Is Inerrancy Inseparable from Christology?

Inerrancy_620According to noted Reformed pastor and theologian R.C. Sproul the answer is yes: inerrancy is inseparable from Christology:

At the end of the day, inerrancy is inseparable from Christology. If Jesus didn’t teach this view of Scripture, the argument would be over. The issue is not the sacrosanctity of a book, a ‘paper pope,’ or bibliolatry. The issue at stake is the integrity of the person and work of Jesus. He can save us only if He is sinless, and He is sinless only if all of His teaching—including what He teaches about Scripture—is true. —source, emphasis added

I don’t know about you, but I’ve found a few things wrong with what Mr. R.C. Sproul is saying here.  First, Jesus taught inerrancy.  Where can we really find this in Scripture?  Second, to reject inerrancy (as defined by Sproul) is to put “at stake the integrity of the person and work of Jesus.”  So in an effort to convince us that this is indeed the case, Mr. Sproul argues, “[Jesus] can save us only if He is sinless, and He is sinless only if all of His teaching–including what He teaches about Scripture–is true.”

Again, where does Jesus teach inerrancy in Scripture?

What else can I say, except that this is another desperate move on Mr. R.C. Sproul’s part–confusing the person and work of Jesus with biblical inerrancy.

This entry was posted in R.C. Sproul and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Is Inerrancy Inseparable from Christology?

  1. Jon Hughes says:

    All I can say is that a significant number of Christian thinkers have thought differently from R .C. Sproul. It’s an overly left-brain sort of way of looking at things, and strikes me as an artificial construct.

    • Simon says:

      Jon, I would actually say that this is a poor man’s left-brain argument. To leap from Christ’s sinlessness to his apparent view of inerrancy is unwarranted and there is no logical reason to invoke these two concepts in connection with each other. If Christ didn’t subscribe to inerrancy as conceived by Sproul, then there is no conflict with his sinlessness. He is asking us to accept from the outset that Christ believed in a kind of inerrancy that is akin to what he believes. There is no reason for us to accept this assertion. You are correct. It is a completely false construct.

  2. Simon says:

    An artificial construct indeed. Many would disagree that Christ taught inerrancy as it expounded in the Chicago Statement. It should be quite clear that this statement is anachronistic.

  3. Craig Benno says:

    I believe in an inerrant Bible. But, I don’t believe our interpretation of it is inerrant. It’s story of redemption is truth. It points to the way, the truth and the life. God the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit. they are the inerrant ones.

  4. TC Robinson says:

    No disagreement here.

    Well put: “It’s an overly left-brain sort of way of looking at things, and strikes me as an artificial construct.”

  5. Colin Heath says:

    Exactly. He seems to be asserting a connection between Jesus and His acceptance and use of Scripture and his own understanding of inerrancy, without presenting a basis for that connection. On inerrancy per se , J I Packer’s ” Engaging the Written Word of God ” has a clear chapter on the subject which I find most helpful.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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