3 - Inspiration, Infallibility, and Inerrancy of Scripture
November 09, 2004 | Comments: 2SYS 501 – Hermeneutics – Lecture 3 – Inspiration, Infallibility, and Inerrancy of Scripture
I. Inspiration of Scripture
A. Supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit on the chosen writers – 2 Peter 1
1. Their writing thus trustworthy and authoritative
2. Reveals the mind and will of God to us
3. As if directly from God Himself, e.g. 1 Cor. 14.37
4. Preachers ought to recognize that they speak God’s words
B. Plenary (full, complete, every word) inspiration – 2 Timothy 3.16
C. Powerful and effective because it is God’s Word – Jer.1
D. To be received by those who hear as God’s Word – 1 Thes. 2.13
II. Infallibility of Scripture
A. Achieves its end – “will not return void” – Isa. 55.11
B. Gives reliable testimony concerning Christ and salvation
C. Provides authoritative standard of life, faith and practice
D. Spoken by the Holy Spirit, who is its author
III. Inerrancy of Scripture
A. Dependable, truthful in all that it affirms
B. Assumes correct interpretation of the statements in their cultural context
C. To be judged in accordance with the purpose for which they written
D. Reports phenomenological, rather than technical
E. Difficulties should not be assumed to be errors
IV. Conclusions regarding the nature of Scripture
A. Self-authenticating – explicit assertions of divine authorship in Scripture
1. To deny these doctrines is to disbelieve the Bible
2. Cannot be “partially” inspired
3. Must be received by the work of the Spirit
B. Judges all things, and judged by none
C. Right view of Scripture informs how we receive and obey what it says
Comments
So which is the better term, “infallibility,” or “inerrancy” ? Why? Why has the evangelical world in the past 30 years used, almost exclusively “inerrancy”? What are your thoughts about the Fuller Seminary movement and “neo-evangelical” gathering of as many churches and individuals around the one, non-negotiable tenant of “inerrancy” ? Is this sufficient to guard the gate and to assure orthodoxy?
nathan on December 01, 2004 at 07:32 AM
As we discussed in person, I have no issue with any of the three words, per se. “Inspiration” is the most Biblical, as Scripture is “God-breathed.” If by “infallibility” we understand that Scripture cannot fail and that all will be fulfilled, then good. If by “inerrancy” we understand that Scripture will not lead us astray into doctrinal error, then good. But these two terms, and especially the latter, have become loaded in evangelical circles, a shibboleth for orthodoxy. I believe in many cases the inerrancy proponents are imposing a rigid paradigm on Scripture which isn’t warranted by Scripture itself. Would New Testament writers’ hermeneutics in handling Old Testament prophecies always pass muster with them? I think not. This approach is not sufficient to guard the gate of orthodoxy. We need to employ broader and more spiritual principles which accord with the whole counsel of God as revealed, and not one which myopically fixates on minutia to the exclusion of everything else.
andrew on December 05, 2004 at 04:45 PM
