Since the post-apostolic church and well into the modern era, Christians have been aligned on the nature of Scripture. Although the word “inerrancy” wasn’t used among evangelicals until rather recently, church leaders and theologians have affirmed the concept of inerrancy for the last 1900 years. During this same time, of course, unbelievers have directed a steady stream of attacks against the Bible’s truthfulness, but hostility toward God’s written Word is to be expected from those who reject Christ.
It wasn’t until the mid-twentieth century that we find professing evangelicals—those who locate their immediate theological heritage in the Protestant Reformation and the Great Awakening—challenging the doctrine of inerrancy. While these challenges were met with clear responses and high-quality scholarship, a few of the more common objections have lodged themselves in the discussion for the past six decades.
In this article, I will answer seven common theological objections to the doctrine of inerrancy. I refer to these as “theological” objections because I am not focusing on the alleged errors in the Bible, like supposed internal contradictions or factual conflict with extra-biblical sources. Others have provided excellent resources for answering these alleged errors, and I point you toward their work (The Big Book of Bible Difficulties by Norman Giesler and Thomas Howe is a great place to start). Rather, I am addressing the objections that shape the way we approach the Bible. Actually, what we conclude about these theological objections will determine in large measure how we address the Bible’s so-called problem passages and related difficulties.
The Bible is Only Inerrant in the “Redemptive” or “Theological” Portions
Objection: The Bible is a book about redemption through Christ. It is not a scientific or historical treatise. Small, theologically insignificant errors may occur throughout Scripture in areas related to empirical “facts.” In theological or redemptive statements, however, the Bible does not err.
Answer: Such an objection assumes that it is possible to detach redemptive/theological statements from their historical contexts. Scripture on the whole will not allow for such a separation between the so-called redemptive and historical, scientific, or geographical portions of Scripture. God’s act of redemption is so entwined with historical realities and events that successfully separating these twin elements of Scripture is impossible.
This objection also mistakes what Wayne Grudem calls the “major purpose” for the “total purpose” of Scripture. It is true that the “major purpose” of Scripture is redemptive, but this does not imply that Scripture cannot speak accurately when it touches on other areas. Grudem comments:
A second response to those who limit the necessary truthfulness of Scripture to matters of ‘faith and practice’ is to note that this position mistakes the major purpose of Scripture for the total purpose of Scripture. To say that the major purpose of Scripture is to teach us matters of ‘faith and practice’ is to make a useful and correct summary of God’s purpose in giving us the Bible. But as a summary it includes only the most prominent purpose of God in giving Scripture. It is not, however, legitimate to use this summary to deny that it is part of the purpose of Scripture to tell us about some aspects of astronomy or geography, and so forth. A summary can be used to deny one of the things that it is summarizing! To use it this way would simply show that the summary is not detailed enough to specify the items in question. It is better to say that the whole purpose of Scripture is to say everything it does say, on whatever topic.
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (1994): 94-95.
We Don’t Have the Original Manuscripts
Objection: Inerrancy is a meaningless designation for Scripture because we don’t have the original autographs.
Answer: This objections misunderstands how the doctrine of inerrancy relates to textual criticism. The doctrine of inerrancy speaks to the nature of the original autographs. The existence of copying errors in subsequent copies of Scripture says nothing at all about whether the original text was breathed out by God and therefore true. This objection confuses categories.
Also, this objection wrongly focuses on the original codex (the material that Scripture was written on) rather than the original text (what was actually written). While it is true that we don’t have the original autographs of Scripture, we know, through the science of textual criticism, that we do have the original text of Scripture. The absence of the original autographs is actually irrelevant when it comes to the doctrine of inerrancy, for inerrancy is rooted in the character of God and the nature of his written Word.
Inerrancy is Only An Inference Made From the Biblical Teaching about Inspiration
Objection: Inerrancy is a doctrine that is merely inferred from the doctrine of inspiration; it is not a direct teaching of Scripture. Therefore, we should not elevate it to such a high level of importance.
Answer: If inerrancy is defined in terms of truth, then inerrancy is clearly taught in the Bible, for the Bible repeatedly speaks of God’s Word as wholly true, pure, and reliable (1 Sam 7:28 Ps 12:6; 19:7-11; 93:5; 111:7; Prov 30:5-6; John 10:35; 17:17). The doctrine must be held as of first importance, for without it we lose confidence in what God has spoken and what we are to believe. The biblical commands to beware of false prophets (Deut 13:1-5; 18:15-22), to test everything (1 Thess 5:21), and to guard oneself from imbibing a non-apostolic gospel (Gal 1:6-9) are all meaningless if God’s Word contains errors. Inerrancy, therefore, cannot be downgraded to a doctrine of lesser importance.
Inerrancy Undermines the “Humanity” of Scripture
Objection: Inerrancy undermines the humanity of Scripture because humans are prone to error. “To err is human,” as they say. An error-free document, therefore, cannot be a fully human document.
Answer: This objection fails by assuming that mistake-making is an essential property of human nature. We know, however, that mistake-making is not an essential property of human nature, for Adam prior to the fall did not err in judgment. Jesus was fully human yet never made a mistake in judgment. Nor will glorified human beings err in the new heavens and new earth. It is possible, therefore, to have a document created by humans that reflects a robust human character but that does not err. Even with our sin and finitude we are able to create inerrant documents and make true statements. A document can be fully “human” and yet contain no errors.
The Word “Inerrant” is a Negative Term
Objection: The word inerrancy is a negative term, and it carries the connotation of modern scientific precision and therefore does not correspond with Scripture as it really is, namely, a covenant document written for the common person.
Answer: A negative term is not inherently wrong or unhelpful. Indeed, it is entirely right to affirm that God “does not lie” (Heb 6:8). To say that the Bible is inerrant is simply to say that the Bible is entirely truthful and never commits a formal error. As to the concern about precision, “inerrancy” proponents over the last 40 years have been careful to define inerrancy in a way that distances it from ideas of “scientific precision.” John Frame says it well,
To the degree that precision is necessary for truth, the Bible is sufficiently precise.
John Frame, The Doctrine of the Word of God, 173.
Inerrantists Don’t Understand or Appreciate the Doctrine of Accommodation
Objection: We know that God accommodated to the mistaken worldviews and ideas of the biblical writers; therefore, we cannot hold to inerrancy in a strict sense.
Answer: Historically, the church has rejected the idea that God accommodated to the mistaken beliefs of the biblical writers. Actually, the above-stated view of accommodation was the position of Socinius, a rationalist anti-trinitarian who challenged the doctrinal foundations of the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century. Those who argue for the accommodation-to-error view, therefore, are advocating for a heresy, not the traditional doctrine. The historic doctrine of accommodation refers to God’s gracious condescension to use language with which his creatures were acquainted, but this view does not consent to the idea of errors in the text. Inerrantists, therefore, have great appreciation for the doctrine of accommodation—just not the heretical version of it.
Inerrancy is a Recent Theological Innovation
Objection: In the last 150 years Christian scholars have produced a massive amount of literature defending the inerrancy of Scripture. Prior to the late-nineteeth, early-twentieth century, Christians did not give such thorough consideration to this doctrine. The recent uptick in scholarship is an indication that inerrancy is a theological invention used by Christian scholars to combat the sophisticated attacks of modernist scholarship.
Answer: The main problem with the argument that inerrancy is a recent doctrinal invention is that it mistakes legitimate doctrinal development for theological innovation. The reason why you don’t see much scholarship focused on the doctrine of Scripture for the last 1800 years is because it was simply unnecessary. Encroaching heresies didn’t necessitate the church to concentrate on carefully defining the character of Scripture. In the early church, the primary doctrinal concerns were over the nature of Christ and his relationship to the Father. During the Reformation, questions concerning justification, the place of tradition, and the nature of the church took center stage. It wasn’t until post-Enlightenment assumptions had crept into every branch of human learning that there was even a need to defend the nature of Scripture so thoroughly. More needed to be said about the Bible’s inspiration and inerrancy in the early-1900s because these were now under sophisticated attack in a way they had never been before.
Conclusion
Twenty years ago, at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society in Atlanta, I heard Roger Nicole describe inerrancy as a “treasure.” That word resonated with me twenty years ago, and it still resonates with me today. Inerrancy is a treasure because it is tied directly to the nature and character of God. God cannot lie. He is trustworthy and true, so his Word must be as well. But inerrancy is a treasure that must be defended. Many have sought to rob the church of this gift—even some within her own ranks. It is necessary, therefore, to regularly address the objections that most often find their way into the critic’s repository. While there are other objections, these are some of the more common ones. Familiarize yourself with these objections and their answers, so that you can guard your own soul and answer those who seek to undermine the inerrancy of God’s Word.
