Questions of Inerrancy: Introduction


In a recent, and brief Twitter thread, which hearkened back to a brief series of blog interactions between Amateur Exegete and myself, I suddenly found myself thrust back into the issue of biblical inerrancy.

Now, I realize that the issue of biblical inerrancy is a matter of contention between believers, especially in light of certain cultural issues. I find that the chief issue though, depends upon whether or not the person in question wants to gain the approval of man, or actually engage with Scripture as the only meaningful grounds for knowledge and morality. That Scripture is, as Paul states, “…profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness…”

As I have written in the past, and will continue to hold as true, is that inerrancy is inherently tied to the character and will of God, which is both expressed in and revealed through Scripture. That is, if God is truly God, then his word, which is revealed in Scripture is therefore true. I’m not going to rehearse everything that I have written about it, you can read it for yourself (here and here, for example).

However, questions regularly arise and statements are made, and it is a good exercise to interact with those questions, if they present meaningful and relevant challenges to particular positions. Non-Alchemist, has a post on his blog titled, “Questions for Inerrantists” that, I think, carries us over both familiar ground and maybe some new territory. And, in that spirit , I think that it’s worth having a look at.

Taking Her for a Spin

Non-Alchemist (NA) begins his post with a hanging quotation from theologian and seminary president Albert Mohler, which seems meant to be what the questions are but around. The quote is not given any kind of referential basis to check as to whether or not the quote is legitimate and genuine to Mohler, and whether the emphasis applied in it is original. Let me just say that I’m not laying an accusation of dishonesty at the feet of NA, I am just an curious about the context of the quotation but, that being said, I am fairly certain of where Mohler falls on this issue.

Since some of the questions are rather long and some are rather complex so I’m not going to attempt to answer all of them at once, what I am going to do is spend several posts looking at them and interacting with them, which means that this page will become the landing page for subsequent posts.

Until then, take time to check out this discussion on the topic of inerrancy.

Posts in this series:

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s