Biblical Inerrancy

Theology Thursday: Union Theological Seminary On Inerrancy

On September 11, 2018, Union Theological Seminary released a clarification statement (of sorts) in response to criticism it received for its initial response to the Statement on Social Justice. This clarification is very useful, because it shows the Bible-believing Christian why Machen was right – liberalism is another religion entirely.

Union Theological Seminary is not a Christian institution. Its an incubator of leftist ideology and rank unbelief. This clarification, below, speaks for itself. It could only have been written in an echo-chamber of “elitism,” borne out of a worldview entirely disconnected from Scriptural revelation.1 And, remember, the great church historian Phillip Schaff once taught at Union, when it was a very different place!

1. A word about biblical infallibility: This weekend, we received much damnation from fundamentalists over our denial of scriptural inerrancy. It’s understandable, because once you relinquish conviction that the Bible is *literally* God’s word, faith becomes a messier affair.

1784 reads

A Theological Case for Inerrancy (Part 2)

Read Part 1.

Let us consider the full import of Christ’s words in John 17:17:

Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.

Jesus is praying to the Father regarding the sanctifying of His disciples. He tells the Father “Your word is truth.” This “word” is the same “word” which will sanctify them. They have kept it (v.6) as it was given them (v.14), but where is this word? I maintain it is Scripture (v.12), and this text associates the word with God’s own holy and truthful character. There is no room for human frailty.

This text also separates Jesus from the Scripture. Jesus is going away, but the word of the Father must now keep His disciples. Thus, it is a mistake to too closely equate Jesus the Word with the Scriptures. There does exist a close connection between the two, but we cannot push the association too far. Indeed, we cannot push it even as far a personification. The Scriptures are the written product of the Divine revelation, but they are a product all the same.

1112 reads

N.T. Wright on the Bible and why he won’t call himself an inerrantist

"I don’t call myself an 'inerrantist' (a) because that word means what it means within a modernist rationalism, which I reject and (b) because it seems to me to have failed in delivering a full-blooded reading and living of what the Bible actually says." RNS

5807 reads

Why a Commitment to Inerrancy Does Not Demand a Strictly 6,000-Year-Old Earth: One Young Earther's Plea for Realism (Part 2)

Originally published in Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal (DBSJ) 2013. Used by permission. Read Part 1.

The 6000-year-earth position may be questioned on several grounds, some more substantial than others. I would like to suggest, though, that while all of the arguments developed below are load-bearing, the intertextual-exegetical arguments take pride of place in the ensuing material.

2692 reads

Pages