Biblical Inerrancy: Pt. 7 Truth

The Bible’s Truthfulness and the Meaning of Inerrancy

To go here. We're looking at part seven of our series into explaining inerrancy, and this is the Bible in truth. Just reviewing 19 articles, 1 and 2, Bible and authority, up to 5, Bible and revelation, up to article 8, the Bible and inspiration, and then most recently we just completed up through article 12, the Bible and inerrancy, and tonight we start, well we will address the Bible and truth, and then the last one will be the Bible and you.

Alright, so we'll start with, we're doing three affirmations and denials. Truth, we affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of scripture.

I just want to highlight a couple things, we'll talk about them more in depth, but inerrancy is a theological term. I don't know if I, I think I might have said this earlier in one of the previous sessions, but there's a difference between how words can be used in everyday life and how they are used when it comes to scripture or theology.

So, when we talk about inerrancy, you have to look at it in terms of what does it mean theologically, not necessarily what does the dictionary definition of the word mean, although the two are very closely related.

Alright, it's a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of scripture. Alright, we deny that it is proper to evaluate scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose.

We further deny that inerrancy is negated by biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

A lot on the denials, alright. We deny it's proper to evaluate scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. This is getting back to the point that the terms that we use to describe it and how do we evaluate the truthfulness of scripture has to be consistent with the Bible itself and not necessarily some arbitrary standard of truth that may not line up with what the word of God says.

And then they give us, the council gave us just a smattering of examples of which will not negate truthfulness, a lack of modern technical precision. We'll look at these later. Irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, false reporting of falsehoods, not falsehoods, the difference, use of hyperbole, round numbers, topical arrangement, variant selections in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

Okay. With the combination of the affirmation and denial, Article 13, regarding the term inerrancy, it may seem to some that in view of all the qualifications that elicit in the denial, this word is no longer a useful or appropriate term to use with respect to the Bible.

Some have said that it has suffered the death of a thousand qualifications. All right. And you can understand that. There's so many qualifications that that's what they say. Well, you know, you qualify this thing so many times that the word isn't even useful anymore.

The council rejected that notion and stated that the same could be said of the word God. Now, just think about it. When you talk about the God of the Bible, you have to make a lot of qualifications as opposed to a false god in terms of somebody who, a god of man's own imagination.

So, just think of all the characteristics and the attributes of God that we go through. And if you don't go through all of that and understand all of those attributes of God, you're going to come up with the wrong idea of who God is.

Same thing is true of the word inerrancy. If you don't define inerrancy properly, it's not going to be useful when we come to talking about the inerrancy of Scripture. So, again, when you see the quotations and the italics, that means this is a direct quotation.

Such qualifications do not negate the value of the word, but only serve to sharpen its precision and usefulness. You get the difference. They're taking the criticism that is thrown at us and saying, no, that's not a criticism.

It's actually a benefit that we do qualify the word inerrancy in as many ways as we do. It's important to note that the word inerrancy is called a theological term. It is an appropriate theological term to refer to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.

That's basically what is being asserted with the term inerrancy, that the Bible is completely true, that all of its affirmations and denials correspond with reality. In other words, they're not coming to the truthfulness of it with some foreign definition of truth.

But the theological terms other than inerrancy are frequently in need of qualification and cannot be taken in a crass literal sense, and they point out the term omnipotence is a perfect example of that.

You may have heard me, I've used this illustration before, but in college philosophy professors love to pick on Christians. They get a new Christian into their classroom, and they'll ask the question, so you're a Christian?

Yes. And you believe that God is omnipotent? Yes. That means God can do anything, right? Yes. And all right, can God create a rock bigger than he can lift? And the poor Christian, you know, who has not been taught sits there, and they don't know how to answer, because if they answer one way, well, then he's not omnipotent.

If they answer another way, well, then he's not omnipotent, okay? And of course, the answer is omnipotent doesn't mean that God can do anything. The theological definition of omnipotence is that God has all power in his control, all right?

There's a big difference. So, can he create a rock bigger than he can lift? No, because then he'd be creating something that is greater than he himself. And so, the answer is no, but you have to define your terms.

I mean, how many times have you heard that from who's ever up here teaching? You have to define your terms, and that's why we don't settle for somebody else's definition of inerrancy, or truth, or omnipotence, or even of who God is.

Omnipotence is the perfect example. Some people have suggested removing the term inerrancy from the church's vocabulary because it must be qualified. However, the qualifications of the term are not new, nor are they particularly cumbersome, and the word serves as an appropriate safeguard from those who would attack the truthfulness of Scripture in subtle ways, and we've seen that even in the neo-orthodoxy and the liberals of today.

They will say many statements, oh yes, we believe in the authority of the Bible, we believe the Bible is the word of God, but then they actually denigrate it by using terms that are different, where they've defined them different.

They'll just define inerrancy in a different way. When we speak of inerrancy, then we are speaking of the fact that the Bible does not violate its own principles of truth, which is important. This does not mean that the Bible is free from grammatical irregularities or the like, but that it does not contain assertions which are in conflict with objective reality.

Grammatical irregularities, how can something have grammatical irregularities and still be inerrant? Well, because, very simply, because with the various translations and even the different dialects of a language, there can be grammatical and even spelling irregularities from one translation to another, or even from one copy to even within the same language.

I mean, just look at our language and think of how many different terms can be used in different regions that mean something completely different. I mean, even in our English, we find that. Or just think of how the things have terms.

Here's a perfect example. The 1890s, anybody know what they were called with that period? The gay 90s. How about the 1990s? We could call them the gay 90s. But two completely different meanings of the word gay.

So we see that it means, or even a better one, in the very original King James version of the Bible, now abide these three, faith, hope, and charity. Does charity mean the same thing to us as it did to the King James speakers?

No. The men love. So we can have grammatical irregularities as long as it doesn't contain assertions which are in conflict with objective reality. The first denial that the Bible ought to be evaluated according to standards of truth and error alien to its own purposes indicates that it would be inappropriate to evaluate the Bible's internal consistency with its own truth claims by standards foreign to the Bible's own view of truth.

Okay? When we say the truthfulness of Scripture ought to be evaluated according to its own standards, that means that for the Scripture to be true, its claims must have an internal consistency compatible with the biblical concept of truth, and that all claims of the Bible must correspond with reality whether that reality is historical, factual, or spiritual.

All right. Now that, you can see how that gets rather comprehensive, and far from trying to limit the accuracy of the Bible, the confession or the statement that these, the council came out with, actually is very inclusive and expands the idea.

The second denial gives a list of qualifications that is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather illustrative of the type of considerations which must be kept in mind when one seeks to define the word inerrancy, such as modern technical precision.

All right. Just take that for a minute. We know that with modern technical precision, we can measure distances, time, and such with tremendous accuracy. Just because the Bible, in the Bible days, they didn't have that same type of accuracy, doesn't negate the truth of what they had to say.

You follow? Does that make sense? Okay. All right. Irregularities of grammar and spelling, I think I already covered that. Observational descriptions of nature. There are critics of the Bible who say, well, the Bible talks about the sun rising, and we know that that's technically not correct, because we know that the earth is really revolving around the sun, etc.

No. When you turn on your evening news, and the newscaster is sitting there with all of his computer graphics around him and all of his computers, how is he going to describe when the sun breaks the horizon in the morning?

He's going to say, sunrise is, right, and sunset is. We use that same terminology today that they use in biblical times, even though technically we know the sun isn't really rising, but it's an observation of nature, and there's nothing wrong with that, because it enhances language.

But imagine trying to, how would you describe sunrise without using that word? Think of how many words you'd have to put together. Tomorrow morning, when the light comes up and the sun starts to break over the top of the horizon, not that that sun is rising itself, we understand, it would be foolish.

The reporting of falsehoods. I like to throw out, when I was teaching at the academy, I'd teach in the Bible classes, what would you do if I told you the Bible is full of lies? And you go, no, no. I said, yeah, no, I'm telling you, the Bible is full of lies, but they are reported accurately.

You see the difference? It reports that Satan lies, Ananias and Sapphira lied, so the fact that they're reporting lies doesn't negate the truthfulness of Scripture. In fact, the Bible is truthfully reporting those lies.

Use of hyperbole. That's a big one that they will often throw out. Well, the Bible, you know, just constantly exaggerates, but the type of exaggeration is perfectly consistent with trying to get the truth forward.

For example, Jesus went to the town of Capernaum, and the whole town came out to meet him. I mean, was the intent of the author to say that every single man, woman, and child in the whole of Capernaum came out to meet Jesus?

No. It was meant to say that it was a big event and most of the town came out to meet him. And again, we do this all the time, even in our modern technical precision, we still use hyperbole all the time.

I was wondering if anybody was going to catch it. Good. Topical arrangement of material. We just, almost a year ago, we finished the Gospel of John, and if you remember, one of the points that I made very clearly was that the Gospel of John was not a chronological gospel, but it was pretty much topically arranged.

Whereas Luke is pretty much chronological, but a lot of the scriptures are topically arranged because its purpose is not to give a chronology. It's to present Jesus as the Christ. I think there were a couple of others as well that I don't know why I didn't put them all down, but everybody get the idea, right?

That does not negate inerrancy. By biblical standards of truth and error, it is meant that the view used both in the Bible and in everyday life, a correspondence view of truth. Correspondence view of truth simply means that the view of truth corresponds with reality, okay?

And I think there's three different theories on truth, but this is the one that we hold to. Everyday life, the correspondence view of truth. This portion of the denial is aimed at those who would limit the truth of the Bible to redemptive intent only.

It's amazing how many times people will try to do that, say, well, we know the Bible is inerrant when it has to do with spiritual matters, but all this other stuff, it doesn't really, it's not necessarily accurate.

For example, when Jesus affirmed that Jonah was in the belly of the great fish, this statement is true, not simply because of the redemptive significance of the story of Jonah has, but also because it is literally and historically true, alright?

That's part of our view of inerrancy. Alright, then we move to Article 14, consistency. We affirm the unity and internal consistency of scripture. We deny that alleged errors and discrepancies that have not yet been resolved vitiate the truth claims of the Bible, alright?

Because the Bible is the word of God and reflects his truthful character, it is important to affirm that it is one, alright? Now, remember, what we're looking here again is a concept that we see frequently in theology, and that is unity and diversity.

Remember, God is unity and yet diverse, alright? And we see that even in the word of God. Remember, we made a big point of saying that the Bible has 66 different books written over almost 2 ,000 years, alright, by somewhere around 40 different authors, alright?

Yet, there is a unity and a consistency to it that is remarkable considering those facts. So, even though it is, you have this diversity, it is, there is the unity and you can actually say, that's why we refer to the Bible, alright?

Though it contains much information of a wide diversity of scope and interest, nevertheless, there is an internal unity and consistency to the word of God that flows from the nature of God's truth. God's truthfulness brings unity out of diversity.

God is not an author of incoherency or of contradiction. His word is consistent as well as coherent, okay? The denial in Article 14 deals with the particular problems of harmonization between the texts that appear to be contradictory and of a number of other alleged errors and discrepancies pointed out repeatedly by critics.

There are, we have to admit that there are certain things that appear to be discrepancies that have not yet been resolved, alright? Most of those have to do with grammar or those type of variants. Some of them have to do with chronology, especially when you get back to the Old Covenant with the kings and everything else, there appears to be some things that we can't reconcile as yet, alright?

But when you, if you look over the history of textual criticism, you'll find that that number is dwindling. The more information we get, the more study that's done, these type of discrepancies are being handled and being done away with.

I went on the website of the American Atheist Association to see what they were holding forth as discrepancies, and I was sitting alone in my study, and I had to laugh out loud because what they considered to be discrepancies are simply just a misunderstanding of the text.

They talk about the Sabbath day being commanded, and yet Paul's saying, well, if one day, if you consider one day above another, what is that to him, etc. Taking two subjects that are almost completely foreign to each other and making them stand in opposition.

There was nothing there that even comes close to being textual criticism, okay? It must be acknowledged that there have been and still are some unresolved issues with the text. However, with time, further examination, the ancient manuscripts and greater understanding of the ancient languages, the number of those principles, discrepancies is being reduced.

It has often been charged that the Bible is full of contradictions. Such statements are unwarranted by the evidence. The amount of seriously difficult passages compared to the total quantity of material found there is very small indeed.

Inerrancy Grounded in Inspiration and Jesus’ Teaching

Now we go to Article 15, Accommodation. We affirm that the doctrine of inerrancy is grounded in the teaching of the Bible about inspiration. We deny that Jesus' teaching about scripture may be dismissed by appeals to accommodation or to any natural limitation of his humanity, okay?

And I'll get into a little bit more what they mean by that. In the affirmation of Article 15, inerrancy as a doctrine is viewed as being inseparably related to the biblical teaching on inspiration. In other words, why do we believe that the Bible is inerrant?

Because it was inspired by God himself. Remember that Theonoustos, that God breathed. And you can't really talk about inerrancy without talking about inspiration. Though the Bible nowhere uses the word inerrancy, the concept is found throughout the scripture.

The scriptures have their own claim to being the word of God. The words of the prophets are prefaced by this statement, thus saith the Lord. It should not be thought that because the Bible does not contain the terms inerrant or inerrancy, there is therefore no biblical basis for the doctrine of inerrancy.

The Bible nowhere uses the term trinity. Oops. And yet, the doctrine of trinity is clearly taught throughout the New Testament. Again, you see what the critics will do. They'll grasp at straws. And so, they'll say, why do you believe in the trinity?

That word nowhere appears. In fact, the one is Pentecostals. I think they say that frequently. The word trinity doesn't appear. That doesn't mean that the concept doesn't. And the same thing with inerrancy.

Yes.

The word incarnation doesn't appear to be biblically inerrant.

Yeah, it's true. What is implied by the affirmation of this article is that the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture is a doctrine ultimately based upon the teaching of Jesus himself. The framers of this confession wish to express no higher nor lower view of Scripture than that held by and taught by Jesus.

That becomes explicit in the denial. The denial expresses that Jesus' teaching about Scripture may not easily be dismissed. And one of the erroneous views of Scripture agrees that Jesus had a high view of Scripture, but his view was deficient due to his humanity.

All right, you're following that? What they're saying is, Jesus, yes, he had a high view of Scripture, but he was mistaken because he was limited by his humanity. Of course, in his deity, he would understand what Scripture is, but his view was limited because of his humanity.

The fact that Jesus held a view of inspiration such as he did, excused on the basis that touching his human nature, Jesus was a product of his times. Jesus, at his urge, could not possibly have known all the problems that have since been raised by higher criticism.

As a result, Jesus, like the rest of his contemporaries, accepted uncritically the prevailing notion of Scripture of his own day. Do you follow that argument? I mean, the argument, to me, the argument is just ludicrous on his face.

What they're basically saying is, because Jesus was fully man, that somehow he did not understand the problems that we would understand in Scripture. So, in other words, in our humanity, we're actually smarter than Jesus was in his humanity.

They conclude that it is perfectly understandable and excusable that in his lack of knowledge, he made mistakes about the Scripture. To answer those claims fully is beyond the scope of this statement, but they do offer a brief reputation intended by the denial.

And here's their reputation. Even though we admit that Jesus in his human nature was not omniscient, and remember, we make no such claim that in his human nature that he was omniscient, alright, we do urge that his claims to teach nothing by his own authority, but by the authority of the Father, and to be the very incarnation of truth, John 14, 6, would be fraudulent claims if anything that he taught were in error.

Even if his error arose out of his ignorance, he would be guilty of sin for claiming to know truth that he did not in fact know. At stake here is our very redemption. For if Jesus taught falsely while claiming to be speaking the truth, he would be guilty of sin.

If he were guilty of sin, then obviously his atonement could not atone for himself, let alone for the sins of his people. So again, it's fashionable in many circles to believe that when Jesus speaks of heavenly matters, matters of redemption and salvation, but to correct Jesus when he speaks of historical matters such as the writing of the Pentateuch, and other matters relating to the doctrine of scripture.

At this point, there are those who accept Jesus when he speaks redemptively, let me catch up here, when he speaks redemptively, but reject him when he speaks historically. Violate a teaching principle that Jesus himself espoused.

You see what they're saying? They're saying, oh no, I believe Jesus whenever he's talking about spiritual matters, whenever he's talking about redemption, but when he talks about the earthly things, no, I don't have to believe him.

In fact, we can correct him. Well, look at what they say. Jesus raised the rhetorical question, how can you believe me concerning heavenly things when you cannot believe me concerning earthly things? It makes no sense from the lips of Jesus himself, earthly things.

So, I have some scripture references, just a few because these are pretty obvious that God is truth. The Lord passed in front of him and proclaimed, the Lord, the Lord God, compassionate, gracious, slow to anger, abounding in loving kindness and truth.

Psalm 31, 5, into your hand I commit my spirit, you have ransomed me, oh God, the Lord God of truth. Isaiah 65, 16, because he who is blessed in the earth will be blessed by the God of truth, and he who swears in the earth will swear by the God of truth, because the former troubles are forgotten and because they are hidden from my sight.

Matthew 22, 16, and they sent the disciples to him along with the Herodians saying, teacher, we know you are truthful and teach the way of God in truth, and defer to no one for you are not partial to any.

That's even his critics. John 15, 26, when the helper comes whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the spirit of truth. Ephesians 4, 20 to 21, but you did not learn Christ in this way if you have heard him and have been taught in him, just as truth is in Jesus.

John 14, 6, Jesus said, I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me. John 14, 17, but the spirit of truth whom the world cannot receive because it does not see him or know him, but you know him because he abides with you and will be in you.

Sanctify them in a truth, your word is truth. Galatians 2, 5, but we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel would remain with you. And questions? There's a lot in that one.

Any questions?

Yes, Joe?

So that thing about hyperboles.

Yes.

Aren't there like battles in the Old Testament where like a million people took place, a million soldiers were killed, or?

I don't believe any of it.

Not that many?

I don't think it's...

I could be wrong, but...

One.

Was there? That went up to a million? Could be. Well, I don't... No, I mean, again, I don't know. I mean, that would certainly be a round number if it says a million. You know, just like when you see round numbers, you know pretty much that it's just using round numbers.

And that's, again, that's perfectly acceptable. That does not vitiate the truthful claims. Yeah.

I'm kind of afraid to ask. You said there's still some unresolved issues.

Apparent Discrepancies, Textual Criticism, and the Limits of Human Knowledge

Yeah, mostly to do with succession of the kings as to the dates and who preceded who and those type of things. But it's things that are not... We just don't have all the facts yet. Just like when the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, that cleared up so many of these quote, apparent...

That's why we refer to them as apparent discrepancies. What the atheists call discrepancies are not discrepancies at all. They have just completely misunderstood and misapplied one scripture to another.

Like, for example, they quoted one verse where heaven and earth shall stand forever. And then they go to Peter where he says the earth will be consumed by fire. And they just missed it. It's two completely different issues.

And they're putting them in opposition to one another. But most of the discrepancies are having to do with with dates, times, you know, trying to piece some of those things together. Yes, Erica. I mean, the very simple answer is no.

That's the whole point. That's one of the things that's important about the doctrine of the union of the two natures of Christ. And if you read our confession, it talks about how the two natures are in one person, but not intermingled and not, you know, not overlapping each other.

They remain two unique natures. All right. And the fact that Jesus was not omniscient doesn't mean that anything that he spoke was false. All right. Everything he said, everything that he did know was truth.

You follow? So, look, again, I can't speak. I can't say that I'm omniscient, but I can speak with authority and truth on certain issues just because I can't be omniscient in the whole field of thermodynamics.

All right. Doesn't mean that I can't talk about investigative work and have and speak the truth on it. You see, so everything that Jesus told us was truth. And that's what the claim of Scripture is. Jesus never uttered anything that was misleading, false or a lie.

But that doesn't mean that in his human nature, he had to be omniscient. In fact, in one point, he says, I don't know this. Only the Father. That was true. You see, that's the difference. Any other questions?