And in an effort to revisit the matter, I was reminded of John MacArthur’s conference on Biblical Inerrancy, held this past March. So I decided to listen to the likes of John MacArthur, RC Sproul, Kevin DeYoung, Carl Trueman, Al Mohler, etc., on the matter (for more on this view of inerrancy, you may consult Inerrant Word).
Let’s just say that I was highly disappointed. I really couldn’t believe what I was hearing. I was also reminded that the doctrine of inerrancy does not naturally arise from Scripture, but must first be put there by its proponent.
I heard things like, “To question inerrancy is to question the authority of Scripture.”
“You cannot be an expositor of Scripture if you have a weak view of Scripture. There is no such thing.”
One of the speakers even used Matthew 5:17ff to prove his version of inerrancy.
And if you’re wondering if I hold to inerrancy, I do. Though I prefer the term “biblical absolutism” to describe what I believe. It’s the position of John Frame.
“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.”
I’ve found that this definition of John Frame accounts very well for the world of the biblical writers and their approach to history, though under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.