The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Inerrancy of Scripture

Would you mind giving a little more detail on why you believe that even one error in Scripture would do damage to our faith. I am always looking to expand my knowledge of matters like this.

"Only the autograph (the original prophetically certified document) is inspired"-because God has not promised inerrant transmission. Scripture itself recognizes a distinction between the original manuscript and the copies. Use of Scripture portions that are obviously copies: 1 Kings 2:3, Prov. 25:1, Ezra 7:14, 2 Tim. 4:13, Luke 4:16-21. So it is not important for us to possess the physical page of the original, but the original message. But Scripture assumes that the teaching of the copies is authoritative because they are faithful to their origin, prophetic and divine. Scripture references to the authority of the original: Ex. 32-34, Deut. 10:2,4, Jer. 36:1-32, Deut. 17:18-20,2 Kings 22, 2 Chron. 34, Deut. 4:2, 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19, Matt. 15:6.

Can we trust our present Bibles?

To the degree that our Bibles reflect the autographic text, they are the Word of God. There are objective means of determining what belongs to the autographic text: textual criticism. Can we be wrong in making this determination? Yes. But one could also err in his understanding of the autographic manuscript. So, the Larger issue: all our knowledge of Scripture, our access to it, is burdened with human fallibility. Even if we had the autographs, we would have imperfect means of understanding their language, their teaching, and even if we had perfect knowledge of the languages, grammar, etc., we would still distort the teaching because of our sin. So having the autograph would not be much help; in fact it might even compound the problem by providing a "holy object" for human idolatry.

God might, to be sure, have imparted infallibility to the whole process by which he transmitted his Word to us. He might have given infallibility not only to the inspiration of the autographs, but also to the copying of these, their publication, their interpretation and application. For His own reasons, however, He determined not to do that. Or He might have chosen to grant infallible autographs, plus an infallible textual tradition, but to leave the interpretation of the text to fallible readers. This is the assumption of those who defend the "majority" text underlying the KJV. But there is no biblical reason to assume that God did either of these things. Rather, He imparted infallibity to the original autograph and then left the rest of the process of transmission to fallible human beings.

The question, then, is: of what use is an inspired, infallible text when our only access to it is humanly fallible? The "infallible autograph" enables us consistently to confess the truthfulness of God. Our access to the text is not merely human, not merely fallible, for the testimony of the Spirit guides us. Van Til's "underwater bridge" --though you can't see it, you're glad it's there. On most all teachings of Scripture, there is room for doubt only on the most skeptical epistemological presuppositions; but these presuppositions are forbidden to the Christian. We must assume that God has spoken clearly and has given us adequate means to learn what he has said. Else, the whole biblical story makes no sense. On these fundamental doctrines, the Spirit builds the regenerate life. They become, to the Christian, the most fundamental presuppositions of life. They are, therefore, convictions of utter certainty, whatever theoretical doubts there may be as to their epistemological justification. In fact, these doctrines, to the believer, are more certain than any extra-biblical epistemological considerations can be. On some areas there is room for debate within the general framework of Christian presuppositions. Here is needed the paradoxical yet practicable combination of boldness and teachability noted earlier in connection with preaching. The N.T. quotes the Septuagint O.T. translation as the word of God,--and sometimes corrects it! Even if we had only the Old Testament, we would have a book which is sufficient to make us "complete, thoroughly furnished unto every good work" (II Tim. 3: 17). There is enough redundancy in natural language that loss of a few words (and most textual problems deal only with a few words) or even, sometimes, of a great many, brings little net loss of meaning. Of course there is always some loss - loss of nuance or color if nothing else; and the Christian textual critic must be concerned not to lose anything of God's precious word. But such questions do not detract from the completeness of what we already have. No one can use the incompleteness of our present access to Scripture to excuse himself for disobedience.

Uninspired Preaching and Teaching; Christian Insight. The teaching office continues, though inspiration has ceased. Even during the biblical period, we have no reason to assume that ~ teacher was inspired, especially since, in one sense, the teaching function was universal in the church (the "general office", Col. 3:16, Eph. 4:29, I John 2:27, "word as presence"). Thus we must assume that it is possible to preach the truth without inspiration, i.e., that God uses uninspired people to convey his truth. In such teaching, we cannot say that the teacher is infallible, or that his word has the power and authority associated with God's word. At the same time, insofar as he faithfully and rightly proclaims the word of God that word continues to be fully powerful and fully authoritative, even on the lips of an uninspired person. The Spirit is active in the uninspired preacher if he is preaching obediently. The Spirit brings forth the truth. Therefore, though there is no inspiration, something ~ inspiration is going on. (Second Helvetic Confession, I, "The preaching of the Word is the Word."). There is paradox here: fallibility, but also authority. Practically, it calls us to boldness, combined with teachability.