When I get to Heaven, there are a few people that I cannot wait to meet.  One of them is Martyn Lloyd-Jones.  Another is George Whitfield.  The Apostles Peter, John, and Paul also make the cut.

But one name that sits at the top of the list is Charles Spurgeon.  If you have never read much about his life, Charles Haddon Spurgeon or CHS was a fascinating individual.  In his lifetime, he never graduated from High School or college in any formal sense.  But he wrote more than 140 books, not counting his weekly sermons, which were published once a week every week for 37 years.  That is a grant total of 1,924 sermons published weekly into 30 different languages.  If you counted up all of the printed material from his pen or his mouth, it would come out to more pages than an entire set of the Encyclopedia Britannica.  Spurgeon himself owned 12,000 books and he had a photographic memory.  He could read a 500 page book in one night and quote it to you the next day.

As for some other highlights in his life, he started a college and an orphanage.  He also pastored a church that totaled in the thousands in one of the most prominent cities in the world.  This is even more impressive when it is remembered that he began his ministry there before he reached 20 years of age.1

But Charles Spurgeon was also a man who, like the best preachers of any age, was immersed in controversy.  In the mid-late 1800’s, he left the London Baptist Association over what is now known as the Downgrade Controversy, which was an attempt to bring liberal ideas into the Baptist churches in England.  Spurgeon fought this infiltration with all of his might until, eventually, he realized that he could not win the battle and he decided to leave the association.2

In the midst of the controversy, Spurgeon penned these words to describe the issues at stake:

A new religion has been originated which is no more Christianity than chalk is cheese; and this religion, being destitute of moral honesty, palms itself off as the old faith with slight improvements, and on this plea, usurps pulpits which were erected for gospel preaching.

The Atonement is scouted, the inspiration of Scripture is derided, the Holy Ghost is degraded into an influence, the punishment of sin is turned into a fiction, and the Resurrection into a myth, and yet these enemies of our faith expect us to call them brethren and maintain a confederacy with them!3

As it was in Spurgeon’s day, the inspiration of Scripture is also being derided today (along with all of the other doctrines mentioned in this quote).  And the greatest way it is being derided is by questioning the inerrancy of Scripture.

Listen to what one minister wrote in 1981, just 30 years ago.

Only willful ignorance or intellectual dishonesty can account for the claim that the Bible is inerrant and infallible . . . No truth–loving, God-respecting, Christ-honoring believer should be guilty of such heresy. To invest the Bible with the qualities of inerrancy and infallibility is to idolatrize it, to transform it into a false God . . .

Often in the past and still too often in the present, to affirm that the Bible is the Word of God implies that the words of the Bible are the words of God. Such simplistic and absolute terms divest the Bible altogether of its humanity and remove it from the relativism of the historical process. No one can seriously claim that all the words of the Bible are the very words of God.4

That statement is an attack on the inspiration of Scripture but it is also an attack on the inerrancy of Scripture.

Inerrancy simply means that the Bible is without error.5  “In” – no.  “Errancy” – error.  The Bible is without fault or error.  As the Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit of God,6 the Bible is always accurate and trustworthy in all that it says.  Another way to say this is to say that the Bible is infallible, which means that it is incapable of error.7  “In” – no.  “Fallible” – failing or breakable.  The Bible is not failing or breakable.  It cannot fail to accomplish all that it sets out to accomplish.8  Whereas inerrancy says that the Bible is without error, infallibility says that the Bible is incapable of having any error.

It might be helpful to mention at the outset here that the Bible is inerrant in its original copies but not in its translated copies.  Inerrancy or infallibility, then, only refers to how accurately our translations represent what was originally written.  The original Word of God (or autographa)9 is without error but our English, French, German, and Spanish copies of it are without error only in so far as they reflect the original. In other words, the prophets and apostles who wrote the books in the Old and New Testament were inspired by God in a way that translators today are not.  And that inspiration allowed the writers of the Bible to write without error.10

As has already been seen, inerrancy was a heated topic in the past and it is still a heated topic today.  Many denominations, seminaries, and parachurch ministries have been fighting over this issue for decades.11  Some have even split or formed their own associations because of it.  So it would be important to ask the question: Is inerrancy worth fighting for?  Does it really matter if the Bible has errors in it?  Does it really matter if it is infallible or incapable of error?  If it causes so many problems, why not overlook it?  Why not talk about more agreeable things?

In this FAQ, I want to answer that question for you by looking at four reasons why inerrancy is important and four distinctives concerning inerrancy.

I. REASONS WHY INERRANCY IS IMPORTANT

1. Inerrancy is important because Jesus Christ affirmed inerrancy.12

It only makes sense that, if I call myself a “Christian” and “a disciple of Jesus Christ,” then I should make sure to believe what He believed on any given topic.  If I am His follower, then I should submit to His judgment.  And, if I do so, I will soon discover that Jesus Christ was an overwhelming supporter of the inerrancy of the Bible.

For example, Jesus consistently treated historical statements in the Old Testament as if they were facts.  Not error-filled facts but truth-filled facts that give correct, detailed information.  In His public ministry, the Lord referenced the Old Testament to talk about Abel,13 Noah,14 Abraham,15 Moses,16 the institute of circumcision,17 Sodom and Gomorrah,18 Lot,19 Isaac and Jacob,20 manna,21 the snake in the desert,22 David,23 Solomon,24 and Elijah25 and Elisha.26  And He did so in such a way that showed that He believed that they were real people and real events.

Jesus had no doubt in His mind that the events in the Old Testament actually happened and that the people in the Old Testament actually lived.  And the reason for this was simple: He believed that the Scriptures were infallible.  He knew that they were incapable of teaching anything wrong because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit of God.

John 10:34-36 has a specific statement from Jesus concerning His view of inerrancy.  Here it says,

Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I said you are gods?’”  If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, “You are blaspheming,” because I said, “I am the Son of God?”

In this passage, the Jews are getting ready to stone Jesus because He claimed that He was God (vv. 22-33).  So Jesus is arguing for His life here and He argues by quoting Psalm 82:6, which says, “I said, ‘You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High.’”  After quoting from this passage, Jesus says to this hostile crowd, “Now if the Scripture makes a reference to men being ‘gods’ or ‘god-like’27 and you do not protest it – because you know that the Scripture cannot be broken – then why are you angry with Me for claiming to be God?”

Jesus asks them or accuses them by saying, “You acknowledge that the Scripture cannot be broken . . .”  The Greek word for broken is luo, which means “to loose, to unbind, to release.”28  “You acknowledge that the Scripture cannot be broken . . .”  “You acknowledge that the Bible is incapable of being loosened or containing error . . .”  “You know that the Old Testament writers wrote the truth, so why are you trying to kill Me?”  “What have I said to you that they didn’t say?”   “They talked about being god-like . . .   “I said that I am God Himself . . .”  “Why does this upset you so much?”

The point here is that Jesus saw the Old Testament as being inerrant.  He had the utmost respect for what it said.

In Matthew 5:17-18, Jesus said,

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.  For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Jesus believed that everything in Scripture will be accomplished because everything in Scripture is without error.  The Word of God is perfect.

As John Wenham puts it,

[Jesus] consistently treats the historical narratives as straightforward records of fact, and the force of His teaching often depends on their literal truth.  He uses the teaching of the  Old Testament as a court of appeal in matters of controversy in both doctrine and ethics . . . To Christ the Old Testament was true, authoritative, inspired.  To Him the God of the Old Testament was the living God, and the teaching of the Old Testament was the teaching of the living God.  To Him, what Scripture said, God said.29

2. Inerrancy is important because the Apostles affirmed inerrancy

Not only did Jesus affirm that the Bible is without error but Jesus’ closest followers affirmed it as well.

It has been estimated that ten percent of the New Testament is an allusion to or a quotation from the Old Testament.  There are close to 300 Old Testament quotations in the New Testament and something like 1,600 Old Testament citations.30  And all of them show the utmost respect for the purity of the Hebrew Bible.  As one author put it, “To the apostles, the Old Testament Scripture was clearly their supreme authority!”31

For the sake of time, we cannot look at most of these Old Testament references but Romans 9 gives us a good sampling.  The Apostle Paul references the Old Testament 93 times in his New Testament letters32 and 26 of these citations are found in Romans 9, 10, and 11.  Paul quotes from the Hebrew Bible over and over and over again in these three chapters.

Romans is Paul’s great work on salvation.  The whole book is one long detailed explanation of what Jesus Christ accomplished for us on the cross.  And in chapter 9, Paul is describing God’s “election” or His choosing some to salvation and some to damnation (see vv. 10-23).  And, as Paul explains that, he gives his readers numerous examples from the Old Testament to prove his point.

A lot of doctrinal issues come up in this passage and there is not space enough here to address them33 but I simply want to show how Paul treats the Old Testament in this chapter.  In Romans 9:6-18, Paul writes,

But it is not as though the word of God has failed.  For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel; nor are they all children because they are Abraham’sdescendants, but: “THROUGH ISAAC YOUR DESCENDANTS WILL BE NAMED.”  That is, it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise are regarded as descendants.  For this is the word of promise: “AT THIS TIME I WILL COME, AND SARAH SHALL HAVE A SON.”  And not only this, but there wasRebekah also, when she had conceived twins by one man, our father Isaac; for though the twins were not yet born and had not done anything good or bad, so that God’s purpose according to His choice would stand, not because of works but because of Him who calls, it was said to her, “THE OLDER WILL SERVE THE YOUNGER.”  Just as it is written, “JACOB I LOVED, BUT ESAU I HATED.”

What shall we say then?  There is no injustice with God, is there?  May it never be! For He says to Moses, “I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION.”  So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy.  For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE I RAISED YOU UP, TO DEMONSTRATE MY POWER IN YOU, AND THAT MY NAME MIGHT BE PROCLAIMED THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EARTH.”  So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires.

Again, I am not attempting to elaborate on these doctrines here, but to simply point out that in 13 verses, Paul quotes directly from the Old Testament six times (vv. 7, 9, 13, 15, 17) and he mentions five different events.  He mentions Abraham’s descendants (vv. 6-7), God’s promise to Sarah (vv. 8-9), the birth of Jacob and Esau (vv. 10-13), the Lord speaking to Moses (v. 15), and the Lord speaking to Pharaoh (v. 17).

And Paul does all of this with the conviction that these events really happened and that these quotations are really accurate.  The Apostle had an unwavering trust that the Old Testament was the perfect Word of God.  He believed, very passionately, in the inerrancy of the Bible.

And all of the Apostles held to this doctrine.  They all had an extremely high respect for God’s Word in the Old Testament.  They all believed that it was not failing or breakable.

3. Inerrancy is important because the character of God affirms inerrancy

If the Holy Spirit is God and if He inspired the Bible, then the Bible must reflect His character.  If the Bible claims to be God’s Word,34 then the Bible should be an imitation of Who God is.  It should mirror Him.  His Word should match His character.

God is a God of love and, therefore, the Bible is a loving book.  God is a holy God and, therefore, the Bible is a holy book.  God is a just God and, therefore, the Bible is a just book.  In a similar way, God is a true God and, therefore, the Bible is a true book.  It has no errors in it.

Since the Holy Spirit does not err, the Holy Scripture does not err.  Since the character of God does not falter, the Word of God does not falter.  The Bible matches the character of its author and it is true.  God would not inspire a book full of lies, only the Devil would do that.  God would not give His people a book full of false statements.  A God of truth would only speak truth and this is exactly what the New Testament tells us.  It tells us that the Scriptures are true because God is true.

Titus 1:2 says that our faith rests on God “who cannot lie.”  In John 14:6, Jesus says, “I am the way and the truth.”  First John 5:6 says, “It is the Spirit who testifies, because the Spirit is truth.”  And in John 17:17, again Jesus says, “Sanctify them in the truth; Your word is truth.”

God’s Word is true because God is true.  God’s Word does not err because the Spirit of God does not err.

4. Inerrancy is important because the church has always affirmed inerrancy

It is always helpful to see what Christians in the past have taught on a certain topic because we are not the first ones to think about it.  There is a long line of men who have come before us and we must turn to them to see what they thought before we come to our own conclusions.

And it is the unanimous testimony of the church up until the 18^th and 19^th Centuries that the Bible is without error.35  Here are a few examples of what Christian scholars from the past have said about inerrancy.

Augustine, who lived in the 5^th Century, A. D. said,

Most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the sacred books: that is to say that the men by whom the Scripture has been given to us and committed to writing, did not put down in these books anything false.  If you once admit into such a high sanctuary of authority one false statement, there will not be left a single sentence of those books, which if appearing to any one difficult in practice or hard to believe, may not by the same fatal rule be explained away as a statement, in which, intentionally, the author declared what was not true.36

Augustine said it was disastrous to even think that the Bible contained an error.

Thomas Aquinas, who lived in the 13^th Century, quotes from Augustine and writes that,

For our faith rests upon the revelation given to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books, and not on revelation (if there be such a thing) made to other teachers. Whence Augustine says in his letter to Jerome: “Only to those books which are called canonical have I learned to give honor so that I believe most firmly that no author in these books made any error in writing. I read other authors not with the thought that what they have thought and written is true just because they have manifested holiness and learning!”37

Our faith rests upon inerrant revelation and that is only found, according to Thomas Aquinas, in the Bible.

Martin Luther, coming along a few hundred years after Aquinas, tells his people that,

Paul takes them all together, himself, an angel from heaven, teachers upon the earth, and masters of all kinds, and subjects them to the Holy Scripture. Scripture must reign as queen, all must obey and be subject to her, not teachers, judges, or arbiters over her; but they must be simply witnesses, pupils and confessors of it, whether they be pope or Luther or Augustine or an angel from Heaven.38

Jonathan Edwards, who lived in the 1700’s, wrote quite a bit about inerrancy and many other related topics.  About the infalliblity of the Bible, Edwards said,

God took this care with respect to the books of the Old Testament, that no books should be received by the Jewish church and delivered down in the canon of the Old Testament, but what was his word and owned by Christ. We may therefore conclude that he would still take the same care of his church with respect to the New Testament . . . what the Bible says, God says.39

In the 1800’s, the New Baptist Hampshire Confession states that,

We believe that the Holy Bible was written by men divinely inspired, and is a perfect treasure of heavenly instruction; that it has God for its author, salvation for its end, and truth, without any mixture of error, for its matter . . .40

Also in the 1800’s, the Confession of the Evangelical Free Church of Geneva begins,

We believe that the Holy Scriptures are entirely inspired of God in all their parts, and that they are the only and infallible Rule of Faith.41

Again in the 1800’s, the Confession of the Free-Will Baptists also begins,

These are the Old and New Testaments; they were written by holy men, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and contain God’s revealed will to man.  They are a sufficient and infallible guide in religious faith and practice.42

And more evidence could be cited here but there is no need to.  This is more than enough proof to show that, up until the last two hundred years or so (with the arrival of liberalism),43 the church has always affirmed inerrancy.  Inerrancy is worth fighting for for the simple reason that Christians have fought for inerrancy for centuries.  Every orthodox believer for 2,000 years has held to it and, if we would be orthodox today, we must hold to it as well.

II. DISTINCTIVES CONCERNING INERRANCY

While there are many reasons why inerrancy is important, it should be recognized that inerrancy, like many other points of doctrine, is a complex issue.  To better understand it, some further clarification is needed.  Here are a few distinctives concerning inerrancy.

1. Inerrancy is derivative, not creative

To derive is “to get or receive from a source.”44  It is to come from something else.  As was mentioned earlier in this article, the inerrancy of the Bible derives or comes from its closeness to the original writings (the autographa) but inerrancy does not extend to the copies.  In other words, complete inerrancy does not extend to the translations that we have today.  Translations can have errors in them.  They are not inerrant in the same way that the original writings are.

When translators give us the Word of God in English or Spanish or whatever language they are putting it in, inerrancy is not being created as they translate.  It is only being derived from the autographa.  If the translators stick close to the autographa, then they are giving us the Word of God.  If they move away from the autographa, then they are giving us their own opinion.  The Bible is only inerrant to the point that it matches the words of the inspired writers.

This is why we can say that our copies have errors in them (albeit very, very few) and still hold to the doctrine of inerrancy.45  We can do this because the Bible’s inerrancy is derivative, not creative.  It is derived from the original writings.  It is not created every time a new translation of the Bible comes out.

As Charles Spurgeon’s predecessor, John Gill, wrote in his Body of Divinity:

[Inspiration-Inerrancy] is to be understood of the Scriptures, as the original languages in which they were written, and not of translations . . . only the original exemplar is authentic; and not translations, and transcriptions, and copies of them, though ever so perfect; and to the Bible, in its original languages, is every translation to be brought, and by it to be examined, tried, and judged, and to be corrected, and amended . . .

Here I cannot but observe the amazing ignorance and stupidity of some persons, who take it into their heads to decry learning and learned men; for what would they have done for a Bible, had it not been for these instruments? . . . Bless God, therefore, and be thankful that God has, in His providence, raised up such men to translate the Bible into the mother-tongue of every nation, and particularly into ours; and that he still continues to raise up such who are able to defend the translation made, against erroneous persons, and enemies of the truth; and to correct and amend it in lesser matters, in which it may have failed, and clear and illustrate it by their learned notes upon it.46

2. Inerrancy means accuracy, not precision

It is possible to be accurate about something without being precise.  If you say, “Where is John?”  And I say, “He is in the house.”  That would be accurate.  If you say, “Where is John?”  And I say, “He is in the house on 112 Elm Street and he is in the living room.”  That would be precise.

But both of those statements are true.  Both of them are right, even though only one of them is specific.  In a similar way, the Bible is always accurate, although it is not always precise.  It is always correct, even though it is not always detailed.  It does not always have the specific information that we would want.

For example, in John 6:10, it says that Jesus fed 5,000 men with the lunch of a little boy (vv. 9-11).  Was this number precise?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  There could have been 5,001 men there.  There could have been 4,999 men there.  There could have been exactly 5,000 men there.  We simply do not know.  There were other times in the Scriptures where exact numbers were used (see the age of the men in Genesis 5 or the numbers of the tribes in 1 Chronicles 7) but in passages like John 6, it is obvious that the author is going for accuracy, not precision.

We do the same thing today.  If someone asks you how many people were at your church on Sunday morning, you would say “200.”  You would not say “187” or “210.”  You would round up or down to the nearest “big” number.  Does that mean that you are lying?  Does that mean that you are speaking in error?  Of course not.  It means that you are giving a general number.

In a similar way, the Bible can be vague at times but still truthful.  Just like with our language today, the words of Scripture do not always follow the technical language of modern science where every number is specific down to the decimal point or fraction.  The Bible can be inerrant without being as detailed or particular as we would like it to be.47

3. Inerrancy accommodates human language, it does not ignore it

The Bible uses all of the figures of speech that normal language uses and it still remains inerrant.  Scripture uses personification and hyperbole.  It uses metaphors, similes, and allegories.  It gives us stories that describe a real life event48 and it gives us stories that describe an imaginary event.49  It accommodates human language.  It does not ignore it.

When God inspired the Bible, He did not inspire it to be written in such a way that it could not be understood.  He did not inspire it with some pie-in-the-sky other-worldly kind of language where people read it and cannot grasp what it says.  The Lord inspired His Word to use normal modes of communication.

And inerrancy accounts for that.  Everything that is written is written without error in its usual form of expression.  Every prophecy, if interpreted as prophecy should be, is without error.  Every narrative story, if interpreted as narrative story should be, is without error.  Every metaphor, simile, or allegory, if examined along with its grammar and historical context, is infallible.

That is what Inerrancy means.  Inerrancy does not mean that you can read a piece of non-fiction like you would a piece of fiction and see no errors in it.  It does not mean that you can interpret law like you would interpret poetry and have no problems with your interpretation.  Inerrancy accommodates human language but it does not ignore it.  As the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy put it,

We affirm that God in His Work of inspiration utilized the distinctive personalities and literary styles of the writers whom He had chosen and prepared . . .

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.50

God used the personalities and the literary styles of the human authors of Scripture and, as He did so, He kept His Word from error.

4. Inerrancy refers to science and spirituality

It is very common to hear opponents of inerrancy say, “Well, the Bible may not have any errors when it talks about spiritual things but it certainly has errors when it talks about scientific things.”  “The Bible may be accurate on theology, but it is inaccurate on geography or history or chronology.”

Opponents of inerrancy often say this so that they can appease modern science and maintain some degree of respect for the Bible.  And, as the argument goes, the Bible may be right when it comes to theology, but when it comes to the observable subjects like geography and history and biology, the Bible must be wrong.  It has to have some errors in those areas.  Inerrancy must apply only to the theological sections of the Bible, not to the scientific ones.

The problem with this approach is that, if the Bible is wrong in one area, what keeps it from being wrong in other areas?  If the Bible’s history is off, how can we be sure that its theology is not off?  If it cannot get a simple thing like geography right, how can it get a complex thing like God right?

There is a Middle Eastern proverb that says that you cannot let the camel’s nose into the tent without the whole camel coming in.  It is the same idea here.  The Bible is either inerrant or it is not.  It is either completely without error or it is completely with error.  If the nose gets in, the whole body will come in.  It is inevitable.  You cannot say that some parts of Scripture have error and some parts do not.  Because, in the end, who determines which parts have error and which parts do not?  You?  Me?  The scientists?  The theologians?

Inerrancy refers to all of the Bible or inerrancy refers to none of the Bible.  To quote again from the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, which was formulated by 300 hundred pastors, scholars, and laymen to make an official stance on the inerrancy of the Bible:

We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.51

The Bible has the right to speak authoritatively on every subject because the Bible is without error in every subject.

1. All of this information concerning Charles Spurgeon’s life is taken from Arnold Dallimore’s Spurgeon: A New Biography (Carlisle, Penn.: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2009 ed.) particularly pp. 188-198. [↩]
2. For more information about the way Charles Spurgeon handled controversy, see Iaian H. Murray’s The Forgotten Spurgeon (Carlisle, Penn.: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2009 ed.). [↩]
3. Quoted in Spurgeon: A New Biography, 206. [↩]
4. Quoted in James Montgomery Boice’s essay, “The Foolishness of Preaching” in Feed My Sheep: A Passionate Plea for Preaching (Lake Mary, Flo.: Reformation Trust Publishing) 28. [↩]
5. Stanley J. Grenz, David Guretzki, & Cherith Fee Nordling, Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1999) 66. [↩]
6. 2 Tim 3:16-17; 2 Pet 1:20-21. [↩]
7. Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, 66. [↩]
8. Isa 55:11. [↩]
9. For more information on the inerrancy of the autographa, see Greg L. Bahnsen’s essay “The Inerrancy of the Autographa” in Inerrancy, ed. by Normal L. Geisler (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1980) 149-193. [↩]
10. For more information on the inspiration of Scripture, see the FAQ “How is the Bible inspired?” [↩]
11. For a look at some of the battles that have raged over inerrancy, see Harold Lindsell’s The Battle for the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1976) and George M. Marsden’s Reforming Fundamentalism: Fuller Seminary and the New Evangelicalism (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1987). [↩]
12. For much of the information in this section, I am indebted to John W. Wenham’s essay “Christ’s View of Scripture” in Inerrancy, 1-36. [↩]
13. Lk 11:51. [↩]
14. Matt 24:37-39. [↩]
15. Jn 8:56. [↩]
16. Mk 1:44; Matt 8:14. [↩]
17. Jn 7:22. [↩]
18. Matt 10:15; 11:23, 24. [↩]
19. Lk 17:28-32. [↩]
20. Matt 8:11; Lk 13:28. [↩]
21. Jn 6:31. [↩]
22. Jn 3:14. [↩]
23. Matt 12:3, 4. [↩]
24. Lk 11:31; 12:27. [↩]
25. Lk 4:25, 26 [↩]
26. Lk 4:27. [↩]
27. “Gods” in verse 34 is a poetic reference to the high office of Israel’s judges.  It is not a reference to men being gods in the strictest sense of the term. [↩]
28. G. Abbott-Smith, A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (New York: T & T Clark, 2001 ed.) 274. [↩]
29. Quoted in Inerrancy, 2. [↩]
30. Roger Nicole, “New Testament Use of the Old” in Revelation and the Bible, ed. by Carl Henry (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1958) 137-138. [↩]
31. Edwin A. Blum in Inerrancy, 41 [↩]
32. Ibid. [↩]
33. For a good explanation of Romans 9, see John Piper’s the Justification of God: An Exegetical & Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993). [↩]
34. For the Bible’s claims for itself, see the FAQ, “What does the Bible say about itself?” [↩]
35. For more information on the history of inerrancy, see John D. Hannah’s Our Legacy: The History of Christian Doctrine (Colorado Springs, Col.: NavPress, n.d.) 35-70. [↩]
36. Quoted in Andy Snider’s unpublished “Theology I” class syllabus for The Master’s Seminary, Summer 2004 (39-40). [↩]
37. Quoted in Inerrancy, 369-370. [↩]
38. Ibid., 374. [↩]
39. Ibid., 405. [↩]
40. Quoted in Philip Schaff’s The Creeds of Christendom, Volume III (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007 ed.) 742. [↩]
41. Ibid., 781. [↩]
42. Ibid., 749. [↩]
43. See Our Legacy: The History of Christian Doctrine, 35-70. [↩]
44. Webster’s New World Dictionary, ed. by Michael Agnes (New York: Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2003) 179. [↩]
45. For more information about the very, very few errors in our copies of the Bible, see the FAQ, “Was the Bible copied accurately?” [↩]
46. Quoted in Andy Snider’s unpublished “Theology I” class syllabus for The Master’s Seminary, Summer 2004 (44). [↩]
47. At this point, I could discuss the New Testament author’s use of the Old Testament.  There were times, such as Galatians 4:19-26 and 1 Corinthians 9:8-10, when the New Testament authors seemed to misquote or misunderstand the Old Testament.  There is not enough space here to discuss this issue but some of it is discussed in the FAQ, “How do we interpret the Bible?”  For more information on this topic, see Rynold Dean’s Evangelical Hermeneutics and the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Iron River, Wis.: Veritypath Publications, 2009). [↩]
48. Such as the Transfiguration in Matt 17:1-13. [↩]
49. Such as the Parable of the Lost Sheep in Matt 18:10-14. [↩]
50. Quoted in Inerrancy, 495, 496. [↩]
51. Ibid., 496. [↩]