About a month ago, Christian apologist James Bishop released an article claiming that Biblical inerrancy is a bunch of hooey. What is inerrancy, you ask? (Or what is “hooey”–look it up!) Inerrancy is the belief that the Bible, in all that it claims and affirms (when those claims are properly understood according to authorial intent), does not err.

In this post I want to respond to James by providing a positive case for inerrancy. In subsequent posts, I will address the specific problems James raises.

The Grounds for Inerrancy

One day, Little Timmy was prancing down the street; he was a happy only child, receiving the whole of parental affection. As he’s prancing, he bumps into a kid that looks identical to him.

“Who are you??” Timmy asks.
“I am your long lost brother,” the mirror image replies.

At this point, Timmy’s face goes white–pasty white, like those kids in the suburbs creating a rap album. Timmy runs back to his Mommy and Daddy and does his best Luke Skywalker impression:

“THAT’S NOT TRUE. THAT’S IMPOSSIBLE!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!”

His Mommy and Daddy smile, and say, “we would have told you sooner, but we wanted to surprise you! We found your brother and adopted him!”

Timmy reasonably asks, “how do I know mirror-Timmy is my long lost brother?” Mom and Dad show him a 100% verified DNA test–Little Timmy’s DNA is identical to mirror-Timmy’s DNA. It is the irrefutable evidence needed to establish that Little Timmy and mirror-Timmy are long lost twins.

But a multitude of difficulties and questions arise in Timmy’s mind. “If he is my brother, then how come we didn’t know each other until now? Why in the world were my parents smiling, given that I didn’t know I was adopted until now? Didn’t they know that this new knowledge would wreck my world?” Etcetera–a bunch of unanswered questions arise. No matter what objections arise in Timmy’s mind, however, none could actually falsify the proposition at hand. The evidence needed to establish it was provided.

So how does this story relate to inerrancy? I contend, with Benjamin Warfield and John Wenham, that the evidence needed to establish inerrancy has already been provided. In order to do this, I will try to demonstrate these propositions on pure historical grounds:

1.) Jesus believed in and taught the total truthfulness of Scripture
2.) The apostles, under the Lordship of the risen Christ, taught the inerrancy of Scripture
3.) The historical Jesus could not err
4.) The apostles, conveying the teachings of Jesus, could not err

A Brief Survey: The Lord Jesus’ view of the Old Testament

We shall answer the question: what was Jesus’ general views towards the Scriptures?

In Matthew 12:41, Jesus argues “the men of Nineveh shall stand up in the judgement with this generation, and shall condemn it; for they repented at the preaching of Jonah and behold, something greater than Jonah is here.” Is T. T Perowne famously said, “Is it possible to understand a reference like this on the non-historic theory of the book of Jonah? The future Judge is speaking words of solemn warning to those who shall hereafter stand convicted at His bar. Intensely real He would make the scene in anticipation to them, as it was real, as if then present, to Himself. And yet we are to suppose Him to say that imaginary persons who at the imaginary preaching of an imaginary prophet repented in imagination, shall rise up in that day and condemn the actual impenitence of those His actual hearers.” In other words, Jesus took the Scripture to be true, as that is the basis of His condemnation of the present generation.

Matthew 12:42 makes use of a different part of Scripture, affirming the historicity of the book of Kings. Matthew 24:37 affirms the reliability of the Noah story, and Luke 17:32 affirms the punishment of Lot’s wife. In Matthew 5:17-20, Jesus explicitly affirms the enduring nature of the Law and Prophets (a phrase for the Scriptures), denying that an iota shall pass away. Throughout the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus makes several statements prefaced by the phrases “for it is written” or “have you never read?”, clearly implying that if it is written or read, we ought to believe it and obey it. In Mark 12, Jesus claims that the Sadducees (who denied the future resurrection of God’s people) erred because they “knew neither the Scriptures nor the power of God”, clearly implying that knowing the Scriptures will keep you from error. In Matthew 19, Jesus takes God to be the author of the narrative portions of the Genesis text.

In Luke 24:25, Jesus (the risen Christ!) tells the two disciples on the road to Emmaus that they are “foolish and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets of spoken”. If you read the text, you’ll note that Jesus implies that His death and resurrection was necessary because the prophets (a shorthand, again, for the writers of the whole canon) wrote of it. God’s people are foolish to not believe the whole canon. At this point, James could try to deny that the story was historical. But the evidence is stacked against him; in Luke’s account, only one of the disciples is named (Cleopas). Why is this significant? There is no narratival reason for Luke to name Cleopas–in all probability, Luke is naming his source for the account. Hence, if this account is actually historical, then the risen Christ Himself is affirming the truthfulness of the Scriptures. And if James wants to affirm that the risen Christ can teach wrongly about stuff, then this presents theological problems which I will address later in this post.

Finally, John’s Jesus has the same view of the Scriptures. In John 10:35, he affirms that the Scriptures cannot be broken. From the standpoint of every single Gospel, the Bible is Christ’s unbreakable Bible.

On a historical level, we must admit the historicity of Jesus’ views given the criteria of multiple independent attestation. The Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) are clearly related to each other, but Matthew and Luke also contain unique material. In this unique material, Jesus has the same view of the Scriptures as the one I’ve presented above. Moreover, given the general reliability of the Gospels (briefly: Matthew is based on a Matthean source, Mark has evidence of being derived from the eyewitness Peter, Luke interviewed the eyewitnesses, and John was an apostle), and given that Jesus has this view of the Scriptures in every Gospel, we cannot simply hand wave the evidence. Jesus taught the total truthfulness of the Scriptures.

The Apostles’ View of the Scriptures

What is my operative premise for trusting the apostles’ witness to the Scriptures? Simply put, the apostles believed that they saw the risen Christ. They were willing to get beaten, persecuted, and killed for this belief; moreover, they were willing to preach something they knew sounded stupid to the surrounding culture (namely, a physical resurrection). As James would agree (and has defended), the apostles genuinely believed they encountered the risen Christ.

Moreover, the apostles encountered Jesus in such a way so as to convince them that what they taught, Jesus taught. Paul explains this belief in 1 Corinthians 14:

” If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. 38 If anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized.”

Paul believes that what he writes is a command of the Lord Jesus. His encounter with Jesus has convinced him that he is an apostle, and as an apostle possesses this authority. And as Paul teaches in 2 Timothy 3:16 and Romans 15:3-4, all Scripture is God-breathed; whatever was written was written for our instruction, that through the Scriptures we might have encouragement and hope. Additionally, whenever Paul (or any of the apostolic writers) use the phrase “for it is written”, they are arguing “if it is written, then it ought to be believed and obeyed”.

Now, am I reasoning in a circle here? Am I saying that “because the Bible teaches its own truthfulness, it is therefore truthful?” Absolutely not. Precisely, this is what I’m arguing: because the apostles reliably encountered Jesus and received their apostleship from Him, and because Jesus equipped them to teach truthfully, therefore what they teach is truthful. Since they teach inerrancy, inerrancy is truthfully taught. This argument is not circular; none of the premises are merely restatements of the relevant conclusions.

The Historical Jesus could not err in what He taught

The problem with the idea that Jesus could err in what He taught is of course the issue of sin. Deuteronomy 18:15-22 seems to condemn prophets that speak wrongly in the name of God, falsely pronouncing a future to come. Thus, as James thinks that Jesus was wrong about the time of his coming, James would have to identify Jesus as a false prophet. Now of course, he could always reject Deuteronomy 18 as well. But if he did this, James would be claiming that “Jesus is sinless” on a different basis than the standard the New Testament authors called Jesus sinless. In other words, James would mean something different by the phrase “without sin” than the NT authors did.

Moreover, it seems obviously wrong to claim divine authority for one’s teachings when those teachings are wrong (even if non-maliciously, but just mistakenly). If one’s not absolutely sure their teachings come from God, then it is presumptuous to use God’s name as a vehicle to promote one’s teachings. Jesus, in other words, would have acted carelessly. No one forced him to teach what He did; thus, He willingly taught something which, while He thought was true, was actually wrong–and He did so in the name of God. Thus, James’ view inadvertently makes Jesus out to be a sinner. And thus, such a view ruins Christ as the Savior.

James would also have to claim that the risen, glorified Christ mistakenly called Cleopas (and the other) “foolish”. In other words, the risen Christ gave an unwarranted rebuke, exhorting people to believe the Scriptures in its totality when the Scriptures were in fact false. Either James has to throw out the Emmaus story, claim historical error, or throw out his view of inspiration and adopt our Lord’s.

Moreover, if Jesus could err, then we need a criteria to determine when Jesus is truthfully teaching and when His teachings are wrong. What criteria might there be to assess Jesus (!)? Why couldn’t Jesus have taught wrongly concerning the final resurrection? How one finds peace with God? Etc? And how do we know when Jesus is right?

The Apostles Could not Err

I do not believe the apostles could err because, as I mentioned above, they reliably encountered Jesus. They encountered Him in such a way so as to create the belief that they were infallible in their teachings. Either they did not encounter Him in such a way, or they did encounter Him and Jesus did not prevent their mistaken beliefs, or they were liars. James and I reject the last option for reasons I’ve mentioned already.

Moreover, suppose we say the Apostles could err. What happens to the reliability of their teachings? Well, if the apostles can err on doctrine, then we need a criteria to determine when the apostles are speaking truly and when they are speaking falsely. But what criteria might that be? In fact, there is no criteria by which we can determine the theological truth of apostolic teaching. Revelation, given in the word of God, is supposed to be the standard by which we judge all teaching; but if that revelation itself is deficient, and we have no other criteria to sift truth from error, then the apostolic teaching as a whole gets thrown into question. Who’s to say they didn’t err on how one is counted righteous before God as well? On what basis can we say they taught rightly in those matters? Or the matter of final resurrection?

Rather, the basis on which we trust the apostles is the same basis on which we trust the rest of the Scriptures: the word of Jesus Christ Himself. I praise the Lord that Jesus is a firm foundation for the church to stand upon. I trust Him far more than critical scholars who disagree with Him. He has proven a far more reliable guide.

Caveat

My atheist friends will notice that I’m simply assuming the Resurrection. Indeed. My point here is to say that if the Resurrection happened, then we have solid grounds to trust the rest of the Scriptures. You would do well to investigate the question of the Resurrection here: