Historical Evidences of Biblical Inerrancy

HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF BIBLICAL INERRANCY
Norman L. Geisler (2013)
Introduction:
Who wrote the Bible? God or men? If God inspired men to write the Bible,
what did He inspire? Their thoughts? Or their words as well? How far does
inspiration extend? Does it include only spiritual matters, or does it also
include history and science?
1. Most evangelicals hold the “orthodox” view that the Bible is divinely
inspired in its very words, including matters of history and science. This is
also the view of The International Council on Biblical Inerrancy.
2. “Liberal” theologians, on the other hand, believe that only parts of the
Bible are divine. They see great religious value in much of Scripture; but
other parts are rejected as myth, and some are even considered barbaric.
3. Some “Fundamentalist” strongly reacting against liberals, have affirmed

that the Bible was verbally dictated by God word-for-word.
4. “Neo-Orthodoxy”, another reaction to liberalism but without returning to a

fully orthodox view of Scripture, holds that the Bible is not a revelation from
God. Rather, it is a fallible human record of the revelation God gave in His
past actions. That is, God does not reveal Himself in words but only in
events.
5. “Liberal-Evangelicals” believe that the Bible is wholly human in origin,

replete with historical, scientific, and religious errors. They believe God
takes these human words and “elevates” them to be a vehicle of His word.
6. Much of the contemporary debate is between the orthodox or

evangelical Christians and the “Neo-evangelicals”. The latter believe that
the Bible is fallible but not inerrant; that is, the Bible speaks with divine
authority and complete truthfulness on salvation matters but is not inerrant
(without error) in historical and scientific matters.
2. Biblical View of Inspiration
The Bible claims for itself that every word or part of a word, with tenses and
number, is absolutely true since it is given by the Holy Spirit from the mouth
of God, who cannot lie (Titus 1:2; Heb 6:18). Therefore, it has final divine
authority in whatever it teaches, whether it be historical, scientific, or
spiritual matters. This applies to both the OT and NT.
2. Patristic View of the Bible:

Clement of Rome (AD 30-100), Justin Martyr (AD 100 – 165), Irenaeus (2 nd
Century), Tertullian (AD 160 – 2 #20), Origen (AD 184/185 – 254), Clement
of Alexandria (AD 150 – 215).
The earliest fathers of the church believed that the Bible is the infallible rule
for faith. It is absolutely true in all its utterances, since it is given by God
Himself. The Bible is harmonious, containing no contradictions; and it has
absolute divine authority. This applies to all the historical statements of
Scripture as well as the spiritual and moral truths. And with the exception of
Origen’s heretical allegorizing, these fathers understood the Bible literally.
3. The Medieval View of Inspiration (Augustine (AD 354 – 430), Thomas

Aquinas (AD 1225 – 1274)
The medieval fathers of the church held firmly to the divine origin of
Scripture. They believed that there could not possibly be even one error in
Scripture. Any supposed error in our translation must be understood to be
apparent, not real, or else to be an error in the copy but not the original.
The canon of Scripture was given by God and has thereby infallibility and
full divine authority on all matters it addresses.
4. The Reformation view of Inspiration (Martin Luther (AD 1483-1546),

John Calvin (1509-1564)
Luther was emphatic about the Bible: It is God’s Word, not man’s. God is
the author of every word of Scripture. Absolute divine authority extends to
even the smallest part of Scripture, including those references to history
and science. Whoever denies anything in the Bible denies God Himself.
Calvin believed the sacred Scriptures were the unerring norm for the
Christian faith. As such they deserved the same reverence as God Himself,
for they originated from the very mouth of God by the dictates of the Holy
Spirit. This is true not only on spiritual matters but also of the historical and
scientific teaching of the Bible. The only errors were copyists’ errors in
some manuscripts, not in the originals.
5. The Post-Reformation Orthodoxy view of Inspiration (Archibald

Alexander Hodge and Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield)
Their position is that the Bible is the infallible and inerrant Word of God in
the original manuscripts. It is without error in everything it affirms. Indeed,
what the Bible says, God says. This includes matter of history, science, the
authorship of biblical books, and any other matter. Any results of negative
higher criticism that are contrary to this are incompatible with the inspiration
of Scripture and are, thereby, unorthodox.
6. Liberal views of Inspiration

It resulted from adopting unjustified modern anti-supernatural (of Benedict
Spinoza and David Hume) and other deviant philosophies of Immanuel
Kant, G.W.F. Hegel, and Martin Heidegger. Widely representatives
moderate theologian is Harold Dewolf and a more radical for is Harry
Emerson Fosdick. More recent are Alfred North Whitehead and Shubert
Ogden.
The classical liberal view of Scripture is that the Bible is not the Word of
God as such but merely contains the Word of God. Along with the truths of
God in the Bible are many errors of science and theology that must be
weeded out by use of reason in accord with “the spirit of Christ.” Hence,
higher criticism of the Bible is not only welcome but essential to discovering
what is true in the Bible. The Bible is basically a fallible human book that
contains, nonetheless, “inspired” insight into moral and religious truths.
7. A fundamental view of Inspiration:

One of the most systematic treatments of the Bible by a fundamentalist is
that of John R. Rice. According to him, the Bible is verbally dictated (word-
for-word) from God to the biblical writers, who were secretaries of the Holy
Spirit. Hence, the Bible is God’s infallible and inerrant Book word-for-word.
There is a human element to Scripture, though there are no human source.
The human side of Scripture is in the vocabularies and styles of the writers.
However, these vocabularies and styles were providentially formed by God
in advance so that by advanced planning God chose the very words and
style that He would breathe out through men in recoding the Scripture. As a
result, the Bible is as perfect as God is. To attribute any flaw to Scripture by
biblical criticism is to exalt man’s fallible reason over God’s infallible Word.
8. Neo-orthodox view of Inspiration

The neo-orthodox or Neo-Reformation theology, may be understood as a
reaction against liberalism, but also a refusal to return to an orthodox view
of the Bible. Two well-known representatives were Karl Barth and Emil
Brunner. There is also a significant influence of existential philosophies
such as Soren Kierkegaard and Martin Heidegger.
Neo-orthodoxy rejects the orthodox view of an infallible and inerrant Bible.

The Bible is not a propositional revelation. Instead, the Bible witnesses to
and records God’s revelation in the person of Christ. The Bible is not the
Word of God but becomes the Word of God to us when we meet Christ
through it.
Barth admits the possibility of errors in Scripture; Brunner acknowledge
thousands of them. Both believe, however, that God speaks through the
Bible as an instrument of His revelation. They acknowledge but reject the
historic orthodox view that the Bible is the infallible and inerrant Word of
God. It has no formal authority; it has only instrumental authority only
insofar as it reveals Christ to us.
9. A Liberal-Evangelical view of the Bible:

This view is neither liberal nor evangelical, since it combines elements of
both views. Actually it has significant similarities with Neo-orthodoxy. The
most notable proponent of it is C.S. Lewis. He holds many things in
common with the liberal view of Scripture:
a. There are some errors and contradictions in the Bible
b. Some of it is myth, not fact
c. Some stories are not historical, and
d. The Creation account is not to be taken as scientifically true.
On the other hand, he criticizes those who reject the historicity of the life,
teaching, and resurrection of Christ. He also has some existential or
Barthian (Neo-orthodox) aspects to his view since he holds that God took
the human words of Scripture and “elevated” them so that they convey the
voice of God.
10. The Neo-Evangelical view of Inspiration:

This view may also be called the Neo-Reformed view, since it comes
largely from theologians in the Reformed tradition. The most important
proponent is the Dutch theologian Gerrit Cornelis Berkouwer. American
theologian Jack Bartlett Rogers holds substantially the same view.
This view differentiates between the Word of God (divine content) and the
words of the human authors (human form) of Scripture. The former is
infallible, but the latter is not. Hence, the Bible is not infallible divine words
but only reliable human words.
The Bible is a human witness to divine revelation. The church confesses it

as the “Word of God.” But the Bible does not state eternal truth about
science, history, or even human relations (such as male-female roles). The
Bible, like all other human books, is subject to mistakes and thus must be
judged by biblical (higher) criticism.
Conclusion:
First, the Bible claims for itself to the verbally inspired, infallible, and
inerrant Word of God in all that it affirms, including historical and scientific
matters. This view of full inerrancy was followed by the Early Fathers who
were followed upto the post-reformation orthodox teacher. In short, there is
a unity and continuity of the view of full inerrancy of Scripture for the first
1900 years of church history.
It was not until the late 1800s that liberal views, followed by fundamentalist
views came up. These were followed by Neo-orthodoxy movement, liberal-
evangelical and the neo-evangelical.
Nonetheless, the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI) has

made strong and lasting statements on the full inerrancy of Scripture which
has provided an enduring model for the historic orthodox view of Scripture.
This has been followed by most evangelicals including the Evangelical
Theological Society (ETS) which adopted the ICBI statement as a guide for
the meaning of inerrancy.

Historical Evidences of Biblical Inerrancy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Historical Evidences of Biblical Inerrancy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Historical Evidences of Biblical Inerrancy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HISTORICAL EVIDENCES OF BIBLICAL INERRANCY

Norman L. Geisler (2013)

3. Some “Fundamentalist” strongly reacting against liberals, have affirmed

4. “Neo-Orthodoxy”, another reaction to liberalism but without returning to a

5. “Liberal-Evangelicals” believe that the Bible is wholly human in origin,

6. Much of the contemporary debate is between the orthodox or

2. Patristic View of the Bible:

3. The Medieval View of Inspiration (Augustine (AD 354 – 430), Thomas

4. The Reformation view of Inspiration (Martin Luther (AD 1483-1546),

5. The Post-Reformation Orthodoxy view of Inspiration (Archibald

6. Liberal views of Inspiration

7. A fundamental view of Inspiration:

8. Neo-orthodox view of Inspiration

Neo-orthodoxy rejects the orthodox view of an infallible and inerrant Bible.

9. A Liberal-Evangelical view of the Bible:

10. The Neo-Evangelical view of Inspiration:

The Bible is a human witness to divine revelation. The church confesses it

Nonetheless, the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI) has

You might also like