August 03, 2023—Answers to a study guide on an essay by Matthew Barrett
This is the second post in a series about the doctrine of scripture:
Matthew Barrett wrote an essay on TGC titled “The Authority and Inerrancy of Scripture”.
Here is the definition and summary given by Barrett:
The doctrine of the authority and inerrancy of Scripture is that, as a corollary of the inspiration of Scripture, the God-breathed Scriptures are wholly true in all things that they assert in the original autographs and therefore function with the authority of God’s own words.
The doctrine of the authority and inerrancy of Scripture is rooted in the doctrine of God; as God is true and trustworthy, so is his word recorded in the original autographs of Scriptures. This means that all things that the Scriptures assert are wholly true, both in the Old Testament, the Scriptures of Jesus and the apostles, and in the New Testament, the writings of the apostles. So far as the original autographs have been faithfully copied, translated, and passed down, Scripture is inerrant in its copies. This inerrancy means that all things that the Scriptures assert function with the authority of God’s own Word for Christians.
These are my answers to a study guide given by my pastor. Hopefully my answers correctly summarize the essay.
By saying that Scripture is inerrant we mean that all things in the original autographs are wholly true.
These syllogisms express the doctrine of the inerrancy of scripture and apply it to modern translations:
- God is true.
- Someone’s word reflects their own truthfulness.
Therefore God’s word is true.
- God’s word is true.
- The original autographs were God’s word.
Therefore the original autographs were true.
- Truthfulness is preserved in proportion to the faithfulness of a copy and translation.
- Most bibles we have today faithfully copy and translate the original autographs.
Therefore most bibles we have today are nearly as true as the original autographs.
- The original autographs were true.
- Most bibles we have today are nearly as true as the original autographs.
- Therefore most bibles we have today are very true.
An identical form of argument can be constructed to do the same with regard to the authority of scripture:
- God has the highest authority.
- Someone’s word carries their own authority.
Therefore God’s word has the highest authority.
- God’s word has the highest authority.
- The original autographs were God’s word.
Therefore the original autographs had the highest authority.
- Authority is preserved in proportion to the faithfulness of a copy and translation.
- Most bibles we have today faithfully copy and translate the original autographs.
Therefore most bibles we have today are nearly as authoritative as the original autographs.
- The original autographs had the highest authority.
- Most bibles we have today are nearly as authoritative as the original autographs.
- Therefore most bibles we have today are very authoritative.
B. B. Warfield said:
The trustworthiness of the Scriptures lies at the foundation of trust in the Christian system of doctrine, and is therefore fundamental to the Christian hope and life.
By that he means that our trust in the preacher of God’s word hinges on our trust of what he is preaching, and our obligation to it hinges on the authority of the source he is expositing. In this way, faith and practice both depend on the doctrine of scripture.
There is another reason this doctrine is important. Our beliefs about scripture influence and are founded on our beliefs about God. If we believe that the scriptures are not truthful or authoritative, then we necessarily must believe that God is neither truthful nor authoritative. And we ought not want to ascribe false things to God.
While at first blush the human authorship of scripture might seem to undermine the doctrine of inerrancy, in fact it does not. Instead, we recognize that humans are only the secondary author of scripture and God is the primary author. Since God is the primary author his own personal attributes are reflected and preserved in his word, as the syllogisms above demonstrate.
It can be helpful to think in terms of the communicability of an attribute of God. Certain attributes of God, such as his self-existence, cannot be transferred to other things. But certain other attributes of God, such as truthfulness, may indeed be transferred to other things. And human authors “carried along by the Holy Spirit” would not have inhibited God in this process. Instead they were part of the means and mechanism by which God transferred his truthfulness to scripture.
Jesus esteemed the scriptures very highly. He always treated the Old Testament with utter trust and reverence. This can be seen by his numerous references to and usages of it. For example:
until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished—Matthew 5:18
Scripture cannot be broken—John 10:35
Jesus also made scripture the bedrock of many of his responses and much of his reasoning. Just skim through the New Testament to see how often Jesus said “have you not read” and “it is written”. Jesus’s success against the devil’s temptations saliently highlights how much Jesus lived by God’s word.
Jesus brings a unique credibility to the question of the scriptures. In him himself God’s word has proven true, and he himself holds God’s word in very high esteem. Therefore, inasmuch as we trust these things about Jesus, our trust in God’s word may be bolstered.
Barrett describes a limited inerrancy view which rejects plenary inspiration. People who hold this view believe that scripture is only inerrant with regard to its message of faith. But with regard to other matters (for example matters that overlap with modern scientific investigation) they leave room for other authorities (for example modern scientific inquiry) to be a higher arbiter of truth.
This limited inerrancy view undermines the doctrine of sola scriptura, which states that God’s word is the final authority and ultimate standard for all of life.
This limited view is also either self-defeating or else leads to a pitiable state. Who decides what a “matter of faith” is? Is the statement “Jesus rose from the dead” a matter of faith, or is it a matter of history? Those who hold the view of limited inerrancy are forced to say it has no overlap with and is unknowable by historical inquiry. Yet historical inquiry is at the very heart of true Christian thought (1 Corinthians 15). And therein lies the fault in the limited view. If historical inquiry trumps this matter of faith, then secular historians might very well conclude (rightly or wrongly—who’s to say if God’s word isn’t the judge?) that Jesus never rose from the dead, and so the Christian who holds this view “is of all people most to be pitied” (1 Corinthians 15:19). On the other hand if scripture trumps secular historical inquiry, then it is not true that scripture is inerrant only with regard to matters of faith, and the view is self-defeating.
Therefore we ought to reject the limited view of inerrancy.