Latest / Reformed Thinking / The Dependability of God's Word: Inerrancy

Transcript

The Dependability of God's Word: Inerrancy · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Welcome to Reformed Thinking. We are thrilled you could join
0:02
us for the session today. We have a very specific mission
0:05
for this deep dive. We are going to examine the
0:08
absolute dependability of God's Word, focusing intensely on the
0:12
doctrine of inerrancy. To do this, we were drawing from
0:16
a highly regarded source, which is a comprehensive chapter on
0:19
the dependability of God's Word from Miller J Erickson's
0:22
systematic work Christian Theology.
0:24
Right. And it is a massive topic.
0:26
It really is. Have you ever been sitting in a
0:29
coffee shop with a skeptical friend, or maybe even sitting
0:32
alone in a quiet moment of doubt and asked yourself, if the Bible
0:36
says it, can I actually trust it to be true in every single
0:39
particular? It is a question that strikes at
0:42
the very root of the Christian faith.
0:44
For those of us who hold to Reformed theology and look to
0:47
the Westminster Confession as a faithful summary of biblical
0:49
teaching, the supreme authority of Scripture is the rock upon
0:52
which everything else stands. But saying we believe the Bible
0:56
is true, and defining precisely what that truthfulness entails
0:59
when faced with critical scrutiny for modern academics,
1:02
well, those are two totally different things.
1:04
That is precisely the issue. The stakes here could not be
1:08
higher for you or for the broader Church.
1:11
If we believe that the Creator of the universe has provided
1:14
special revelation to humanity, we desperately need assurance
1:18
that the written record of that revelation is a dependable
1:21
source. If the text is fundamentally
1:24
flawed, our knowledge of God becomes suspect.
1:27
It becomes fragile and subject to human whim.
1:30
I mean, you lose the ground under your feet entirely.
1:32
Absolutely. This connects directly to the
1:34
Reform view of Scripture, which states that the Bible is the
1:37
supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to
1:40
be determined. If that supreme judge is prone
1:43
to error, we lose our basis for objective truth altogether.
1:47
To begin making sense of this, we need to clarify our terms,
1:50
because the vocabulary surrounding this doctrine has
1:52
shifted significantly over the last century.
1:54
Historically, the terms infallibility and inerrancy were
1:58
used almost interchangeably by theologians.
2:00
Which makes sense, because they sound practically identical to
2:02
the average person in the Pew. They do, but in modern
2:06
theological discourse, a sharp distinction has emerged.
2:09
Today, infallibility is frequently used by some scholars
2:12
to mean that the Bible will successfully accomplish his
2:15
divine purpose. So things like leading a person
2:19
to salvation, even if it's historical or factual
2:22
references, contain massive inaccuracies.
2:25
Inerrancy, on the other hand, makes a much stronger, more
2:28
comprehensive claim. It argues that the Bible is
2:31
fully truthful in all of its teachings and assertions,
2:34
including its historical and scientific references, when
2:36
properly interpreted according to the authors original intent
2:39
and cultural context. So just to make sure we are
2:42
tracking here, a modern scholar might say the Bible is
2:44
infallible because it gets you to heaven, but it is not
2:46
inerrant because it gets the names of ancient kings wrong.
2:49
That is a massive shift in how we talk about truth, and it
2:52
brings us to a fascinating concept raised in our source
2:54
material regarding how we evaluate the truthfulness of
2:57
language in the first place. Yes, the text introduces speech
3:00
act theory, specifically referencing the work of Kevin
3:02
Vanhooser. Right Speech Act theory points
3:05
out that the Bible is not just a flat list of declarative
3:07
sentences or dry scientific propositions.
3:10
It contains a massive variety of grammatical moods.
3:13
There are commands, there are questions, there are poetic
3:16
wishes, and there are exclamations.
3:17
This is crucial for you to understand when thinking about
3:20
inerrancy. If Jesus says love your enemies,
3:23
that is a command in the imperative mood.
3:25
Command cannot logically be evaluated as true or false.
3:29
Spot on. If I look at you right now and
3:31
tell you to shut the door, you do not respond by saying that is
3:34
a true statement. No, I would just shut the door.
3:36
It is an instruction, therefore the command itself is not
3:40
subject to a true or false verification process.
3:43
However, the assertion that Jesus actually gave that command
3:46
can absolutely be evaluated. The historical proposition that
3:49
God commands humans not to murder is an assertion of fact.
3:53
It is the report of the command, the historical claim that the
3:55
command was issued in time and space, that falls under the
3:58
umbrella of inerrancy. And that is why speech act
4:01
theory changes the game here. If we try to apply rigid
4:04
scientific standards of verification to a poetic wish in
4:09
the Psalms or a divine imperative in the Gospels, we
4:12
are using the wrong measuring stick entirely.
4:15
But the source material pushes us into an even more contentious
4:18
area regarding the nature of truth and language, and that is
4:21
the open theism debate. Oh boy.
4:24
Yes, open theists such as Gregory Boyd and John Sanders
4:27
have sparked massive controversy over the last few decades
4:30
regarding biblical prophecy and the nature of the future.
4:33
Their argument goes like this. They claim that certain
4:36
predictions in Scripture do not come to pass.
4:39
Sanders points at 2 Kings 20 verse one where the prophet
4:42
Isaiah tells King Hezekiah he will die and not recover, yet
4:45
Hezekiah prays and God grants him another 15 years of life.
4:49
He also points to Jonah 3 verse 4, where Jonah predicts Nineveh
4:52
will be overthrown in 40 days, yet the city repents and God
4:55
relents from the disaster. Open theists argue that these
4:58
unfulfilled predictions do not violate the doctrine of
5:01
inerrancy. Which sounds completely
5:03
counterintuitive on the surface. How do they justify that?
5:05
Well, they operate on a very specific philosophical
5:08
assumption. They believe the future does not
5:10
yet exist in any reality, not even in the mind of God.
5:14
Therefore, statements about a non existent future possess no
5:17
truth value. In formal logic, a statement
5:20
with truth value is one that can be determined to be either true
5:23
or false because the future has no reality to correspond to.
5:27
Open theists argue that predictive statements are
5:29
neither true nor false at the moment they are spoken.
5:32
Thus, they claim they can maintain a robust belief in
5:35
inerrancy while simultaneously acknowledging that biblical
5:38
predictions sometimes fail to materialize.
5:41
Let me put that open theist argument in plain English for
5:44
you, just to see if I'm grasping the magnitude of this.
5:47
They are essentially saying you cannot be wrong about something
5:50
that is not real yet. If the future is just a blank
5:53
void, then any guess about the future is not a true or false
5:56
statement. It is just a guess.
5:58
But Erickson's analysis pushes back on that heavily, and
6:01
rightly so. Absolutely.
6:03
The text argues that the open theists are confusing 2
6:06
completely different branches of philosophy.
6:09
They're taking an epistemological issue, which is
6:11
the study of how we know whether a prophecy is true or false, and
6:15
mischaracterizing it as an ontological issue, which is the
6:18
study of whether the future exists in the state of reality.
6:22
Erickson points out that an ordinary human language, if a
6:24
prediction fails to come to pass, we judge it to be
6:27
erroneous. We do not say, well, the future
6:30
didn't exist when you made the prediction, so your statement
6:32
was technically devoid of truth value.
6:34
No. Think about a meteorologist on
6:36
the local news. If the weatherman predicts a
6:39
massive thunderstorm for Tuesday, and Tuesday arrives
6:42
with clear, sunny skies, we say the prediction was wrong.
6:45
Precisely the fulfillment, or lack thereof, demonstrates
6:48
whether the statement was true or false at the moment it was
6:51
uttered. By trying to redefine what a
6:53
true statement is regarding the future, open theists are
6:56
essentially redefining inerrancy out of existence to protect
7:00
their specific theological framework.
7:02
That is the core danger. When you redefine truth to
7:05
protect a theological novelty, you undermine the entire
7:08
structure of how language functions.
7:11
This leads us directly into the broader spectrum of belief
7:14
regarding biblical dependability.
7:16
People do not just fall into two simple camps on this issue.
7:20
There is a massive gradient. There really is.
7:22
The term inerrancy has been stretched and pulled in so many
7:25
directions over the last century that it means vastly different
7:28
things depending on which theologian you are reading.
7:31
Our source text outlines 7 major conceptions of inerrancy.
7:35
Understanding this spectrum is vital for you so you can
7:38
decipher what a scholar actually means when they claim to believe
7:40
the Bible. Let's walk through those 7.
7:43
The most rigid position on the far end of the spectrum is
7:45
absolute inerrancy, right? This view holds.
7:49
The Bible provides precise exact scientific and historical data.
7:53
It operates on the assumption that the biblical writers
7:56
intended to convey mathematically and
7:57
scientifically precise information, and therefore any
8:01
apparent discrepancy must be given a highly technical
8:03
explanation. A classic example found in the
8:06
text is the description of the molten sea in Two Chronicles,
8:09
chapter 4, verse 2. The text says this large
8:12
circular bronze basin in Solomon's Temple was 10 cubits
8:15
in diameter and 30 cubits in circumference.
8:19
Now, anyone who has taken basic middle school geometry knows
8:21
that the circumference of a circle is its diameter
8:24
multiplied by π, which is roughly 3.14159.
8:28
So a circle with a 10 cubic diameter should have a
8:30
circumference of slightly over 31.4 cubits, not a flat 30.
8:34
And for the absolute inerrantist, this mathematical
8:37
discrepancy is a massive problem that requires A precise
8:40
structural or mathematical explanation to defend the text
8:44
rigid exactness. But demanding that an ancient
8:47
Near Eastern text adhere to post enlightenment mathematical
8:50
precision seems like a recipe for constant frustration.
8:54
That contrasts sharply with the second position on the spectrum,
8:57
which is full inerrancy. Yes, and this happens to be
9:01
Erickson's preferred view. It aligns incredibly well with
9:05
the traditional Reformed understanding.
9:07
Full inerrancy holds that the Bible is completely true in
9:10
everything it affirms, but it recognizes that the scientific
9:13
and historical assertions in the text are phenomenal.
9:16
Phenomenal, meaning they are described based on how they
9:19
appear. Correct events are reported
9:21
precisely as they appear to the human eye, using the popular
9:24
language of the day, which frequently involves rounding
9:27
numbers, approximations, and general references.
9:30
The message is completely true, but it does not demand the
9:32
mathematical exactitude of a modern laboratory.
9:35
It judges the truthfulness of the text by the standards of the
9:38
culture in which it was written, not the standards of 21st
9:41
century scientific journal. And if you move further down the
9:44
spectrum, you see a significant shift where theologians start
9:47
separating theology from science.
9:49
This brings us to the third position, which is limited
9:52
inerrancy. This view restricts the concept
9:55
of inerrancy strictly to salvific doctrines, matters of
9:58
faith, salvation, and spiritual practice.
10:01
Proponents of this view argue that the biblical writers were
10:04
bound by the scientific and historical limitations of their
10:07
primitive era. Therefore, when the writers made
10:10
references to the natural world or empirical history, those
10:13
references might contain flat errors based on ancient
10:16
misunderstandings of cosmology or biology.
10:19
However, proponents argue this does not matter at all because
10:22
the Bible's sole goal is to teach theology, not science or
10:25
history. They try to build a firewall
10:27
between spiritual truth and empirical facts.
10:30
Moving beyond that, we find the fourth position, which is
10:33
inerrancy of purpose. This is a highly pragmatic view.
10:37
It defines truth not as a quality of propositions
10:39
corresponding to reality, but purely as a means to an end.
10:43
The argument here is that the Bible's purpose is to bring
10:46
people into fellowship with Christ.
10:48
Since it successfully accomplishes that pragmatic
10:50
purpose of the lives of believers, it is inerrant in its
10:53
function. Under this view, labeling the
10:55
Bible with factual inerrancy is considered totally inappropriate
10:58
in a category mistake because truth is viewed functionally
11:01
rather than propositionally. But what happens when you start
11:04
believing that the divine message is tangled up with human
11:07
mistakes? That brings us to the fifth
11:09
position accommodated revelation.
11:12
This view posits that divine revelation came through
11:14
fundamentally flawed human channels, and as a result, the
11:18
final product contains a mixture of divine truth and human
11:21
shortcomings. The text provides stark examples
11:24
of this viewpoint to show how far it goes.
11:26
WD Davies, A prominent 20th century scholar, argued that the
11:30
Apostle Paul actually contradicted himself regarding
11:33
the doctrine of the resurrection when you compare his letters of
11:36
First Corinthians 15 and 2nd Corinthians 5.
11:38
Another example is Paul Jewett, who claimed that Paul's
11:41
teachings regarding the status of women in the church were a
11:44
messy mixture of inspired divine revelation and the uninspired
11:48
patriarchal rabbinic training Paul received before his
11:52
conversion on the Damascus Rd. In this view, the reader is
11:55
forced to sift the text constantly to separate the
11:58
divine gold from the human dross, which inevitably makes
12:02
the reader, rather than the text, the final authority.
12:06
The problem with the accommodated Revelation view is
12:08
that you never know which parts are the gold and which parts are
12:11
the dross. It leaves the believer in a
12:13
state of constant theological Vertigo.
12:15
That sounds exhausting and it leads to the 6th position which
12:19
is non propositional revelation. This view is heavily influenced
12:22
by 20th century existential philosophy and echoes the neo
12:26
orthodoxy of theologians like Karl Barth.
12:28
It maintains that the Bible itself is not revelation at all.
12:31
Rather, the Bible is seen as a collection of human documents
12:34
that simply point the reader toward a personal, existential
12:37
encounter with the living God. According to this view, only
12:41
concrete propositions can be true or false.
12:44
And since the Bible is seen as a functional pointer rather than a
12:46
set of divine propositions, the categories of truth and error do
12:50
not even apply to the text. The historical errors in the
12:54
Bible are simply the flawed words of Isaiah or Paul which
12:57
supposedly do not hinder the books ability to facilitate a
13:00
spiritual, subjective encounter with the divine.
13:03
Finally, the seventh position on the spectrum is inerrancy as
13:06
irrelevant. This view argues that the very
13:09
term inerrancy is inherently negative, unbiblical, and
13:12
actively harmful to the church. Proponents suggest that
13:15
obsessing over the texts error free nature distracts believers
13:18
from the true spiritual message of relationship with God and
13:21
loving one's neighbor. Furthermore, they argue, it
13:23
severely inhibits honest academic research.
13:26
If a biblical exegete is bound beforehand to the premise that
13:30
the text cannot contain an error, they're not at liberty to
13:33
follow the historical or archaeological evidence wherever
13:36
it leads. This view sees inerrancy as an
13:39
artificial philosophical burden imposed on the text by modern
13:43
conservative theology, creating unnecessary disunity within the
13:47
broader academic and ecclesiastical world.
13:50
Having laid out that massive 7 point spectrum, we need to pause
13:54
and ask a highly practical question.
13:56
Why does this matter so much to you, the listener who might be
13:58
driving to work or folding laundry right now?
14:01
Why should you care about the precise academic definition of
14:04
this doctrine? The text breaks the significance
14:06
down into three major categories, theological,
14:09
historical and epistemological. Let's start with a theological
14:13
weight which is massive. When you look at how Jesus and
14:15
the apostles treated the Old Testament, you see them hanging
14:18
massive eternity altering doctrinal arguments on minor,
14:22
incredibly specific details of scripture.
14:25
Yes, sometimes they build an entire argument on the tense of
14:28
a single verb or the singularity of a specific noun.
14:32
They clearly treated the text as completely authoritative and
14:35
Florida State accurate in all its particulars.
14:37
They did not treat it like a mixture of divine gold and human
14:40
dross. They treated it as the very
14:43
speech of God. And connecting that theological
14:46
weight to the nature of God himself is a cornerstone of
14:48
Reformed thought. If we start with the premise
14:52
that God is omniscient, meaning he knows all things perfectly
14:55
across all of time and space, he cannot possibly be ignorant of
14:58
any historical or scientific fact.
15:00
If we add that God is omnipotent, meaning He has the
15:03
capability to sovereignly guide the human writers of Scripture
15:06
without violating their personalities, then He is able
15:08
to ensure that no erroneous material enters the final
15:11
product. Finally, if we confess that God
15:14
is entirely truthful and cannot lie, it logically follows that
15:17
He would desire to give His people a fully truthful
15:20
revelation. Therefore, a fully truthful
15:22
Bible is the necessary logical corollary of a sovereign, all
15:26
knowing and truthful God. Beyond that theological logic,
15:30
there's a massive historical lineage to this belief.
15:32
The source text points out that the historic Orthodox Church has
15:36
maintained the complete dependability of Scripture for
15:39
two millennia. While the precise technical term
15:42
inerrancy might be a linguistic development of the post
15:45
Enlightenment era, the underlying concept is ancient.
15:49
We see this explicitly in the writings of the Church Fathers
15:52
and the Reformers. Right.
15:53
Augustine famously wrote to Jerome that if he encountered
15:56
something in Scripture that seemed opposed to truth, he
15:59
would assume one of three things the manuscript copy he was
16:03
reading was faulty, the translator made an error in the
16:05
Latin, or he himself had failed to understand the passage.
16:09
He never assumed the original prophet or apostle made a
16:12
mistake. The quotes from the reformers in
16:14
our source material are equally striking and resonate heavily
16:17
with anyone who holds to Reformed theology.
16:19
Martin Luther stated unequivocally that Scripture
16:22
cannot contradict itself except at the hands of senseless and
16:25
hardened hypocrites. He believed that natural reason
16:28
frequently produces heresy, but faith clings to the Scriptures
16:31
which do not deceive. John Calvin, writing extensively
16:35
on the human tendency to fall into deception and idle making,
16:38
noted that errors are only uprooted from human hearts when
16:41
the true knowledge of God is planted by Scripture.
16:44
The clear implication from Calvin is that if Scripture is
16:47
the divine tool used by the Holy Spirit to cure human error, the
16:50
tool itself must be entirely free from error.
16:54
The text traces a very sobering historical trajectory regarding
16:57
this When a theological movement, a denomination, or an
17:01
academic institution abandons the total dependability of the
17:04
Bible, treating it as an optional or peripheral matter,
17:07
that movement almost inevitably goes on to alter or abandoned
17:11
major central doctrines of the Christian faith.
17:14
It rarely stops with acknowledging a minor historical
17:17
error in the Book of Kings. It usually progresses to
17:19
questioning the bodily resurrection, the necessity of
17:22
the penal substitutionary atonement, the doctrine of the
17:24
Trinity, or the exclusive deity of Christ.
17:27
The erosion of biblical authority consistently acts as a
17:30
catalyst for widespread theological collapse.
17:32
That tragic historical trajectory brings us to the
17:35
epistemological question, which is perhaps the most practical
17:38
aspect of this entire debate for you as an individual believer.
17:42
Epistemology is simply the study of how we know what we know.
17:46
The core question regarding the Bible is this false in one
17:49
uncertain and all. To illustrate this concept, the
17:52
source text provides a brilliant analogy regarding an esoteric
17:55
lecture. I want you to imagine you are
17:57
sitting in a massive university lecture hall listening to a
18:00
world renowned expert speak on a highly complex, unverifiable
18:04
subject. Perhaps he is lecturing on the
18:06
mathematical intricacies of string theory, or maybe the
18:10
metaphysical nature of angelic beings.
18:12
You lack the technical expertise to evaluate his claims, so
18:15
you're taking his word for it, trusting his authority.
18:18
But suddenly, halfway through the lecture, for 5 minutes, the
18:21
speaker transitions and starts talking about the history and
18:24
geography of your own hometown. As he speaks, he makes glaring,
18:27
obvious factual errors about the layout of the streets, the names
18:31
of the local rivers, and the dates of highly publicized local
18:34
events. What happens to your perception
18:36
of that speaker? Your trust is completely
18:38
shattered if he is demonstrably false.
18:42
Regarding the mundane facts you can personally verify.
18:45
You will immediately and logically doubt his grand claims
18:48
regarding the esoteric subjects, you cannot verify.
18:51
This applies directly to how we approach theology.
18:55
The Bible makes historical, geographical, and cultural
18:58
claims that we can investigate through archaeology and history.
19:01
It also makes transcendent claims about the nature of the
19:04
atonement, the hypostatic union of crisis, 2 natures, and the
19:08
final judgment, things we cannot empirically verify in a
19:11
laboratory. If the historical and empirical
19:14
facts in the Bible are proven false, on what logical basis do
19:17
we continue to trust its transcendent claims?
19:20
That is the crux of the issue. If you conclude that the Bible
19:23
is wrong about history or science, you can no longer
19:25
believe it's theological statements simply because the
19:28
Bible says so. You have entirely abrogated the
19:30
principle that the text is inherently trustworthy.
19:34
You might still hold a certain Christian doctrines because you
19:36
like them or find them comforting, but you will have to
19:38
find a completely new foundation for them.
19:40
Our text notes how alternative theologians have attempted to
19:43
find new basis for doctrine. Karl Barth tried to base
19:46
doctrine on a direct personal encounter with the presence of
19:49
God by passing the objective text.
19:52
Wolfart Panenberg sought to base theology on sophisticated modern
19:56
methods of historical investigation.
19:58
Others look to modern psychology or the philosophy of religion to
20:02
validate their faith. But the result of seeking a new
20:05
basis is almost always the same. The list of core Christian
20:09
tenets shrinks drastically. It is incredibly difficult to
20:13
sustain a robust belief in the Trinity, the virgin birth, or
20:16
the physical resurrection based solely on human philosophy or
20:20
behavioral sciences. However, asserting the complete
20:23
truthfulness of the Bible means we have to face the elephant in
20:26
the room, which is the actual difficult phenomena of
20:29
Scripture. We cannot hide from the hard
20:31
questions or pretend discrepancies do not exist.
20:33
The text lists several specific textual problems that critics
20:36
frequently raised, demonstrating that faithful scholarship does
20:39
not stick its head in the sand. The examples provided in the
20:42
text are excellent representations of the genuine
20:44
challenges biblical scholars face.
20:47
There was an apparent contradiction regarding the
20:49
specific instructions Jesus gave the disciples when sending them
20:53
out. In Mark 6 verse 8, Jesus tells
20:56
them to take a staff for their journey, but in the parallel
20:59
accounts in Matthew and Luke, he explicitly instructs them not to
21:02
take a staff. Then there are massive
21:04
chronological issues in Acts 7, verse 6.
21:07
While giving his sweeping historical defense before the
21:10
Sanhedrin, Stephen claims the Israelites were enslaved in
21:13
Egypt for 400 years. However, the Book of Exodus
21:16
provides a different chronological timeline.
21:18
There are severe problems with numbers in the Old Testament.
21:21
Two Samuel 10, verse 18 records that David killed 700 Aramean
21:24
charioteers, but the parallel account of First Chronicles 19
21:28
verse 18 says he killed 7000 cherry tears.
21:30
There are even severe ethical and theological discrepancies to
21:35
Samuel 24. Verse one states that the Lord's
21:38
anger burned against Israel and he incited David to take a
21:41
census. But the parallel account in
21:43
First Chronicles 21, verse one states that Satan rose up
21:46
against Israel and incited David to take that very same census.
21:49
These are not minor typos. They are substantial textual
21:52
phenomena that require a thoughtful, rigorous response
21:55
from anyone claiming the text is an errant.
21:57
How do conservative Bible believing theologians handle
22:00
these phenomena? The text breaks down 5 distinct
22:03
strategies for resolution. Let's walk through those five
22:06
strategies so you can see how theologians wrestle with these
22:09
issues. The 1st is the abstract
22:11
approach, heavily associated with the great Princeton
22:13
theologian BB Warfield. Warfield focused almost entirely
22:17
on the massive doctrinal weight of inspiration.
22:19
He really acknowledged the discrepancies we just mentioned,
22:22
but he treated them as mere difficulties that have not yet
22:25
been solved, rather than actual proven errors.
22:28
His stance was that the overwhelming weight of biblical
22:31
and theological evidence proving the divine inspiration of
22:34
Scripture is so massive and comprehensive that a handful of
22:38
chronological or numerical difficulties cannot possibly
22:42
overthrow the doctrine. The second strategy is the
22:45
harmonistic approach championed by scholars like Louis Gosson
22:48
and Edward J Young. This approach is highly
22:51
proactive and aggressive. It attempts to resolve every
22:54
single discrepancy using currently available data, often
22:57
requiring intense intellectual effort to make the pieces fit
23:00
perfectly together. The text provides A fascinating
23:03
example of this approach regarding the death of Judas
23:05
Iscariot. We have a famous glaring
23:07
discrepancy here. Matthew 27 states that Judas
23:10
felt remorse, threw the pieces of silver into the temple
23:13
sanctuary, went away, and committed suicide by hanging
23:16
himself. However, Acts One gives a
23:18
seemingly entirely different account, stating that Judas
23:21
bought a field, fell headlong, his body burst open and all his
23:25
intestines spilled out. To resolve that specific
23:27
discrepancy, Gasson offers an elaborate analogy, which the
23:30
text refers to as the Lions suicide.
23:34
Gasson tells a detailed story of a man in the French city of Lyon
23:37
who decided to commit suicide to ensure his own death.
23:41
The man sat on a narrow ledge outside a fourth story window
23:44
and fired a pistol directly into his mouth.
23:47
The sheer force of the gunshot caused him to lose his balance
23:50
and fall from the window to the cobblestone St. below.
23:53
Gus and points out that three different eyewitnesses could
23:55
give 3 entirely different yet completely truthful accounts of
23:59
the man's death. Witness A, standing in the room
24:02
could say the man died from a self-inflicted gunshot.
24:04
Witness B, standing on the street could say he died from a
24:07
massive 4 story fall. Witness C An investigator
24:10
compiling the facts, say it was a combination of both events.
24:13
Applying this elaborate logic to Judas, Gaussen speculates that
24:17
Judas went to hang himself, perhaps on a frail branch
24:20
overhanging a steep Cliff in the Potter's field.
24:23
He secured the rope around his neck, but the rope snapped under
24:26
his weight or the branch broke, causing him to fall headlong
24:29
onto the jagged rocks below, resulting in the gruesome scene
24:33
described by Peter and Axe. Another famous example of this
24:36
harmonistic approach is Harold Lindsill's solution to the
24:39
molten sea math problem we discussed earlier.
24:42
To solve the discrepancy with π, Lindsell suggested that the 10
24:46
cubic diameter was measured from the outer rim of the bronze
24:49
basin, while the 30 cubits circumference was measured along
24:52
the inner rim, accounting for the massive thickness of the
24:54
cast bronze and making the geometry work perfectly.
24:58
Those harmonistic solutions show an incredible degree of
25:00
creativity, but they bring us to the third strategy, which is
25:03
moderate harmonization. This is the approach advocated
25:07
by Everett Harrison, and it is the view Ericsson personally
25:10
endorses in the text. This view attempts to resolve
25:13
discrepancies where a reasonable, natural solution is
25:16
readily available from the text or known history.
25:19
But where a solution requires incredible mental gymnastics,
25:22
highly speculative storytelling, or forced artificiality, this
25:27
view advocates absolute patience.
25:30
It advises waiting for future archaeological discoveries,
25:33
further manuscript evidence, or advancements in ancient language
25:37
studies to provide the missing pieces of the puzzle.
25:39
The 4th strategy is the accurate reproduction approach proposed
25:43
as a possibility by Edward Carnell.
25:45
This view suggests that the doctrine of inspiration only
25:48
guarantees the accurate recording of the source material
25:51
of the biblical writer used. For example, if the author of
25:54
Chronicles was using ancient state archives to write the
25:56
history of the kings, and those human archives can paint an
25:59
error regarding the number of Chariots in a battle, the Holy
26:02
Spirit ensured that the Chronicler copied the erroneous
26:05
source with perfect, flawless accuracy.
26:08
The text notes we already accept this principle in certain areas.
26:12
The Bible accurately records the lies of Satan in the garden, and
26:15
it accurately records the fool saying in the Psalms there is no
26:19
God. The statement is recorded
26:21
perfectly by the author, even though the content of the
26:23
statement is entirely false. The 5th and final strategy is
26:27
simply acknowledging that the Bible airs.
26:29
This view, represented by scholars like Dewey.
26:31
Beagle argues that conservative scholars need to stop forcing
26:35
unnatural, speculative solutions onto the text.
26:39
Beagle asserts that we must acknowledge genuine, insoluble
26:42
errors in the Bible regarding history, geography, and science.
26:46
Consequently, he argues, we must drop the traditional concept of
26:49
verbal inspiration, which is the idea that the Holy Spirit guided
26:52
the very choice of words by the human authors, and construct a
26:55
completely new doctrine of inspiration that accommodates
26:58
these obvious factual errors. Now the text offers a sharp
27:02
critique of these various strategies.
27:04
It points out that while the harmonistic approach of Gossen
27:07
and Lynn Cell comes from a place of deep reverence for the
27:10
biblical text, forcing contrived artificial solutions can
27:13
actually harm the Bibles believability in the eyes of
27:16
skeptics. When you ask a skeptical
27:18
Inquirer to accept a highly speculative story about a
27:21
snapping rope in a Cliff to harmonize the Judas accounts,
27:25
you risk making the entire doctrine of inerrancy look
27:27
foolish and desperate. Therefore, the text advocates
27:31
strongly for Harrison's moderate harmonization.
27:34
It is a posture of intellectual humility.
27:37
It says we do not currently have all the answers to every single
27:40
discrepancy, and that is intellectually OK.
27:42
We will wait for more data. But to hold that humble position
27:45
effectively without sliding into liberalism, we need to define
27:48
inerrancy with absolute precision.
27:50
We need to establish the rules of interpretation.
27:53
But here is the danger. If we say let's wait for more
27:56
data or let's look at cultural context, does that open the door
28:00
to just explaining away any error?
28:02
If David says 700 and Chronicle says 7000, how do we know when
28:07
it is an ancient cultural nuance versus just a flat out mistake?
28:10
We have to have rules for this, right?
28:12
That brings us to Section 5, defining inerrancy with
28:16
precision. The first rule the text
28:18
establishes is distinguishing between assertions and reports.
28:21
We touched on this with Carnell's view, but it requires
28:24
deeper explanation for clarity. The Bible frequently reports
28:27
statements made by ungodly people or even godly people
28:30
speaking outside the bounds of divine inspiration.
28:33
When Stephen gives his sweeping historical speech before the
28:36
Sanhedrin in Acts 7, he is filled with the Holy Spirit.
28:39
But that does not mean every single historical detail he
28:41
utters in that speech is verbally inspired by God.
28:44
The Bible perfectly and inherently reports what Stephen
28:47
said, including his claim of 400 years in Egypt.
28:50
But the Bible reporting Stephens words does not mean the Bible
28:52
affirms his chronology over the original Exodus account.
28:56
The same principle applies when the biblical writer Jude quotes
28:59
from non canonical apocryphal books like the Book of Enoch or
29:02
the Assumption of Moses. The fact that Jude quotes them
29:05
does not mean the Bible affirms those apocryphal books as
29:08
inspired or free from error. It simply means Jude utilize A
29:12
cultural reference familiar to his 1st century readers to make
29:15
a specific theological point about false teachers.
29:18
This leads directly into the complex concept of authorial
29:22
intention, which is heavily debated in hermeneutics.
29:25
The text uses a wonderful example regarding Jesus's
29:28
teaching in Matthew 10 verse 29, where he says that not one
29:32
Sparrow falls to the ground apart from the Father's will.
29:35
The central intention of Jesus's teaching was obviously not to
29:38
give an ornithological lecture on the lifespan of biology of
29:41
birds. His intention was to teach about
29:43
God's intimate providential care for his human children.
29:46
However, and this is a crucial distinction that must be
29:48
maintained, even though his primary intention was about
29:51
humans, the statement factually affirms God's providential care
29:54
for sparrows. The truth of the human
29:56
application is entirely dependent upon the factual truth
29:59
of the illustration. We cannot dismiss the factual
30:02
claims of a biblical text simply by claiming the author's primary
30:05
intention was theological rather than historical.
30:09
Furthermore, we must judge the truthfulness of Scripture within
30:11
its own cultural context and standards of exactness.
30:15
We cannot impose modern post Enlightenment standards of
30:18
quotation and precision on to ancient Near Eastern texts.
30:22
In ancient cultures, standards for quoting someone were much
30:25
looser. Summarizing the essence of a
30:27
speech in your own words was considered entirely accurate.
30:30
Numbers were frequently used symbolically to represent
30:33
completeness or magnitude, rather than strictly
30:35
mathematically. Broad terms were common.
30:38
For instance, the word son could mean an immediate child, a
30:40
grandson, or a distant descendant centuries later, like
30:43
calling Jesus the son of David. To illustrate this vital concept
30:47
of cultural exactness, the text provides 2 highly relatable
30:51
analogies that really bring this home.
30:53
The 1st is the military document analogy.
30:57
Imagine a massive ancient battle took place and precisely 9476
31:02
soldiers participated in the combat.
31:04
If the commanding officer is submitting an official formal
31:07
roster to the king to check for deserters and calculate wages,
31:11
the number must be precisely 9476 for the document to be
31:15
considered true. But if a historian is writing a
31:18
general narrative of the war a decade later to convey the sheer
31:21
scale of the conflict to the public, stating that 10,000 men
31:25
fought bravely is considered fully true and accurate
31:27
according to the conventions of historical writing.
31:30
The specific purpose of the writing determines the required
31:32
level of specificity. The second analogy involves an
31:35
IRS audit. Let's say your actual precise
31:37
gross income last year down to the penny was $80,154.78.
31:42
If you're having coffee with a friend and they ask how much you
31:44
make and you reply I make $80,000 you the truth.
31:47
In context to casual conversation, that approximation
31:50
is entirely accurate and honest. However, if you were sitting
31:53
across a metal desk from a federal IRS agent during an
31:56
official tax audit and you claim your income is a flat $80,000,
32:01
you have made a false statement under penalty of perjury.
32:04
The setting, the audience, and the purpose completely dictate
32:08
the standard of truthfulness. And applying those analogies
32:11
perfectly highlights why we must read the Bible according to the
32:14
literary conventions of its specific time and place.
32:17
This also applies to the use of phenomenal language, which we
32:20
mentioned earlier. Regarding the full inerrancy
32:21
view, the biblical writers constantly describe the world as
32:25
it appears to the naked human eye.
32:27
The text uses the fantastic example of a modern
32:30
meteorologist on television predicting a sunrise for six
32:33
point 15 AM. From a strictly technical
32:36
astronomical standpoint, the sun never rises.
32:39
The Earth rotates on its axis, bringing the sun into the
32:42
viewers horizon. Copernicus proved this
32:44
astronomical fact centuries ago. Yet absolutely no one accuses
32:48
the meteorologist of lying, spreading falsehoods, or being
32:51
an error. Sunrise is an accepted universal
32:55
idiom. It is entirely true within its
32:57
commutative context. In the exact same way, when the
33:00
Bible describes the sun standing still in the days of Joshua, or
33:03
the iron axe head floating for Elijah, it is reporting the
33:06
phenomena precisely as it was observed by the Witnesses.
33:10
It is not attempting to provide a peer reviewed scientific
33:13
explanation of the gravitational, astronomical, or
33:15
buoyant mechanics involved. When we grasp this concept of
33:19
phenomenal language, many of the alleged scientific errors in the
33:22
Bible completely vanish. There are simply ancient writers
33:25
using phenomenal language to describe their world accurately
33:29
as they saw it. And when we combine this
33:31
understanding of cultural context with the moderate
33:34
harmonization approach, that willingness to humbly wait for
33:37
more data, we see incredible vindication for the biblical
33:40
text. Over time, the source material
33:42
revisits the problem of Jesus's death to show the massive payoff
33:45
of this patient approach. For centuries, scholars wrestled
33:48
with the account in Acts One, verse 18, where the Greek word
33:52
pronies was translated exclusively as falling headlong.
33:56
This created the massive friction with Matthew's account
33:59
of hanging, leading to elaborate, desperate theories
34:02
like Gaussen's snapping rope over the Cliff.
34:05
But the text reveals A fascinating 20th century
34:08
discovery that changes everything.
34:10
As scholars excavated and translated ancient Koine Greek
34:13
papyri, everyday documents, tax receipts and personal letters
34:16
from the ancient Mediterranean world, they discovered that the
34:19
word preynaz possessed another medical meaning in the common
34:22
language of the day. It also meant swelling up.
34:25
That specific linguistic discovery changes the entire
34:27
landscape of the discrepancy. With this new historical data, a
34:31
completely natural biological resolution emerges without any
34:34
artificial mental gymnastics or snapping ropes.
34:37
If Judas hanged himself in a secluded area, as Matthew
34:40
states, his body may not have been discovered immediately.
34:43
In the extreme heat of the Middle Eastern climate, a
34:46
decomposing cadaver undergoes rapid putrefaction.
34:50
The visceral organs breakdown rapidly, generating large
34:53
amounts of internal gases that cause the abdomen to bloat and
34:56
swell severely. Therefore, it is entirely
35:00
biologically plausible that the body, hanging in the extreme
35:03
heat for days, swelled up and eventually burst open, spilling
35:07
the intestines precisely as described in Acts.
35:10
Matthew records the specific method of the suicide.
35:13
Acts vividly describes the horrific biological aftermath of
35:17
the undiscovered body. The tension is completely
35:19
resolved not by forcing A contrived narrative onto the
35:22
text, but by a deeper, more accurate understanding of the
35:25
original Greek language discovered through patient
35:28
archaeological and linguistic research.
35:30
This demonstrates perfectly why the Bible Airs approach is
35:32
premature and often arrogant. What appears to be an error to
35:35
modernize is frequently just a gap in our current historical or
35:39
linguistic knowledge. That is a phenomenal example of
35:41
how waiting for data pays off and vindicates the text.
35:45
But as we move into the final section of our deep dive, we
35:48
have to address the philosophical underpinnings of
35:50
the modern academic world, which is increasingly hostile to the
35:54
very concept of inerrancy. The text digs into the
35:58
postmodern objection to foundationalism.
36:00
For those unfamiliar with the term, foundationalism is a
36:03
concept in epistemology which argues that our complex webs of
36:07
belief must rest upon a solid foundation of basic, indubitable
36:11
beliefs. In historic Christian theology,
36:14
the core bedrock belief is that Scripture is the authoritative,
36:17
completely true Word of God. The postmodern academic critique
36:21
attacks this idea aggressively. Postmodernists argue that the
36:25
quest for absolute, unshakable foundations is a fool's errand,
36:28
born out of Enlightenment thinking and Cartesian anxiety,
36:31
That is, the desperate psychological need for absolute
36:34
mathematical certainty proposed by the philosopher Renee
36:37
Descartes. Postmodernist claim that because
36:39
human language and human perception are inherently
36:41
subjective and culturally conditioned, claiming an errant
36:43
foundation is not only arrogant but philosophically untenable.
36:47
The source text provides a very sharp, necessary defense against
36:50
this postmodern critique. It points out that the critics
36:53
are frequently attacking a massive straw man.
36:55
They are attacking classical foundationalism, which demands
36:59
absolute, mathematical, indubitable certainty for its
37:02
foundational premises, the kind of certainty where you cannot
37:04
even conceive of being wrong. But the text argues that most
37:08
thoughtful theologians operate on modest or soft
37:11
foundationalism. This nuanced view, supported by
37:14
modern philosophers like Robert Audi and William Alston,
37:18
acknowledges that our core beliefs might theoretically be
37:20
subject to refutation. We are finite human beings.
37:24
We do not possess omniscient God like certainty.
37:27
However, a foundation does not need to be impervious to every
37:30
conceivable theoretical attack in order to function as a solid
37:33
rational bedrock for faith. As Audi notes, we need solid
37:37
ground to stand on, even if we do not possess luminous,
37:40
self-evident mathematical certainty about every grain of
37:43
dirt under our feet. Believing in the inerrancy of
37:46
Scripture is a rationally justified foundation for
37:48
constructing A worldview backed by historical evidence in the
37:52
testimony of the Holy Spirit. Even if we acknowledge the
37:55
theoretical possibility of human misunderstanding, we simply do
37:59
not need Cartesian certainty to possess confident, rational
38:03
faith in the dependability of God's Word.
38:05
But this raises A crucial question.
38:07
If we do not need absolute mathematical certainty, how do
38:11
we define an actual error? If we stretch the definition of
38:15
ancient language too far to accommodate difficulties, do the
38:18
words eventually lose all meaning?
38:21
Some theologians try to protect the Bible from scientific
38:23
critique by saying, well, it is not an error because ancient
38:26
literature allowed for massive mythologizing of historical
38:29
events, so they didn't really mean it happened.
38:31
The text insists we must maintain fixed logical limits.
38:35
If a belief has any actual meaning, we must be able to
38:38
state what specific evidence would theoretically falsify it.
38:41
If Jesus did not historically physically die on the Roman
38:45
cross, if the walls of Jericho did not actually fall down in
38:48
space and time, if the Israelites did not literally
38:51
depart from bondage in Egypt, then the Bible is fundamentally
38:54
an error. We cannot retreat into a hyper
38:57
spiritualized defense where historical claims do not matter
39:00
as long as the spiritual lesson is nice.
39:03
There must be a hard boundary between truthful statements and
39:06
false propositions, or else theology collapses into mere
39:09
poetry. Absolutely.
39:11
The final major objection the text addresses is the highly
39:14
publicized issue of the original autographs.
39:16
Skeptics and critics frequently mock the doctrine of an errancy
39:19
by pointing out that no one on earth actually possesses the
39:22
original inspired manuscripts, the literal parchment penned by
39:26
the Apostle Paul or the prophet Isaiah.
39:28
All we have in our museums and libraries are copies of copies
39:31
of copies. Therefore, they argue, claiming
39:34
an errancy for non existent documents is a useless, cowardly
39:37
theological subterfuge. The text counters this
39:40
beautifully, using a point made by the brilliant 20th century
39:42
theologian Karl Henry. When faced with this objection,
39:45
Henry simply replied No one has seen the errant originals
39:49
either. It is a devastatingly simple
39:51
retort. The physical absence of the
39:53
autographs does not logically prove they contained errors.
39:56
Furthermore, the text clarifies the concept of derivative
39:59
inerrancy. We believe the copies and
40:02
translations we hold in our hands today are the Word of God
40:05
to the degree that they accurately preserve the original
40:08
message. While the miraculous act of
40:10
inspiration applied exclusively to the original authors, not to
40:14
the subsequent scribes or modern English translators, the science
40:17
of textual criticism demonstrates that the
40:19
transmission of the text has been remarkably historically
40:22
secure. The manuscript variations are
40:25
minor, mostly spelling differences, and do not affect
40:27
any major doctrine. Therefore, we can hold our
40:30
modern translations with immense confidence, knowing they
40:32
faithfully transmit the inherent message of the original
40:35
autographs. This has been a massive
40:37
undertaking, but a vital one for anyone serious about their faith
40:42
to synthesize everything we have covered, viewing inerrant see
40:45
through a proper cultural and contextual lens, understanding
40:48
phenomenal language, ancient standards of measurement, and
40:51
the specific purpose of the authors demonstrates that the
40:53
Bible is a fully dependable guide for truth.
40:56
It is not a textbook of modern quantum mechanics, but it is the
41:00
perfect, reliable revelation of the Sovereign God, completely
41:03
truthful in all that it affirms. Before we sign off, we want to
41:06
leave you with a final thought to Mull over, building upon
41:09
everything we have discussed regarding the transmission and
41:12
preservation of this text. Think about this.
41:14
If God was meticulous enough to preserve the theological and
41:18
historical integrity of Scripture through millennia of
41:21
manual transmission, through violent cultural shifts, and
41:24
through the most intense academic scrutiny in human
41:26
history, how does that change the way you rely on those very
41:30
same pages when you are facing moments of intense personal
41:33
doubt, anxiety, or crisis? If the historical and
41:37
theological foundation is that spectacularly secure, how much
41:41
more secure is it when applied to your personal life and
41:43
salvation? A heavy question to end on.
41:46
Thank you for joining us for this deep dive.
41:48
We appreciate your time and we hope this session has sharpened
41:50
your mind and strengthened your grasp on the dependability of
41:53
God's Word. This is Reformed thinking and we
41:55
look forward to having you with us next time.