contains errors, it is not God’s Word itself, however reliable it may be. And if it is not God’s Word, it cannot be preached with authority. The result is an ambiguous attitude toward the Scriptures, issuing in preaching which gives forth an uncertain sound.”23

__________________________

1. Clement of Rome, First Epistle, 45; ANF, 9:242

2. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 28.2-3; ANF, 1:399-400

3. Augustine, Letters to Jerome, No. 82

4. Augustine, Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, 11.5, NPNF, 4:180

5. Augustine, Letter 28, 3, NPNF, 1:252-52

6. Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Pt.I, Q.1, Art.10.

7. Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Pt.II-II, Q.110, Art.3., reply obj. 1.

8. Luther, Weimarer Ausgabe, 31.I.347; 40.III.254.

9. Luther, Defense and Explanation of All the Articles, in Luther’s Works, 32:11

10. Calvin, Institutes, I.7.5; cf. commentary on 2 Timothy 3:16.

11. Calvin, Institutes, III.2.6.

12. William Perkins, The Works of William Perkins, Volume 2, ed. Paul M. Smalley (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2015), 283

13. William Whitaker, A Disputation on Holy Scripture, quoted in Beeke & Smalley, RST, I:392.

14. Turretin, Institutes, I.2.4.5.

15. Feinberg, in Geisler, ed., Inerrancy, 287.

16. Synopsis of a Purer Theology, I.2.28

17. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, Authority (InterVarsity Press, Chicago, 1958), 35.

18. Dei Verbum, 3.11, in Abbott, Documents of Vatican II, 119; quoted in Letham, Systematic Theology, 192.

19. John W. Wenham, in Geisler, ed., Inerrancy, 6-7.

20. Feinberg, in Geisler, ed., Inerrancy, 269.

21. Turretin, Institutes, I.2.4.1, 3. 

22. Turretin, Institutes, I.2.4.12.

23. James Montgomery Boice, Does Inerrancy Matter? 11