Following up his previous chapter on the authority of Scripture (the first of four major attributes of Scripture), Wayne Grudem argues for the inerrancy of Scripture. Inerrancy, as Grudem defines it, "means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact" (Grudem, 91). The original writings of the Bible are completely true. Several points must be made in order to properly convey the meaning of inerrancy (for a fuller treatment of these refer to the Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology, chapter five).
- The Bible remains inerrant (without error) while still using the ordinary language of everyday speech. For instance, when the Bible says the sun rose (rather than the earth rotated) or 8,000 men died (when it was 7,932 or 8,211) the text may not be precise, but it does not err. If I say that my house is one mile away, it may not be as precise as saying my house is 1.36523 miles away, but it is not false to say so. I am merely giving an approximation.
- The Bible can still be inerrant though the quotations may not be word-for-word representations of a direct quote, since it is the content of the speech which is important for determining truth from falsehood. Written Koine Greek (the language that the New Testament was written in) did not have quotation marks. What was important is whether the quoted speech accurately reflected the content of what was originally said.
- The inerrancy of Scripture affirms that the authors of Scripture were inspired by the Holy Spirit. Inspiration is more than saying, "Whoa! Dude, that poem is like, so inspired!" Inspiration means that the Holy Spirit guided the writing process of the biblical authors, while still allowing their personalities and styles to emerge in the text. The Scriptures were written as a joint project.
- The inerrancy of Scripture refers to the original copies (or autographs) of Scripture, and to subsequent copies only in so far as they accurately represent the original manuscripts. Inerrancy does not mean the New International Version, English Standard Version, or King James Version are without error, but that they are without error as long as they represent the words originally written by Moses, Paul, etc. According to Grudem, "...it may first be stated that for over 99 percent of the words of the Bible, we know what the original manuscripts (the autographs) said" (Grudem, 96). He continues, "For most practical purposes, then, the current published scholarly texts of the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament are the same as the original manuscripts. Thus, when we say that the original manuscripts were inerrant, we are also implying that over 99 percent of the words in our present manuscripts are also inerrant for they are exact copies of the originals" (Ibid).
- The inerrancy of Scripture also means that Scripture is a unity and internally consistent.
- Inerrancy implies that the Bible is true in matters of faith and practice, but that it is also true with respect to all other matters as well. For one thing, the New Testament's treatment of the Old Testament does not seem to suggest that Scripture was true with respect to manners of faith and practice only (Grudem, 93).
The argument that Grudem makes for inerrancy goes as follows:
PREMISE ONE: If they are words of God, they are necessarily true (because God cannot lie; c.f. 2 Samuel 7:28; Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18)
PREMISE TWO: All the words of Scripture are the words of God (in that he inspires them; c.f. 2 Timothy 3:16; for more Scriptural proof, see Grudem, chapter 4).
CONCLUSION: Therefore, Scripture is necessarily true.
For a formal statement on inerrancy, please read The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy.
That's a really helpful summary, thanks. I think his (4) is especially important since it gives one reasons to think the 'original autographs' qualifier isn't just a way to weasel out of difficulties. Inerrancy does apply only to the autographs but we have really good reason to think our copies are really similar to those autographs.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, if you're interested I wrote something on this too. (http://www.thebayviewreview.com/philosophy/why-i-believe-in-inerrancy/)