definition, the accuracy of the sources is not included in the definition, only the accuracy with which the sources were handled. Inerrancy from this viewpoint allows the finished product to include error as well as truth. The second definition states that the writers of Scripture were without error and, in addition, their sources were without error, the result being that what is recorded is free from mistake. Thus a man who might claim to adhere to iner rancy may actually have rejected inerrancy, if the latter definition be accepted as the norm for conservative Christianity. For this reason, to be certain of where a person stands, one must ascertain the meaning he attaches to the word “ inerrancy.” Related to this twofold definition of inerrancy is another matter of interest: the matter of degrees or levels of inspiration. Cartledge says that there are “ good and sincere men who feel that their study of the Bible leads them to believe that there may be errors in the secondary areas so long as they do not adversely affect any matter of faith and practice” (Samuel Cart- ledge, The Bible, God’s Word to Man, p. 38). The opin ion of this scholar, as is the case with many, is that biblical inerrancy extends only to primary areas—mat ters of faith and practice. The areas defined as second ary are not necessarily free from such mistakes. Cartledge has four secondary areas: rhetorical, sci entific, grammatical, and historical. Two illustrations of this view of inerrancy in the area of history may be cited from scholars of conservative reputation: (1) “ Even if it could be shown that the Chronicles are not entirely compatible with other Old Testament histories, the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy would not be demol ished.” (2) “ Does inspiration require that a Biblical writer should be preserved from error in the use of sources? Presumably when Stephen asserted that Abra ham left Haran for Canaan after his father’s , death (Acts 7 :4 ), he was following a type of Septuagintal text such as Philo used. . . . The Hebrew text of Gene sis will not permit this. . . . We are not affirming that this is a dogmatic requirement [that one allow for errors in sources], but if the inductive study of the Bible reveals enough examples of this sort of thing to make the conclusion probable, then we shall have to hold the doctrine of inspiration in this light.” Though the writer in neither of the cases cited affirms historical inaccuracy in a dogmatic fashion, there is portrayed an attitude of willingness to accept errors in the historical account. At the same time the doctrine of inerrancy is not surrendered by them, appar ently because of a feeling that inerrancy has to do only with the “ primary” areas of faith and practice. In all four “ secondary” areas human standards, which are at best relative, are utilized. In each case where fault has been found with the words of Scripture, the opinion rests upon human findings, a standard which is subject to constant change. In the case of the first quotation above, the writer implies that there is no pos sible reconciliation between the books of Chronicles and some other parts of the Old Testament. This is not true. To admit that we may not know the answer to a prob
lem right now is not the same as saying that there is no possible solution, and to accuse the Bible of historical error simply on the basis of present ignorance reveals a regrettable shortsightedness as to what the future may uncover. As for the second quotation, whether or not the Hebrew text of Genesis will allow for. harmonization with Acts 7 :4 is not a closed issue, as it is made to sound. Adequate explanations have been given for this phenomenon, so that one would need more than this to force him to “hold the doctrine of inspiration” in the light of historical inaccuracy (see Edward J. Young, Thy Word Is Truth, pp. 175-79). The. problem is not limited to the individuals who admit allowing for errors in the secondary areas. There are even some who accept the traditional view of iner rancy who have developed an attitude of tolerance toward the other side. One prominent evangelist writes, “ I do not believe that the ground of our fellowship is to be the inerrancy of Scripture but, rather, the ground of our fellowship is to be the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ. I myself hold to the verbal inspiration view point; I think the other position is fraught with dan ger. . . .” This approach treats the matter of inerrancy as if it were of no great consequence. Yet the logic of such a position is full of pitfalls: “ If Scripture can be mis taken on one point, it is only sensible to assume that it can be mistaken on other points too” (Robert Preus, The Inspiration of Scripture, p. 45). If for one moment an improper definition of inerrancy is allowed, it be comes mere subjective opinion as to what part of the Bible is God’s truth and what part is man’s error. When such a condition exists, there is no doctrine of the Bible that is on a sure footing, not even the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ which has been a suggested basis of fel lowship. One facet of inspiration which has not been promi nent thus far is the divine element. It should be clear enough that if the Spirit made a document, it would be free from error in the whole or in the smallest part. It is at all times and under all circumstances true that it is free from all untruth and deceit. For example, there have been few, if any, who adhere to the compromised doctrine of inerrancy, who at the same time would admit to any flaw in the person of Christ. Since He is the God-man, perfection must be attributed to Him in every regard. What is it that secures this perfection? It is the element of deity in His person. By a similar deduction one can conclude that the Bible is also per fect in the original manuscripts. To be sure, answers to hundreds and even thousands of problems may be required, but one must not be guilty of saying there is no answer before all the evidence is available. Many of the criticisms of inerrancy have been answered, but many have not. Individual passages of the Bible are still being subjected to the closest scrutiny, but one can be sure that as God lifts the limitations of human knowledge, there will gradually appear évidente more than adequate to substantiate the truthfulness of every part of the sixty-six books. ■■]
FEBRUARY, 1968
41
Made with FlippingBook - professional solution for displaying marketing and sales documents online