15 Helpful Articles on Biblical Inerrancy

Arguably, the most basic problem within the confessing church today is the rejection of the absolute authority of the Bible. Take any issue, any issue at all, and the heart of the matter will boil down to one question: “Hath God said?” Nothing is new under the sun. The Satanic scheme employed in Eden is alive and well. Whether the heated debate concerns the extent of the atonement or the divine design of marriage as exclusively a heterosexual union, at root is the inerrancy, and thus authority, of the Bible as God’s exclusive written word.

While doing some research on the subject recently, I found the following articles. I think they are valuable and share them with you in order to encourage you in ‘the faith once delivered to the saints.’ If you are not ‘in Christ’ and a skeptic, I encourage you to think through these materials. This is really good stuff.

For you because of Him,

Todd Braye

1. A Response to a Recent Gallup Poll (John MacArthur, Jr.)

Yesterday, the Christian Post published the findings of a Gallup poll designed to gauge Americans’ opinion on the Bible. The findings reveal the utter chaos in our culture regarding the nature and authority of Scripture.

Gallup’s poll found that only 28 percent of Americans believe that the Bible is the Word of God and should be taken literally. And yet nearly 50 percent believe that the Bible is the “inspired Word of God” while insisting that not all of its content be taken literally, but rather as “metaphors and allegories that allow for interpretation.” “Allowing for interpretation” seems to be key for our postmodern, pluralistic society, as 58 percent—representing the majority of self-identifying Christians in America—accept that the Bible is the “actual Word of God” but insist, “multiple interpretations are possible.” …continue reading

2. What Does Inerrancy Mean? (Justin Taylor)

The word inerrant means that something, usually a text, is “without error.” The word infallible—in its lexical meaning, though not necessarily in theological discussions due to Rogers and McKim—is technically a stronger word, meaning that the text is not only “without error” but “incapable of error.” The historic Christian teaching is that the Bible is both inerrant and infallible. It is without error (inerrant) because it is impossible for it to have errors (infallible)…continue reading

3. What Does Inerrant Mean? (Tim Challies)

I find it is often useful to define what a term does not mean before I learn what it does mean, and I will do that with inerrancy. So let’s look at four statements dealing with what inerrancy does not entail. I should note that there is no authoritative body to which we can appeal to define what inerrancy means, for it is not a term that is neatly defined in Scripture. Thus I am presenting information consistent with the way it has been defined by scholars who have pursued the study of this doctrine over the past century and who have drawn what they believe from the Bible…continue reading

4. Some Clarifying Distinctives Regarding Inerrancy (Jeremy Cagle)

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. Let me point out a few distinctives…continue reading

5. Is The Bible Really Inerrant? (Stephen Wellum)

The question before us is not only of crucial importance but difficult to address fully in a brief article. There are so many facets to it that have to be reflected upon carefully in order to give an adequate answer. So the approach I will take is first to address four preliminary questions before I turn briefly to the issue at hand…continue reading

6. Newsweek Article’s Attack on the Bible: So Misinformed It’s a Sin (David Miller, Ph.D. Kyle Butt, M.A.)

Abraham Lincoln is credited with the statement: “How many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.” With that thought in mind, we turn our attention to the cover story of the December 23, 2014 issue of Newsweek titled, “The Bible: So Misunderstood It’s a Sin.” Kurt Eichenwald, the author, said concerning his article: “This examination is not an attack on the Bible or Christianity.” He says about his writing, “None of this is meant to demean the Bible, but all of it is fact.” Eichenwald may say that his article is not an attack on the Bible or is not designed to demean it, but that claim is simply not true. He boldly states that the Bible is “loaded with contradictions and translation errors and wasn’t written by witnesses and includes words added by unknown scribes to inject Church orthodoxy.” In fact, the bulk of his writing is an effort to prove these errors, contradictions, and discrepancies. Having declared that they are facts (which is the furthest thing from the truth, as we will show in this response), he says, “Christians angered by these facts should be angry with the Bible, not the messenger.” Make no mistake about it, Eichenwald is bashing the Bible, and he does so without the facts…continue reading

7. Can We Trust the New Testament Text? (Matt Waymeyer)

Several years ago I was walking in a park and met a man who identified himself as a pantheist. As I shared the Gospel with him, he raised a series of objections to the Christian faith, the first of which concerned the reliability of Scripture. “The Bible was going along fine,” he explained, “until King James came along and changed it all, and now we have no idea what the original actually said!”

The man’s objection was obviously more than a little misinformed, but it does raise a legitimate question: If the original manuscripts of the Bible no longer exist—and if the existing manuscripts do not completely agree with one another—how can we have confidence in the Scriptures we possess today? Can we really trust the Bible as it has been handed down to us? Can we really insist that it is nothing less than the inerrant Word of God? …continue reading

8. The Witness of the Bible to its Own Authority (Gleason Archer)

Does the Bible actually assert its own inerrancy as the revealed Word of God? Does it really lay claim to freedom from error in all that it affirms, whether in matters of theology, history, or science? Are proponents of this view truly justified in their insistence on this high degree of perfection in Scripture, or are they actually going beyond what it affirms concerning its own authority? These questions have been raised by those who advocate a lower concept of biblical authority, and it is important for us to settle them as we seek to come to terms with the Bible’s own witness…continue reading…

9. Alleged Chronological Contradictions (Eric Lyons)

Since the Bible begins at the Creation with Genesis—the book of beginnings—and ends with the book of Revelation (which many scholars believe was the last recorded book of the Bible), students of the Scriptures often assume that the Bible was compiled chronologically. Many students approach their reading of the Bible with the mind-set that everything in Scripture is arranged “from A to Z.” Since Genesis records what took place at the beginning of time, and it is the first book of the Bible, then the rest of the Bible follows suit, right? Actually, what the diligent student eventually finds is that the Bible is not a book of strict chronology. All sixty-six books of the Bible are not arranged in the order in which they were written. Furthermore, all of the events contained within each book also are not necessarily recorded chronologically…continue reading

10. The Resurrection Narratives (Kyle Butt)

Dismissing the miracles documented in the New Testament is a favorite pastime of many skeptics, and even some religious leaders. However, this “dismissal” game gets extremely complicated, because the miracles are so closely blended with historical facts that separating the two soon becomes like trying to separate two different colors of modeling clay…continue reading

11The Preacher and God’s Word (James Montgomery Boice)

Having recognized the primacy of the word in God’s own dealings with the human race, it is not at all difficult to note the primacy of the word in that early Christian preaching recorded in the New Testament…continue reading

12. Jesus Christ on the Infallibility of Scripture (David Livingston)

There is considerable debate these days concerning the inerrancy (infallibility) of Scripture. The authority of God’s Word is the main issue. But, if one yields to the authority of Jesus Christ (Yeshua HaMashiach), he must, in turn, yield to Christ’s view of the Scripture itself. Anyone and everyone who claims to be a Christian (a believer under the authority of Christ) must hold to the same view He did! What was it? ...continue reading...

 13. Spurgeon on Inerrancy

There are two things I want to say before I sit down. The first is, let us hold fast, tenaciously, doggedly, with a death grip, the truth of the inspiration of God’s Word. If it is not inspired and infallible, it cannot be of use in warning us. I see little use in being warned when the warning may be like the idle cry of “Wolf!” when there is no wolf. Everything in the railway service depends upon the accuracy of the signals: when these are wrong, life will be sacrificed. On the road to heaven we need unerring signals, or the catastrophes will be far more terrible. It is difficult enough to set myself right and carefully drive the train of conduct; but if, in addition to this, I am to set the Bible right, and thus manage the signals along the permanent way, I am in an evil plight indeed…continue reading

14. Are There Two Creation Accounts in Genesis? (Wayne Jackson)

Genesis 1 and 2 provide accounts of what God did during creation. But these two chapters don’t seem to agree. Are there two different accounts of creation under discussion in Genesis 1 and 2?…continue reading

15. Set Forth Your Case: God’s Own Challenge Regarding His Inerrant Word in Isaiah 40-48 – Part 1 (Greg Harris)

The Word of God stands forever because the God of His Word stands forever; they cannot be separated: the Person of God and the Word of God go hand in hand. In the latter part of Isaiah 40, God sets forth this challenge in reference to both His Word and its fulfillment…continue reading

Do Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God?

 

Recently, while scrolling through my Facebook newsfeed, I came across the term ‘Chrislam.’  The meaning of the word seemed obvious to me. But not wishing to assume anything, I googled it. My quick – and confessedly brief – search yielded much. On the home page of Chrislam.org, the words of Malcolm X greeted me:

“We are brothers, We are a family of God. Not one of us is better than the other in His eyes. He loves us both. The future can only be won against the “Evil one” by all of us standing strong together.”

Thus, Chrislam’s fundamental tenet is clear: Christianity and Islam are equally valid. Both religions are but one “family of God.” The trouble with this philosophy is simple. One need only to read the texts of both Islam and Christianity to discover just how impossible it is to agree with Chrislam’s conclusion. Sure, no one is better than another in God’s eyes (Romans 3:10f). That is not at issue. The issue is, rather, ‘What, and who, is the family of God?’ According to the Koran, the only true faith is Islam (Quran 3.19). According to Jesus Christ, he alone is ‘the way, the truth, and the life’ (John 14:6). Both cannot be right. Both are at odds with each other. The only way to mesh the two is to reject the founding documents of each (i.e., their writings).

What is Chrislam? Ken Silva of Apprising Ministries supplies this definition:

Chrislam is an attempt to syncretize Christianity with Islam. While it began in Nigeria in the 1980s, Chrislamic ideas have spread throughout much of the world. The essential concept of Chrislam is that Christianity and Islam are compatible, that one can be a Christian and a Muslim at the same time. Chrislam is not an actual religion of its own, but rather is a blurring of the differences and distinctions between Christianity and Islam” (online source).

Tony Campolo illustrates this doctrinal fuzziness. In his book Speaking My Mind, he writes:

I do not know what to make of the Muslim mystics, especially those who have come to be known as the Sufis. What do they experience in their mystical experience? Could they have encountered the same God we do in our Christian mysticism” (online source, italics mine)? 

Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God? This is the question. If so, then there is good reason to look for common ground. If not, then distinctions must be made unequivocally and unapologetically.

From My Archives: My Answer

The following is my response to an article published in a past edition of Faith Today, a magazine published by the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada.  It was published in part in the Sept./Oct. 2006 issue. I re-post due to the current ongoing doctrinal drift within the ranks of professing Evangelicalism and a growing concern for those who buy in to the lie that all religions are essentially the same.

Dear Editor:

I disagree with Tim Perry’s position as outlined in an article entitled “Do Muslims and Christians Worship the Same God?” (Faith Today, July/August 2006). He writes: “…I think the Bible teaches that Muslims (along with other faiths and none) and Christians worship the same God.” I disagree with Dr. Perry for several reasons. But ultimately I do not share Dr. Perry’s position because the glory and nature of God is at stake (Is. 42:8). “This question, as I understand it,” Dr. Perry states, “has to do with the nature of God.” With this I agree. On this plank my ‘good’ Dr. Perry and I stand together. This question does indeed have to do with the nature of God! Absolutely! And thus I write! However, Dr. Perry and I begin our doctrinal departure from each other when he continues by saying “It is not about whether Islam provides salvation. Questions of the nature and scope of salvation are vital in their own right. But I’m addressing the prior questions of worship and worship’s object.” The error, emptiness, and hopelessness of Dr. Perry’s position thus begin to show themselves.

First of all, genuine worship of the God who exists is not possible prior to the regenerating grace of God. The Bible teaches that before the new birth, all are “dead in [their] trespasses and sins” (Eph. 2:1). The last time I visited a cemetery, I heard no dead man sing. Only those who have life sing, those regenerated by the Holy Spirit unto faith in Christ. Furthermore, does Paul not say in Romans (a book to which Dr. Perry points in support of his position) that “THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD” (3:11)? Muslims, being unregenerate, do not seek for the God who is, let alone worship Him! They may seek a god, but not the God who is.

Moreover, Christians, by definition, worship Christ! God Incarnate! The “radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature!” In his own article, Dr. Perry has made it crystal clear that Muslims reject the incarnation of Christ, the deity of Christ, the supremacy of Christ, the authority of Christ, the finished work of Christ, the authority of the New Testament, and thus the authority of God’s word. Simply put, Muslims reject Christ, Who by the way, “…was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…. and the Word became flesh” (John 1:1,14; cf. John 10:30). The God who does in fact exist revealed Himself in the flesh, in the One who said “…no one comes to the Father, but through Me.” Thus, Dr. Perry’s statement “God is worshipped, however incorrectly or incompletely, by many who do not embrace Christianity,” leaves me to wonder if he has seriously, systematically, prayerfully, and reverently thought through his position . Either Jesus, the One by Whom “all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth” (Col. 1:16) and the One Who “made purification of sins” (Heb. 1:3) is God (the author of creation and salvation) or He is not. God has revealed Himself in Scripture as both Creator and Redeemer. We cannot split God in two and worship Him as one or the other, as Dr. Perry seems to think possible. Christians worship a God who has both created and has indeed saved His people from their sins. Allah neither creates nor saves.

Dr. Perry also asserts that his position is “the position of historic Christian orthodoxy.” If this is the case, why did he not provide documentation for such a sweeping and enormously significant claim? This is simply irresponsible.

Archaeological evidence reveals that Allah “was a pre-Islamic pagan deity” who “in fact…was the moon god who was married to the sun goddess and the stars were his daughters” (Robert Morey, The Islamic Invasion: Confronting the World’s Fastest Growing Religion, Christian Scholars Press, p.211). It makes complete sense, then, that a crescent moon flies on the flags of Arab nations.  Aside from this, ‘Allah’ is not a Hebrew or Greek word for God, but “a purely Arabic term used in reference to an Arabian deity” (Morey, The Islamic Invasion, p.48). According to Robert Morey, the Encyclopedia of Religion (eds. Meagher, O’Brian, Aherne, 1:117) states that: “Allah is a pre-Islamic name…corresponding to the Babylonian Bel.” Thus, Timothy George’s statement in Christianity Today, “This is what Christianity teaches: God Almighty, the one and only Allah (Allah is simply the Arabic word for “God”), took upon himself humanity” does not stand the test of archaeological scrutiny.

Finally, I end with one more reason for my disagreement with Dr. Perry. As far as I can tell from his article, Dr. Perry evidently believes “that God may acquit some people on the Last Day” on the basis of worshiping “the Creator of everything.” If I understand his argument correctly, then two further questions need to be asked of Dr. Perry, namely “Why did Jesus die?” and “What must I do to be saved?” The Bible does not teach two ways of salvation. Sinners are not justified on the grounds that they worshiped “the Creator of Everything” (Who, by the way, is none other than Jesus Christ! See Colossians 1:16). The position of “historic Christian orthodoxy” states that acquittal of the sinner is by grace alone through faith alone in and because of Christ alone. Perhaps this is the most fundamental error in saying that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. The God who is (Colossians 1:19; Hebrews 1:3, 8) saves sinners from their sins. Allah does no such thing. The cross is the crux,  not the crescent moon.

Conclusion

To say that Christians and Muslims worship the same God is to say Jesus is Allah. But no true Christian or true Muslim devoted to their sacred texts would ever make that claim. Men and women are acquitted not because of their own actions, like worship, but on the sole grounds of Another’s action received by faith alone. Dr. Perry, and others of his ilk, need to study the basics of the Christian faith!