Affirming Biblical Inerrancy [UPDATED]

What is biblical inerrancy?

“The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact.”[1]

On his Facebook page evangelical leader Al Mohler posted the following,

“The affirmation of biblical inerrancy means nothing more, and nothing less, than this: When the Bible speaks, God speaks.”[2]

I’m still trying to wrap my mind around this ongoing controversy about the so-called biblical inerrancy.  I say “so-called” because of all the debates surrounding it.

I found the following from John Frame to be quite helpful in this ongoing debate:

“Inerrancy, therefore, means that the Bible is true, not that it is maximally precise. To the extent that precision is necessary for truth, the Bible is sufficiently precise. But it does not always have the amount of precision that some readers demand of it. It has a level of precision sufficient for its own purposes, not for the purposes for which some readers might employ it…

“When we say that the Bible is inerrant, we mean that the Bible makes good on its claims.”[3]

Perhaps we need another term–biblical absolutism?

__________

[1] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, p. 90

[2] Al Mohler, Facebook Page

[3] Justin Taylor, What Is Inerrancy and Why Do We Need the Word?

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Al Mohler, Biblical Inerrancy, John Frame, Wayne Grudem and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Affirming Biblical Inerrancy [UPDATED]

  1. Jon Hughes says:

    Sorry to be a spoilsport, but appealing to the original manuscripts is a total cop-out. Why would God bother to inspire the original manuscripts if He didn’t also preserve them? Inerrant original manuscripts serve no practical purpose whatever! Except being highly convenient for inerrancy apologists. This really is one of the lamest things that we do as evangelicals.

  2. Jon Hughes says:

    TC,

    This notion of inerrant original manuscripts is a constant source of bemusement to me. It serves no practical purpose whatsoever, except that of ‘convenience’ for inerrancy apologists! Serious question: Why would God inspire inerrant autographs only to not inerrantly preserve the copies? What would be the point?

    I’m not a KJV-only fanatic, but at least they’re consistent!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s