The Necessary Consonance of the Doctrines of Scripture:
Inspiration, Inerrancy, and Authority
Steve Curtis
Introduction
The Protestant Reformation hinged on two key doctrinal disputes with the Roman Catholic Church: justification of faith alone (Sola Fide) and Scripture alone (Sola Scriptura). Sola Fide was the material cause; Sola Scriptura was the formal cause.[1] That is, in order to substantiate the doctrine of justification, it was necessary first to validate the underlying authority for that doctrine. That authority was the Bible alone.
Heinrich Heppe put the matter succinctly: “The only source and norm of all Christian knowledge is the Holy Scripture.”[2] Thus, for Protestants at any rate, every issue of knowledge and truth is ultimately grounded in the Bible. Ascribing that degree of authority to it, then, necessarily begs the question of its own reliability. If the whole of (Protestant) Christianity is held in the balance, is the foundation firm and secure? Or, put another way, can we trust the Bible, and, if so, why? Historically, the answer to this last question has been simple: it is the Word of God. This answer has been elaborated with qualifiers such as “without error,” “inspired,” God-breathed,” “inerrant,” and “infallible.” Yet this simple yet profound answer – that God conveyed His Word to humanity through the written word – has increasingly come under attack since the advent of the biblical critical movement. The influence of liberal modern scholarship has, in the last fifty years, encroached into the conservative, evangelical world, as well. This paper will argue that the Bible, being inspired, is of necessary consequence inerrant and infallible and, as such, is indeed reliable as the “only source and norm of all Christian knowledge” and authority.
Definitions
Heinrich Heppe put the matter succinctly: “The only source and norm of all Christian knowledge is the Holy Scripture.”[2] Thus, for Protestants at any rate, every issue of knowledge and truth is ultimately grounded in the Bible. Ascribing that degree of authority to it, then, necessarily begs the question of its own reliability. If the whole of (Protestant) Christianity is held in the balance, is the foundation firm and secure? Or, put another way, can we trust the Bible, and, if so, why? Historically, the answer to this last question has been simple: it is the Word of God. This answer has been elaborated with qualifiers such as “without error,” “inspired,” God-breathed,” “inerrant,” and “infallible.” Yet this simple yet profound answer – that God conveyed His Word to humanity through the written word – has increasingly come under attack since the advent of the biblical critical movement. The influence of liberal modern scholarship has, in the last fifty years, encroached into the conservative, evangelical world, as well. This paper will argue that the Bible, being inspired, is of necessary consequence inerrant and infallible and, as such, is indeed reliable as the “only source and norm of all Christian knowledge” and authority.
Definitions
To begin a study of the authority of the Bible, it is necessary to establish definitions for key terms. This is particularly the case when some of the terms have been assigned differing meanings that seemingly allow disparate factions to say the same thing without meaning the same thing. When this occurs, opposing camps tend to talk past one another and the result is both frustrating and unprofitable. For the purpose of this paper, “inspiration” shall be understood to mean:
God’s continued work of superintendence, by which, his providential, gracious and supernatural contributions having been presupposed, he presided over the sacred writers in their entire work of writing, with the design and effect of rendering that writing an errorless record of the matters he designed them to communicate, and hence constituting the entire volume in all its parts the word of God to us.[3]
Inspiration is also said to be both “verbal” and “plenary.” Warfield understood “verbal” inspiration to mean that the words of Scripture are themselves the words of God. By this he did not mean to imply “verbal dictation” or “mechanical inspiration,” but rather to defend against those who would suggest that God “inspired” men with knowledge, yet left them on their own as they transcribed that knowledge. “Plenary,” Warfield defined, as “simply ‘full,’ ‘complete,’ perfectly adequate for the attainment of the end designed.”[4]
“Inerrancy” has nuanced meanings, depending upon the context in which the word is used. “An error in social grace is something quite different from a grammatical error, which again is altogether different from a factual error.”[5] When used in a biblical or theological context, however, inerrancy concerns the truthfulness of Scripture, which, by extension, relates directly to the truthfulness of God. While some evangelical scholars argue for what is essentially a doctrine of “partial inerrancy,” that is, that the Bible is inerrant in those areas concerned with salvation, the historic doctrine has always been, simply, that the Bible is without error. It is important to note that “without error” means “accurate” and not always “true.” In other words, where the Bible relates the words of Satan, for example, it is understood by the doctrine of inerrancy that it is an accurate representation, though not that the words of Satan are true. Finally, it should be noted that the word “inerrant” has not always been specifically employed; writers such as Warfield simply used the phrase “without error,” implying the same thing.
Whereas, theologically, inerrancy means that the Bible does not err, “infallibility” means that it cannot err. It is constrained, as the Word of God, by the very nature of God. It therefore reflects His mind and His thoughts which are, of course, perfect. Though the term infallibility has been modified in some camps to mean something other than this, this paper will take the term in its most natural sense, apart from any interpretive nuances, in accord with the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy (article XI): “We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.” Nor can it be inerrant and fallible. The two terms are, in context, inextricable.
Thus, this paper interprets inerrancy to mean that the Scripture does not err and interprets infallibility to mean that the Scripture cannot err, and holds that both terms so defined were the majority report of the church, not only because they were confessed, but because they are true. The term “partial inspiration” will be used in respect to that view which holds to the Bible being inerrant only in matters pertaining to salvation. Some use the term “infallibility” to express this point of view, but again, that seems to be more confusing than helpful; thus the use of “partial inspiration.”
The Bible Is the Inspired Word of GodJesus’ View of ScriptureJohn Wenham has said that “Christ’s view of Scripture can and should still be the Christian’s view of Scripture.”[6] This is, undoubtedly, as good a starting place as can be found. For if the Christian believes Jesus to be the incarnation of God, then surely His view of God’s Word would be regulative for all believers.[7] A cursory perusal of the Gospel accounts will, in fact, demonstrate that Jesus referred to the Bible He possessed (our “Old Testament”) as factual. He speaks of many of its characters as real people, such as Abel, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, among others. He also speaks of events as really having occurred, such as the institution of circumcision, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and more.
Perhaps there is no clearer indication of the authenticity ascribed to Scripture by Jesus than when He declares: “The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment, and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.” (Matthew 12:41) Remarking on this passage, T. T. Perowne asks,
[Are we] to suppose him to say that imaginary persons who at the imaginary preaching of an imaginary prophet repented in imagination, shall rise up in that day and condemn the actual impenitence of those his actual hearers[?][8]
Indeed, the Gospels are replete with such examples where Jesus assumed the Scriptures to be historically accurate and authoritative. As Russ Bush concludes, “reason tells me that if the Son of God believed Scripture to be the truth of God that I should believe it.”[9]
Apostolic View of Scripture
God’s continued work of superintendence, by which, his providential, gracious and supernatural contributions having been presupposed, he presided over the sacred writers in their entire work of writing, with the design and effect of rendering that writing an errorless record of the matters he designed them to communicate, and hence constituting the entire volume in all its parts the word of God to us.[3]
Inspiration is also said to be both “verbal” and “plenary.” Warfield understood “verbal” inspiration to mean that the words of Scripture are themselves the words of God. By this he did not mean to imply “verbal dictation” or “mechanical inspiration,” but rather to defend against those who would suggest that God “inspired” men with knowledge, yet left them on their own as they transcribed that knowledge. “Plenary,” Warfield defined, as “simply ‘full,’ ‘complete,’ perfectly adequate for the attainment of the end designed.”[4]
“Inerrancy” has nuanced meanings, depending upon the context in which the word is used. “An error in social grace is something quite different from a grammatical error, which again is altogether different from a factual error.”[5] When used in a biblical or theological context, however, inerrancy concerns the truthfulness of Scripture, which, by extension, relates directly to the truthfulness of God. While some evangelical scholars argue for what is essentially a doctrine of “partial inerrancy,” that is, that the Bible is inerrant in those areas concerned with salvation, the historic doctrine has always been, simply, that the Bible is without error. It is important to note that “without error” means “accurate” and not always “true.” In other words, where the Bible relates the words of Satan, for example, it is understood by the doctrine of inerrancy that it is an accurate representation, though not that the words of Satan are true. Finally, it should be noted that the word “inerrant” has not always been specifically employed; writers such as Warfield simply used the phrase “without error,” implying the same thing.
Whereas, theologically, inerrancy means that the Bible does not err, “infallibility” means that it cannot err. It is constrained, as the Word of God, by the very nature of God. It therefore reflects His mind and His thoughts which are, of course, perfect. Though the term infallibility has been modified in some camps to mean something other than this, this paper will take the term in its most natural sense, apart from any interpretive nuances, in accord with the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy (article XI): “We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.” Nor can it be inerrant and fallible. The two terms are, in context, inextricable.
Thus, this paper interprets inerrancy to mean that the Scripture does not err and interprets infallibility to mean that the Scripture cannot err, and holds that both terms so defined were the majority report of the church, not only because they were confessed, but because they are true. The term “partial inspiration” will be used in respect to that view which holds to the Bible being inerrant only in matters pertaining to salvation. Some use the term “infallibility” to express this point of view, but again, that seems to be more confusing than helpful; thus the use of “partial inspiration.”
The Bible Is the Inspired Word of GodJesus’ View of ScriptureJohn Wenham has said that “Christ’s view of Scripture can and should still be the Christian’s view of Scripture.”[6] This is, undoubtedly, as good a starting place as can be found. For if the Christian believes Jesus to be the incarnation of God, then surely His view of God’s Word would be regulative for all believers.[7] A cursory perusal of the Gospel accounts will, in fact, demonstrate that Jesus referred to the Bible He possessed (our “Old Testament”) as factual. He speaks of many of its characters as real people, such as Abel, Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, among others. He also speaks of events as really having occurred, such as the institution of circumcision, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, and more.
Perhaps there is no clearer indication of the authenticity ascribed to Scripture by Jesus than when He declares: “The men of Nineveh will stand up with this generation at the judgment, and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.” (Matthew 12:41) Remarking on this passage, T. T. Perowne asks,
[Are we] to suppose him to say that imaginary persons who at the imaginary preaching of an imaginary prophet repented in imagination, shall rise up in that day and condemn the actual impenitence of those his actual hearers[?][8]
Indeed, the Gospels are replete with such examples where Jesus assumed the Scriptures to be historically accurate and authoritative. As Russ Bush concludes, “reason tells me that if the Son of God believed Scripture to be the truth of God that I should believe it.”[9]
Apostolic View of Scripture
Apart from the compelling evidence that demonstrates how Jesus viewed Scripture, there are also apostolic references that are just as compelling. In 2 Timothy 3:16, Paul writes that “all Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.”[10] The Greek word translated “inspired by God” in the NASB and “breathed out by God” in the ESV is theopneustos, literally “God-breathed.” In using the qualifier “all,” Paul provides a critical piece of evidence in favor of plenary inspiration; that is, the whole of Scripture is “God-breathed.”
A second reference important to this discussion can be found in 2 Peter 1:21, which says that “no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” This indicates the “verbal” dimension of inspiration: the act of God behind the writing of Scripture by man. Thus, this verse points to the “dual authorship” of Scripture as being both the “God-breathed” Word, as well as the product of culturally-situated human authors who, while not making prophecy “by an act of human will,” nevertheless imprinted the Word with the skills and “personality” consistent with the human author.
A third verse is significant in this consideration. In 2 Peter 3:16, Peter regards Paul’s letters as “Scripture”:
…and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in allhis letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:15-16, emphasis added.)
This ties the epistles of Paul to the Old Testament canon as inspired Scripture. In Galatians 3:16, Paul argues that the “seed” of Abraham was described in the text as a singular and not plural noun, and thus is meant to be Christ. This sensus plenior explanation indicates that the text to which Paul was referring was inspired to the precise rendering of the case of a single word. Finally, Paul makes a strong case against pseudepigraphy and for the authority of apostolic authorship in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2, indicating that what he has written is unique from what “mere” men may write or say. Bush sums up well the biblical witness of itself:
Our Lord’s disciples, taking their cue no doubt from Him, clearly everywhere assume and teach their own apostolic authority (Acts 4:29; 5:29-32; Gal. 1:11-12), and they accept without question the authority and full truthfulness of inspired Scripture (Acts 26:19-23; Rom. 1:1-5).
…The Prophets and apostles never approached the canonical biblical texts that they had in the manner of the modern biblical critic… Christ and His apostles believed that God’s Word was unequivocally true… This was their foundational premise (John 6:68-69).[11]
While the biblical witness is, of course restricted to what was canonical at the time (i.e., the Hebrew Bible), it is precisely these texts are that the subject of much of the debate over inerrancy among evangelicals. Most evangelical scholars who are inclined toward a doctrine of partial inspiration take issue with “scientific” and historical references in the earliest texts.
The Inspired Word of God Is Both Inerrant and Infallible
A second reference important to this discussion can be found in 2 Peter 1:21, which says that “no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” This indicates the “verbal” dimension of inspiration: the act of God behind the writing of Scripture by man. Thus, this verse points to the “dual authorship” of Scripture as being both the “God-breathed” Word, as well as the product of culturally-situated human authors who, while not making prophecy “by an act of human will,” nevertheless imprinted the Word with the skills and “personality” consistent with the human author.
A third verse is significant in this consideration. In 2 Peter 3:16, Peter regards Paul’s letters as “Scripture”:
…and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation; just as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in allhis letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction. (2 Peter 3:15-16, emphasis added.)
This ties the epistles of Paul to the Old Testament canon as inspired Scripture. In Galatians 3:16, Paul argues that the “seed” of Abraham was described in the text as a singular and not plural noun, and thus is meant to be Christ. This sensus plenior explanation indicates that the text to which Paul was referring was inspired to the precise rendering of the case of a single word. Finally, Paul makes a strong case against pseudepigraphy and for the authority of apostolic authorship in 2 Thessalonians 2:1-2, indicating that what he has written is unique from what “mere” men may write or say. Bush sums up well the biblical witness of itself:
Our Lord’s disciples, taking their cue no doubt from Him, clearly everywhere assume and teach their own apostolic authority (Acts 4:29; 5:29-32; Gal. 1:11-12), and they accept without question the authority and full truthfulness of inspired Scripture (Acts 26:19-23; Rom. 1:1-5).
…The Prophets and apostles never approached the canonical biblical texts that they had in the manner of the modern biblical critic… Christ and His apostles believed that God’s Word was unequivocally true… This was their foundational premise (John 6:68-69).[11]
While the biblical witness is, of course restricted to what was canonical at the time (i.e., the Hebrew Bible), it is precisely these texts are that the subject of much of the debate over inerrancy among evangelicals. Most evangelical scholars who are inclined toward a doctrine of partial inspiration take issue with “scientific” and historical references in the earliest texts.
The Inspired Word of God Is Both Inerrant and Infallible
Historic DoctrineWarfield notes that the view of Scripture as without error “has the presumption in its favor, and… the onus probandi rests upon the advocates of the other view.” He goes on to say:
…the prima facie evidence of the claims of Scripture is assuredly all in favor of an errorless infallibility of all scriptural affirmations. This has been from the first the general faith of the historical Church.[12]
Bush adds that “Church history records the common faith in the utter truthfulness of the Bible by almost every theologian of note until relatively modern times.”[13] A survey of Christian history bears out this claim. Clement of Rome referred to Scripture as “sayings of the Holy Spirit.” Justin Martyr called God the “plectrum” and the biblical authors the “lyre.” Theophilus begins to speak of Moses as the author of the Law, but corrects himself mid-sentence and says, “Rather, the Word of God through him.” Irenaeus and Cyprian used the words “the Holy Spirit says” when referring to Scripture, and Tertullian called Scripture the “words,” the “letters,” and the “voice of God.” Similar expressions are to be found in Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Jerome.[14] Origen was eloquent in his defense of the inspiration of Scripture:
If any one, moreover, consider the words of the prophets with all the zeal and reverence which they deserve, it is certain that, in the perusal and careful examination thus given them, he will feel his mind and senses touched by a divine breath, and will acknowledge that the words which he reads were no human utterances, but the language of God; and from his own emotions he will feel that these books were the composition of no human skill, nor of any mortal eloquence, but, so to speak, of a style that is divine.[15]
Lastly from the early fathers, one finds Augustine speaking of the Scriptures, “justly called divine,” and speaks of the authors as those “who by divine assistance were enabled, either through their bodily sense or intellectual perception.”[16]
Moving through the Middle Ages, one finds Pope Leo speaking of Scripture as the “words of the Holy Spirit,” and Gregory the Great saying, “The Scriptures are the words of the Holy Spirit.”[17] The Reformation, of course, rallied around the clarion call of Sola Scriptura and the Reformers would never have entertained any doctrine that softened the doctrine of inspiration. Though Barth, of course, held a differing opinion, he acknowledged:
The Reformers took over unquestioningly and unreservedly the statement on the inspiration, and indeed the verbal inspiration, of the Bible… they wanted to proclaim the subjection of the church to the Bible as the Word of God and its authority as such.[18]
Much the same is found throughout the scholasticism of the seventeenth century and the great confessions of faith that followed thereafter. In North America, the doctrine was robustly maintained by men such as Edwards who wrote, “All Scripture says to us is certainly true,”[19] before becoming one of the central tenets of the Princeton theology of Charles Hodge, A. A. Hodge, and B. B. Warfield. The defense of the doctrine persisted in the works of Carl Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, among others, and was reaffirmed in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy in 1978. Despite such stalwart defenders throughout history, however, and despite the fact that “authentic Christianity has never affirmed the errancy of Scripture,”[20] the battle is still engaged.
…the prima facie evidence of the claims of Scripture is assuredly all in favor of an errorless infallibility of all scriptural affirmations. This has been from the first the general faith of the historical Church.[12]
Bush adds that “Church history records the common faith in the utter truthfulness of the Bible by almost every theologian of note until relatively modern times.”[13] A survey of Christian history bears out this claim. Clement of Rome referred to Scripture as “sayings of the Holy Spirit.” Justin Martyr called God the “plectrum” and the biblical authors the “lyre.” Theophilus begins to speak of Moses as the author of the Law, but corrects himself mid-sentence and says, “Rather, the Word of God through him.” Irenaeus and Cyprian used the words “the Holy Spirit says” when referring to Scripture, and Tertullian called Scripture the “words,” the “letters,” and the “voice of God.” Similar expressions are to be found in Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Jerome.[14] Origen was eloquent in his defense of the inspiration of Scripture:
If any one, moreover, consider the words of the prophets with all the zeal and reverence which they deserve, it is certain that, in the perusal and careful examination thus given them, he will feel his mind and senses touched by a divine breath, and will acknowledge that the words which he reads were no human utterances, but the language of God; and from his own emotions he will feel that these books were the composition of no human skill, nor of any mortal eloquence, but, so to speak, of a style that is divine.[15]
Lastly from the early fathers, one finds Augustine speaking of the Scriptures, “justly called divine,” and speaks of the authors as those “who by divine assistance were enabled, either through their bodily sense or intellectual perception.”[16]
Moving through the Middle Ages, one finds Pope Leo speaking of Scripture as the “words of the Holy Spirit,” and Gregory the Great saying, “The Scriptures are the words of the Holy Spirit.”[17] The Reformation, of course, rallied around the clarion call of Sola Scriptura and the Reformers would never have entertained any doctrine that softened the doctrine of inspiration. Though Barth, of course, held a differing opinion, he acknowledged:
The Reformers took over unquestioningly and unreservedly the statement on the inspiration, and indeed the verbal inspiration, of the Bible… they wanted to proclaim the subjection of the church to the Bible as the Word of God and its authority as such.[18]
Much the same is found throughout the scholasticism of the seventeenth century and the great confessions of faith that followed thereafter. In North America, the doctrine was robustly maintained by men such as Edwards who wrote, “All Scripture says to us is certainly true,”[19] before becoming one of the central tenets of the Princeton theology of Charles Hodge, A. A. Hodge, and B. B. Warfield. The defense of the doctrine persisted in the works of Carl Henry, Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, among others, and was reaffirmed in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy in 1978. Despite such stalwart defenders throughout history, however, and despite the fact that “authentic Christianity has never affirmed the errancy of Scripture,”[20] the battle is still engaged.
The last fifty years have seen a challenge to the historic doctrinal position regarding the inerrancy of Scripture. This doctrine was largely jettisoned by German critical scholarship in the nineteenth century and recovered in only a nominal sense through Barthian neo-orthodoxy; however, the beginning of the twentieth century saw a revival of the doctrine in the classic Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy involving such notables as Benjamin B. Warfield and J. Gresham Machen, and, later, in the work of scholars such as Carl Henry and Harold Lindsell. Against the backdrop of such luminaries, an element of conservative scholarship has attempted a critical syncretism that would preserve the essence of the historic doctrine while, at the same time, embrace aspects of the higher criticism that called for a redefining of that doctrine. Two of the more prominent attempts that are representative of this perspective may be found in the work of Daniel Fuller and Peter Enns.
Fuller
Fuller
In 1967, Daniel Fuller delivered a paper before the Evangelical Theological Society wherein he laid the groundwork for what may be called a doctrine of partial inspiration. In it, he argued that the concept of biblical inspiration defended by Warfield was deficient. Or, perhaps more to the point, that Warfield concluded that which he could not prove. For Fuller, the matter of inerrancy is defined by what he calls the “doctrinal verses” of Scriptures (the “many verses in the Bible which have something to say about the nature of the Bible as being the inspired Word of God.” such as 2 Timothy 3:16[21]). Discussing these verses, Fuller says:
Let us observe that when the doctrinal verses teach or imply inerrancy, it is always in connection with revelational knowledge, not in connection with knowledge which makes a man wise to botany, meteorology, cosmology, or paleontology.[22]
He then goes on to elaborate what, exactly, he understands inerrancy to mean, and how his view differs from that of Warfield:
…these doctrinal verses unmistakably teach that the Bible gives men infallible, inerrant teaching about God, about man's lost condition, and how he comes to full salvation in Christ. Warfield, however, inferred from the plenary verbal inspiration, unmistakably taught by the doctrinal verses, that all Biblical statements whether they pertain to knowledge that makes man wise unto salvation or to such subjects as botany, meteorology, or paleontology are equally true. He affirmed "the complete trustworthiness of Scripture in all elements.”[23]
What Fuller pointedly did not do was to demonstrate how to discern which verses are then inspired. Those who argue that only the “salvation-parts” are inspired are left with the task of identifying which passages are related to salvation in this sense of inspiration. Indeed, as Gerstner noted, “they do not tell us where to find these [salvation-parts] or how to separate them from the uninspired, errant, nonsalvation parts.”[24] In fact, partial biblical inerrancy necessarily leads to “partial biblical authority.”[25]
Of perhaps greater concern is the exegesis of verses such as 2 Timothy 3:16. Fuller would seem to have this verse say: “All Scripture that is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness is inspired by God.” However, that is not what the text itself says. The simplest understanding of “πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος” is to see the conjunctive καὶ (“and”) as linking the two qualities, θεόπνευστος (“God-breathed) and ὠφέλιμος (“profitable”), ofπᾶσα γραφὴ (“all Scripture”). Thus, far from qualifying the “all” by that which is profitable for salvation, this text indicates that all Scripture is both God-breathed andprofitable.
Finally, Fuller asks:
Why is it not …reasonable to infer that …God who lovingly willed to communicate revelational truth to men deliberately accommodated his language in non-revelational matters to the way the original readers viewed the world about them, so as to enhance the communication of revelational truth, by which alone men could be saved?[26]
E. J. Young answers, “Those to whom God gave His revelation were men borne of the Holy Spirit, whose messages were infallibly delivered and absolutely free from error, being precisely the words that God Himself wished to have declared.”[27]
Ultimately, though Fuller calls his “corrective” of Warfield “slight,”[28] the intended trajectory results in a radical restatement of the doctrine of Scripture. The idea that only “salvation” texts are inspired overlooks the fact that the entirety of Scripture is intended to convey a salvific message. That is not to say that how Ehud plunged the knife into Eglon’s belly is salvific; yet it is in the context of a greater narrative that, in fact, is. All history is selective – whether of the fall of Rome or the rise of Nazi Germany. Even more so are histories selective that seek to express a vast sequence of events over millennia. Thus, the Bible is not meant to provide historical minutiae for the sake of either entertainment or exhaustive reportage. Rather, the Bible is presented collectively to convey a singular message of God’s redemptive work with His creation. In light of the breadth of the narrative, and in light of the economy of God, every element of the text, then, is at the least tangentially related to this singular message. Consequently, to attempt to “weed out” those texts that are or are not “salvation” texts betrays a failure to grasp the essential thematic unity of Scripture and is, at any rate, an exercise in futility: whose standards of determination in this regard shall be normative?
Enns
Let us observe that when the doctrinal verses teach or imply inerrancy, it is always in connection with revelational knowledge, not in connection with knowledge which makes a man wise to botany, meteorology, cosmology, or paleontology.[22]
He then goes on to elaborate what, exactly, he understands inerrancy to mean, and how his view differs from that of Warfield:
…these doctrinal verses unmistakably teach that the Bible gives men infallible, inerrant teaching about God, about man's lost condition, and how he comes to full salvation in Christ. Warfield, however, inferred from the plenary verbal inspiration, unmistakably taught by the doctrinal verses, that all Biblical statements whether they pertain to knowledge that makes man wise unto salvation or to such subjects as botany, meteorology, or paleontology are equally true. He affirmed "the complete trustworthiness of Scripture in all elements.”[23]
What Fuller pointedly did not do was to demonstrate how to discern which verses are then inspired. Those who argue that only the “salvation-parts” are inspired are left with the task of identifying which passages are related to salvation in this sense of inspiration. Indeed, as Gerstner noted, “they do not tell us where to find these [salvation-parts] or how to separate them from the uninspired, errant, nonsalvation parts.”[24] In fact, partial biblical inerrancy necessarily leads to “partial biblical authority.”[25]
Of perhaps greater concern is the exegesis of verses such as 2 Timothy 3:16. Fuller would seem to have this verse say: “All Scripture that is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness is inspired by God.” However, that is not what the text itself says. The simplest understanding of “πᾶσα γραφὴ θεόπνευστος καὶ ὠφέλιμος” is to see the conjunctive καὶ (“and”) as linking the two qualities, θεόπνευστος (“God-breathed) and ὠφέλιμος (“profitable”), ofπᾶσα γραφὴ (“all Scripture”). Thus, far from qualifying the “all” by that which is profitable for salvation, this text indicates that all Scripture is both God-breathed andprofitable.
Finally, Fuller asks:
Why is it not …reasonable to infer that …God who lovingly willed to communicate revelational truth to men deliberately accommodated his language in non-revelational matters to the way the original readers viewed the world about them, so as to enhance the communication of revelational truth, by which alone men could be saved?[26]
E. J. Young answers, “Those to whom God gave His revelation were men borne of the Holy Spirit, whose messages were infallibly delivered and absolutely free from error, being precisely the words that God Himself wished to have declared.”[27]
Ultimately, though Fuller calls his “corrective” of Warfield “slight,”[28] the intended trajectory results in a radical restatement of the doctrine of Scripture. The idea that only “salvation” texts are inspired overlooks the fact that the entirety of Scripture is intended to convey a salvific message. That is not to say that how Ehud plunged the knife into Eglon’s belly is salvific; yet it is in the context of a greater narrative that, in fact, is. All history is selective – whether of the fall of Rome or the rise of Nazi Germany. Even more so are histories selective that seek to express a vast sequence of events over millennia. Thus, the Bible is not meant to provide historical minutiae for the sake of either entertainment or exhaustive reportage. Rather, the Bible is presented collectively to convey a singular message of God’s redemptive work with His creation. In light of the breadth of the narrative, and in light of the economy of God, every element of the text, then, is at the least tangentially related to this singular message. Consequently, to attempt to “weed out” those texts that are or are not “salvation” texts betrays a failure to grasp the essential thematic unity of Scripture and is, at any rate, an exercise in futility: whose standards of determination in this regard shall be normative?
Enns
Peter Enns introduced a novel approach to biblical criticism from an evangelical scholar.[29] Enns argued that, just as the Word of God (Christ) was incarnated into a form with which man could relate, so too was the Word of God (Scripture) incarnated into a form that is decidedly human in nature. In this model, Enns suggests that, in the “incarnation” of Scripture, God spoke into the world in which man was presently situated. For Enns, this includes allowing for (and not correcting) the various myths and misunderstandings of the Ancient Near East.
Enns argues that the similarities between the Old Testament and ANE documents pose problems for the historic doctrine of inerrancy, saying that “the doctrinal implications of these discoveries have not yet been fully worked out in evangelical theology.”[30] It is his contention that if there are such similarities between the biblical and ANE accounts, one cannot speak of the Old Testament as “revelation,” for what it “reveals” is already common knowledge in traditions that do not have access to that revelation.
There are, however, reasonable rebuttals to that perspective. For instance, ANE myths could have been a response to the common ancient history of general revelation, or the Old Testament account could have been intended to offer a proper interpretation of the general revelation (via special revelation) that was present but corrupted in the pagan mythologies.[31]
Though it is, of course, by no means necessary to presume the primacy of the ANE documents, Enns, understanding the Old Testament creation narrative to have been influenced by (rather than influencing, repudiating, or clarifying) pagan myths, writes that the OT account “is firmly rooted in the [mythological] worldview of the time.”[32]
Further, Enns argues that there is a problem of “diversity” within the Old Testament that necessitates a modification of the historic doctrine of inerrancy. Beale sums up Enns objective by saying that he is “trying to produce a synthesis of the findings of mainline liberal scholarship and an evangelical view of Scripture.”[33] While acknowledging that there may be, upon a superficial view of Scripture, seemingly inconsistent passages, Waltke contends that Enns’ conclusions are the result of giving up too quickly in the task of reconciling apparently paradoxical passages:
When I encounter contradiction in a good writer, not just in the Bible, I retrace my steps to see where I went wrong in my interpretation. I do not go on feeling comfortable with nonsense.[34]
Enns’ incarnational model may well explain the similarities in the way that God accommodated man in the Word (Scripture) as in the Word (Jesus). However, a glaring omission in the analogy is that the incarnated Word of Jesus was morally perfect. That is, while that incarnation did indeed communicate the infinite (God) to the finite (man), it did so without error, misrepresentation, or deception. Thus, for Enns to be consistent, the incarnational model of Scripture must confirm to that same moral character. If one is to speak of the “incarnation” of Scripture, one must maintain the integrity of God and take heed not to create the potential for a charge against Him of error, misrepresentation, or deception.
The Inerrant and Infallible Word of God Is Authoritative
Enns argues that the similarities between the Old Testament and ANE documents pose problems for the historic doctrine of inerrancy, saying that “the doctrinal implications of these discoveries have not yet been fully worked out in evangelical theology.”[30] It is his contention that if there are such similarities between the biblical and ANE accounts, one cannot speak of the Old Testament as “revelation,” for what it “reveals” is already common knowledge in traditions that do not have access to that revelation.
There are, however, reasonable rebuttals to that perspective. For instance, ANE myths could have been a response to the common ancient history of general revelation, or the Old Testament account could have been intended to offer a proper interpretation of the general revelation (via special revelation) that was present but corrupted in the pagan mythologies.[31]
Though it is, of course, by no means necessary to presume the primacy of the ANE documents, Enns, understanding the Old Testament creation narrative to have been influenced by (rather than influencing, repudiating, or clarifying) pagan myths, writes that the OT account “is firmly rooted in the [mythological] worldview of the time.”[32]
Further, Enns argues that there is a problem of “diversity” within the Old Testament that necessitates a modification of the historic doctrine of inerrancy. Beale sums up Enns objective by saying that he is “trying to produce a synthesis of the findings of mainline liberal scholarship and an evangelical view of Scripture.”[33] While acknowledging that there may be, upon a superficial view of Scripture, seemingly inconsistent passages, Waltke contends that Enns’ conclusions are the result of giving up too quickly in the task of reconciling apparently paradoxical passages:
When I encounter contradiction in a good writer, not just in the Bible, I retrace my steps to see where I went wrong in my interpretation. I do not go on feeling comfortable with nonsense.[34]
Enns’ incarnational model may well explain the similarities in the way that God accommodated man in the Word (Scripture) as in the Word (Jesus). However, a glaring omission in the analogy is that the incarnated Word of Jesus was morally perfect. That is, while that incarnation did indeed communicate the infinite (God) to the finite (man), it did so without error, misrepresentation, or deception. Thus, for Enns to be consistent, the incarnational model of Scripture must confirm to that same moral character. If one is to speak of the “incarnation” of Scripture, one must maintain the integrity of God and take heed not to create the potential for a charge against Him of error, misrepresentation, or deception.
The Inerrant and Infallible Word of God Is Authoritative
The character and nature of God demands that He is the sovereign Creator. As such, He is the supreme authority over all of His creation. Having concluded that the Bible is the inerrant and infallible Word of God, therefore, it follows necessarily that this Word is likewise authoritative. For God adjudicates His authority to man through the revelation of His Word, both in the Person of Jesus Christ and in the Bible. As Young says, “Whatever Word [God] has uttered, since it has come from His mouth, is true and trustworthy.”[35] Likewise, Bush concurs: “It is because we believe that “God has spoken” that we believe in the authority of the Bible.”[36]
An argument may also be made in the reverse direction: that is, authority demands inerrancy and infallibility. Two passages that demonstrate the authority of the Scriptures are Matthew 5:17-20 (where Jesus says that “until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished”) and John 10:34-35 (where Jesus says that “the Scripture cannot be broken”). In both of these passages, Jesus claims authority and integrity for the Scriptures. It necessarily follows, then, if a wholly good God declares that His Word is authoritative and to be followed to the minutest detail, it must be without error, for if God demanded obedience to an error He would not be wholly good.
Conclusion
An argument may also be made in the reverse direction: that is, authority demands inerrancy and infallibility. Two passages that demonstrate the authority of the Scriptures are Matthew 5:17-20 (where Jesus says that “until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished”) and John 10:34-35 (where Jesus says that “the Scripture cannot be broken”). In both of these passages, Jesus claims authority and integrity for the Scriptures. It necessarily follows, then, if a wholly good God declares that His Word is authoritative and to be followed to the minutest detail, it must be without error, for if God demanded obedience to an error He would not be wholly good.
Conclusion
To hold that Scripture can be inspired and inerrant while at the same time fallible is not only paradoxical, but contradictory and untenable. Further, to concede either inerrancy or infallibility is necessarily to concede the other and, ultimately, to concede its authority. The goal of this work has been to prove the validity of this syllogism:
1. The Bible (in all its parts) is the inspired Word of God.
2. The inspired Word of God is both inerrant and infallible.
3. The inerrant and infallible Word of God is authoritative.
4. Therefore, the Bible (in all its parts) is authoritative.
The first premise is self-attested in Scripture. Both in the testimony of Jesus and in the writings of the apostles, Scripture is identified as what God says to mankind. Thus, it does not merely contain the Word of God, but it is the Word of God, providentially transcribed by human authors. The second premise has been reasonably held by the church since its inception, and only challenged when the first premise is rejected to some degree. The third premise is verified by the very nature of God, whose Word by definition is authoritative. Therefore, it logically follows that the conclusion is valid.
The church must not only contend with those from without who seek to dismantle her faith. There are elements from within that, out of concession to liberal criticism or secular philosophy, are minimizing the foundational doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture. As Carson has said, “what is assumed in one generation is often lost in the next.”[37] Granted, evangelical Christians are perhaps not inclined to fall under the spell of German scholars such as Baur, whom Warfield dismissed as having “ruthlessly violated every canon of genuine criticism.”[38] Far more subtle and dangerous are those within the ostensibly conservative denominations, churches, and seminaries who themselves entertain such thoughts and then disseminate them to those in the pews. Once the believer has been relieved of the anchor that is the Word of God – inspired, without error, and authoritative – every wind of doctrine can toss them off course. This doctrine of Scripture, then, is of the very essence of the faith, as it is the formal cause underlying every other doctrine that defines, instructs, and guides the Body of Christ.
BibliographyAugustine. The Enchiridion. Edited by Henry Paolucci. Chicago: Regnery, 1961.
Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics, vol. 1, Doctrine of the Word of God. Edited by G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1956.
Beale, G. K. “Myth, history, and inspiration: a review article of Inspiration and Incarnation by Peter Enns.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49, no. 2 (2006): 287-312.
—. The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2008.
Boice, James Montgomery, ed. The Foundation of Biblical Authority. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978.
Burk, Denny R. “Inerrancy Is Not Enough.” Criswell Theological Review 5, no. 1 (2007): 69-80.
Bush, L. Russ. “Understanding Biblical Inerrancy.” Southwestern Journal of Theology 50, no. 1 (2007): 20-55.
Enns, Peter. Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005.
Enns, Peter. “Interaction with Bruce Waltke.” Westminster Theological Journal 71 (2009): 97-114.
Fuller, Daniel P. “Benjamin B. Warfield’s View of Faith and History.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 11 (1968): 75-83.
Hodge, A. A. and B. B. Warfield. Inspiration. Edited by Roger R. Nicole. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979.
McDill, Matthew. “B. B. Warfield and the Inspiration of Scripture.” Faith & Mission 21, no. 3 (2004): 77-91.
McGowen, A. T. B. “The Divine Spiration of Scripture.” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 21, no. 2 (2003): 199-217.
Origen, De Principiius. Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4, ed. Phillip Schaff ((New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1892), 04.15.
Waltke, Bruce K. “Interacting with Peter Enns.” Westminster Theological Journal 71 (2009): 115-128.
Warfield, Benjamin B. The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. 4th edition. Edited by Samuel G. Craig. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1964.
Wenham, John W. Christ and the Bible. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1973.
Young, Edward J. Thy Word Is Truth. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952.
[1] R. C. Sproul, “Sola Scriptura: Crucial To Evangelicalism,” in The Foundations of Biblical Authority, ed. James Montgomery Boice (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 103.
[2] Ibid.
[3] A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield, Inspiration, ed. Roger R. Nicole (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 17-18.
[4] Matthew McDill, “B. B. Warfield and the Inspiration of Scripture.” Faith & Mission 21, no. 3 (2004): 78.
[5] Russ Bush, “Understanding Biblical Inerrancy.” Southwestern Journal of Theology 50, no. 1 (2007): 22.
[6] John W. Wenham, Christ and the Bible (Downers Grove, InterVarsity, 1972), 12-13.
[7] Though it may be argued that this is a presupposition rooted in circular reasoning (i.e., the Bible proves Jesus and Jesus proves the Bible), it is assumed that the divinity of Christ is acknowledged and is, at any rate, beyond the scope of this work to prove.
[8] T. T. Perowne, Obadiah and Jonah (Cambridge, 1894), 51; quoted in Wenham, 14.
[9] Bush, 53.
[10] All Scripture, unless otherwise noted, is taken from the New American Standard Bible (NASB).
[11] Bush, 33.
[12] Hodge and Warfield, 34.
[13] Bush, 37.
[14] John Gerstner, “The Church’s Doctrine of Biblical Inspiration,” in The Foundations of Biblical Authority, ed. James Montgomery Boice (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 21.
[15] Origen, De Principiius, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4, ed. Phillip Schaff ((New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1892), 04.15.
[16] Augustine, The Enchiridion, ed. Henry Paolucci (Chicago: Regnery, 1961), 4.
[17] Gerstner, 32.
[18] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, vol. 1, Doctrine of the Word of God, ed. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1956), 520.
[19] Gerstner, 47.
[20] Bush, 20.
[21] Daniel P. Fuller, “Benjamin B. Warfield’s View of Faith and History,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 11 (1968): 77.
[22] Ibid., 81.
[23] Ibid., 80.
[24] Gerstner, 23.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Fuller, 81.
[27] Edward J. Young, Thy Word Is Truth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952), 45.
[28] Fuller, 83.
[29] A similar view was put forth by Jack Rogers and Donald McKim, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach (New York: Harper & Row, 1979) For a direct refutation, see John Woodbridge, Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982).
[30] Peter Enns, Incarnation and Inspiration (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 25.
[31] G. K. Beale, “Myth, History, and Inspiration: A Review Article of Inspiration and Incarnation by Peter Enns,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49, no. 2 (2006): 289.
[32] Enns, 27.
[33] Beale, 287.
[34] Bruce K. Waltke, “Interacting with Peter Enns,” Westminster Theological Journal 71 (2009): 116.
[35] Young, 40.
[36] Bush, 47.
[37] Denny R. Burk, “Inerrancy Is Not Enough,” Criswell Theological Review 5, no. 1 (2007): 72.
[38] McDill, 81.
1. The Bible (in all its parts) is the inspired Word of God.
2. The inspired Word of God is both inerrant and infallible.
3. The inerrant and infallible Word of God is authoritative.
4. Therefore, the Bible (in all its parts) is authoritative.
The first premise is self-attested in Scripture. Both in the testimony of Jesus and in the writings of the apostles, Scripture is identified as what God says to mankind. Thus, it does not merely contain the Word of God, but it is the Word of God, providentially transcribed by human authors. The second premise has been reasonably held by the church since its inception, and only challenged when the first premise is rejected to some degree. The third premise is verified by the very nature of God, whose Word by definition is authoritative. Therefore, it logically follows that the conclusion is valid.
The church must not only contend with those from without who seek to dismantle her faith. There are elements from within that, out of concession to liberal criticism or secular philosophy, are minimizing the foundational doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture. As Carson has said, “what is assumed in one generation is often lost in the next.”[37] Granted, evangelical Christians are perhaps not inclined to fall under the spell of German scholars such as Baur, whom Warfield dismissed as having “ruthlessly violated every canon of genuine criticism.”[38] Far more subtle and dangerous are those within the ostensibly conservative denominations, churches, and seminaries who themselves entertain such thoughts and then disseminate them to those in the pews. Once the believer has been relieved of the anchor that is the Word of God – inspired, without error, and authoritative – every wind of doctrine can toss them off course. This doctrine of Scripture, then, is of the very essence of the faith, as it is the formal cause underlying every other doctrine that defines, instructs, and guides the Body of Christ.
BibliographyAugustine. The Enchiridion. Edited by Henry Paolucci. Chicago: Regnery, 1961.
Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics, vol. 1, Doctrine of the Word of God. Edited by G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1956.
Beale, G. K. “Myth, history, and inspiration: a review article of Inspiration and Incarnation by Peter Enns.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49, no. 2 (2006): 287-312.
—. The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism. Wheaton: Crossway Books, 2008.
Boice, James Montgomery, ed. The Foundation of Biblical Authority. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978.
Burk, Denny R. “Inerrancy Is Not Enough.” Criswell Theological Review 5, no. 1 (2007): 69-80.
Bush, L. Russ. “Understanding Biblical Inerrancy.” Southwestern Journal of Theology 50, no. 1 (2007): 20-55.
Enns, Peter. Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005.
Enns, Peter. “Interaction with Bruce Waltke.” Westminster Theological Journal 71 (2009): 97-114.
Fuller, Daniel P. “Benjamin B. Warfield’s View of Faith and History.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 11 (1968): 75-83.
Hodge, A. A. and B. B. Warfield. Inspiration. Edited by Roger R. Nicole. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979.
McDill, Matthew. “B. B. Warfield and the Inspiration of Scripture.” Faith & Mission 21, no. 3 (2004): 77-91.
McGowen, A. T. B. “The Divine Spiration of Scripture.” Scottish Bulletin of Evangelical Theology 21, no. 2 (2003): 199-217.
Origen, De Principiius. Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4, ed. Phillip Schaff ((New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1892), 04.15.
Waltke, Bruce K. “Interacting with Peter Enns.” Westminster Theological Journal 71 (2009): 115-128.
Warfield, Benjamin B. The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible. 4th edition. Edited by Samuel G. Craig. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1964.
Wenham, John W. Christ and the Bible. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1973.
Young, Edward J. Thy Word Is Truth. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952.
[1] R. C. Sproul, “Sola Scriptura: Crucial To Evangelicalism,” in The Foundations of Biblical Authority, ed. James Montgomery Boice (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 103.
[2] Ibid.
[3] A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield, Inspiration, ed. Roger R. Nicole (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 17-18.
[4] Matthew McDill, “B. B. Warfield and the Inspiration of Scripture.” Faith & Mission 21, no. 3 (2004): 78.
[5] Russ Bush, “Understanding Biblical Inerrancy.” Southwestern Journal of Theology 50, no. 1 (2007): 22.
[6] John W. Wenham, Christ and the Bible (Downers Grove, InterVarsity, 1972), 12-13.
[7] Though it may be argued that this is a presupposition rooted in circular reasoning (i.e., the Bible proves Jesus and Jesus proves the Bible), it is assumed that the divinity of Christ is acknowledged and is, at any rate, beyond the scope of this work to prove.
[8] T. T. Perowne, Obadiah and Jonah (Cambridge, 1894), 51; quoted in Wenham, 14.
[9] Bush, 53.
[10] All Scripture, unless otherwise noted, is taken from the New American Standard Bible (NASB).
[11] Bush, 33.
[12] Hodge and Warfield, 34.
[13] Bush, 37.
[14] John Gerstner, “The Church’s Doctrine of Biblical Inspiration,” in The Foundations of Biblical Authority, ed. James Montgomery Boice (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 21.
[15] Origen, De Principiius, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4, ed. Phillip Schaff ((New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1892), 04.15.
[16] Augustine, The Enchiridion, ed. Henry Paolucci (Chicago: Regnery, 1961), 4.
[17] Gerstner, 32.
[18] Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, vol. 1, Doctrine of the Word of God, ed. G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1956), 520.
[19] Gerstner, 47.
[20] Bush, 20.
[21] Daniel P. Fuller, “Benjamin B. Warfield’s View of Faith and History,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 11 (1968): 77.
[22] Ibid., 81.
[23] Ibid., 80.
[24] Gerstner, 23.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Fuller, 81.
[27] Edward J. Young, Thy Word Is Truth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1952), 45.
[28] Fuller, 83.
[29] A similar view was put forth by Jack Rogers and Donald McKim, The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible: An Historical Approach (New York: Harper & Row, 1979) For a direct refutation, see John Woodbridge, Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982).
[30] Peter Enns, Incarnation and Inspiration (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 25.
[31] G. K. Beale, “Myth, History, and Inspiration: A Review Article of Inspiration and Incarnation by Peter Enns,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49, no. 2 (2006): 289.
[32] Enns, 27.
[33] Beale, 287.
[34] Bruce K. Waltke, “Interacting with Peter Enns,” Westminster Theological Journal 71 (2009): 116.
[35] Young, 40.
[36] Bush, 47.
[37] Denny R. Burk, “Inerrancy Is Not Enough,” Criswell Theological Review 5, no. 1 (2007): 72.
[38] McDill, 81.
