Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology)
Book Review By Bryan Knedgen
One of my professors once said that inerrancy, defined as “Scripture being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit,” is the watershed issue on which evangelicalism stands or falls. In light of that and recent articles popping up in social media, we felt this would be an important book to review. The book opens with the editors, Merrick and Garrett, giving a history of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI), its purpose, its definition of inerrancy and its challenges in modern-day scholarship. Some well-known founding members of the ICBI were R.C. Sproul, Francis Schaeffer, and J.I. Packer.
The editors set up each contributor’s discussion on inerrancy into two parts. The first part deals with four categories: God and his relationship to his creatures, the doctrine of inspiration, the nature of Scripture, and the nature of truth. In the second part, each contributor was asked to do a case study on three topics in Scripture. The first is Josh. 6 (the fall of Jericho) and the factuality of Scripture. The second is on canonical (the collection of books in Scripture) coherence in relation to Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9. The third is on theological coherence with Deut. 20 in relation to Matt. 5. Each author’s section is followed by a critique from the other four contributors.
First up to bat is Al Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, who penned the essay “When God Speaks: The Classic Doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy.” Molher takes a firm, traditional stance on inerrancy. He views the ICBI as a wholly sufficient summary of the correct view of Scripture. A large portion of his essay is quotes of the ICBI, which is somewhat disappointing. Molher found little common ground with his co-authors; he came out swinging and never stopped. He tackles the three cases woodenly and somewhat robotically, but I would agree with much of his conclusions. His biggest achievement in the book is his critique of John Franke’s essay, where Mohler engages and refutes Franke’s assumptions holistically, where most of the other authors are too confused to understand what Franke is saying.
Peter Enns is almost an exact opposite of Al Mohler theologically. He was removed from Westminster Seminary because of his views on inerrancy and now works at Eastern College. Enns has penned the essay “Inerrancy, However Defined, Does Not Describe What The Bible Does.” Enns believes that we need to move away from inerrancy into a more incarnational model of Scripture, that the Bible fully reflects the ideals and values of the culture in which it was written. However, he does a poor job of explaining and applying what that means. Out of all of them, Enns, much like many mainstream scholars featured in our media, has an axe to grind and hacks away at inerrancy. He views Joshua 6 as legend and says there is a contradiction in Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9, which puts him outside the pale of what most would rightly consider evangelical orthodoxy. More influenced by classical humanism than the biblical worldview, he makes a constant appeal to scholarly consensus. I greatly disagree with a lot of what Enns is claiming, especially when he puts so much stock in archaeological findings that are fairly inconclusive.
Michael F. Bird is a lecturer in theology at Ridley Melbourne College of Mission and Ministry in Melbourne, Australia. Bird has penned the essay “Inerrancy Is Not Necessary For Evangelicalism Outside The USA.” He bridges the gap between the two biblical theologians Molher and Enns, along with the systematic theologians Vanhoozer and John Franke. Bird is one of the most readable authors, with quick wit and a good amount of humor incorporated. His essay critiques were spot on most of the time, and I believe I sided with him on a majority of issues. Though he believes the issues in the ICBI to be true, he purports that the ICBI does not represent an international consensus because most of the world is not wrestling with inerrancy the way we do in the West. He brings a much needed outsider viewpoint into the discussion and challenges us to think outside of our Western bubble.
Keven Vanhoozer is Professor of Systematic Theology at Wheaton College and Graduate School. Vanhoozer has penned the essay “Augustinian Inerrancy: Literal Meaning, Literal Truth, and Literal Interpretation In The Economy of Biblical Discourse.” His essay is brilliant. He points out that just because something can be used poorly, that doesn’t negate the veracity of it. Thus a “Don’t throw the baby out with the bath water argument” is established through his review of inerrancy. His critiques were also well informed, firm, and gracious. His case studies were his weakest part, contrasting honesty towards the difficulties presented but lacking a firm resolution.
Finally we have John R. Franke, executive director and professor of missional theology at Yellowstone Theological Institute in Bozeman, Montana. Franke has penned the essay “Recasting Inerrancy: The Bible As Witness To Missional Plurality.” Franke appeals to a missional and postmodern context, which is admiral. However, Franke, to be frank, was just outside of the discussion entirely. He basically re-casted the discussion to a plurality of truths approach that made things extremely messy. Although Enns and Franke are in favor of an incarnational model, Enns plays inside the boundaries of the discussion, while Franke is playing in an entirely different stadium. Out of all the critiques of the other contributors, his was the most confusing.
Five Views on Inerrancy is a fantastic book and I greatly enjoyed it. It displays diverse viewpoints on how we read and understand our sacred Scripture. One of its biggest strengths is also its biggest weakness, in that it is a bunch of academics having a conversation. Allowing for people who are familiar with the lingo to learn a great deal, but for the average layman, only Vanhoozer and Bird really keep it accessible. I highly recommend this to anyone who is curious about the doctrine of inerrancy and its current issues within evangelicalism. |
