13 Important Ramifications

Important Ramifications No one can predict with total accuracy what doctrinal dominoes may topple after inerrancy falls. Defections do not always follow a logical pattern. Nevertheless, some general predictions can be made as to what may happen when inerrancy goes. That is not to say that everyone who may hold to one or more of these deviations I am going to list denies inerrancy, nor am I saying that such a denial inevitably brings these deviations, but some or all of them will probably be evident whenever inerrancy is abandoned.

Deviations in the area of the supernatural. It is a historical fact that a less than total view of inerrancy has resulted in a denial of some or all of the miracles of the Bible. Usually Old Testament miracles are the first either to be denied outright or explained as happening naturally rather than supernaturally. Often the attack is directed against the historical events recorded in the first eleven chapters of Genesis. That means that the accounts of creation or of the sin of man or of the Flood are denied as being historically and factually true. The direct attack calls them myths with no factual content. Less frontally, some try to maintain the “truth” of the stories while denying the factual and historical content (a neat sleight-of-hand kind of exegesis!). They say, for example, that nothing could be more truthful than the fact of sin, but, of course, no persons named Adam and Eve ever lived at any time in history in an actual place called Eden to commit that first sin. But by either the direct or less direct routes, the result is the same-the events did not happen historically, and therefore many biblical passages are erroneous.

If that seems to be too strong a statement, remember that other parts of the Bible refer to the events in Genesis 1:1-31; Genesis 2:1-25; Genesis 3:1-24; Genesis 4:1-26; Genesis 5:1-32; Genesis 6:1-22; Genesis 7:1-24; Genesis 8:1-22; Genesis 9:1-29; Genesis 10:1-32; Genesis 11:1-32 as historically true. For instance, aspects of the account of creation and the Fall are affirmed in Exodus 20:11, 1 Chronicles 1:1, Job 31:33, Hosea 6:7, Matthew 19:4, Mark 10:6, Luke 3:38, Romans 5:14, 1 Corinthians 11:9; 1 Corinthians 15:22, 1 Corinthians 15:45; 2 Corinthians 11:3, 1 Timothy 2:13-14; and Jude 1:14. Abandonment of inerrancy and a naturalistic explanation of miracles frequently go hand in hand. The plagues in Egypt often furnish a good example. From there it is a short step to denying the supernatural aspect of the miracles of Christ. Errancy allows for that and may even encourage it.

Underlying those denials in the realm of the supernatural is the errantist’s use of the historical-critical method of understanding Scripture. The method is based on liberal presuppositions about the Bible, so that when evangelicals use it, those presuppositions inevitably rub off. They include: (a) nothing can be accepted as God’s Word unless it can be proved to be so; (b) man’s reason sits in judgment on the Bible to decide what is God’s Word and what is not; (c) therefore what man’s reason decides to be God’s Word is accepted, and what man judges not to be God’s Word is rejected.

Apply that methodology to the question of creation and here is the result: unless one can prove the creationist’s view of Genesis, one says it cannot be God’s Word; the mind, filled with the teachings of evolution, judges what part of Genesis is true and what is to be reinterpreted to harmonize with scientific claims. Such a person concludes that Adam and Eve were not necessarily the first parents, if indeed they existed at all, and certainly the whole process could not have been accomplished in anything less than very long ages of time.

Apply the same method to angels and demons. Such beings are incompatible with reason and science, so the mind concludes that they cannot exist and that passages that teach they do are either in error or accommodate to the ignorances of the people of the times.

Apply the historical-critical method to certain historical sections of the Bible that errantists see as containing errors. Their intellectual investigations lead them to the conclusion that there are errors in some of those portions of the Bible, therefore, those portions cannot have the same authority as other parts. The contemporary errantist says that makes little difference, for those errors are in nonrevelational sections of the Bible, which do not affect our doctrine or practice. The revelational sections are inerrant, and that is what really matters to our faith. But who decides which sections are revelational and which are not? The interpreter. In other words, the contemporary errantist divides Scripture into sections that affect faith, and particularly salvation, and sections that do not. He employs a method similar to that used by the historical-critical method liberals. Of course the evangelical errantist does not embrace all of the same conclusions the liberal does, and he considers the Bible to be more authoritative; but that evangelical is on the same slide, though he may not have gone as far or as fast.

Deviations in the area of sex. Comtemporary society has shown its tolerance in varying degrees toward adultery, homosexuality, abortion, and divorce. That serves as a challenge to the authority of the Bible. It also may weaken the stand of those who acknowledge the presence of errors in the Bible because it so clearly violates biblical imperatives.

One writer asserts that women had certain rights before Christianity. She says that one way to restore the equality that Christianity has denied women is to assume that there are two conflicting accounts of creation in Genesis. She shifts the emphasis to the account in Genesis 1:1-31 where both man and women were said to be created at the same time and thus with equality. Such an interpretation clearly denies inerrancy and is used in this case to justify a permissiveness that the Bible clearly does not allow (Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, “The Women’s Movement,” Journal of Psychology and Theology 2, no. 4 [Fall 1974]: 307-8).

Deviations in the area of subordination. Could errancy and some of its deviations be symptomatic of a deeper problem, the problem of subordination? Clearly God has set up certain hierarchies in the Scriptures that are violated by permissive teachings on homosexuality, abortion, and some aspects of the role of women in the church. Similar insubordination shows up in the contemporary doctrine of “selective obedience” toward the laws of government. (The position might just as well be labeled “selective disobedience”.) Not only did we see that in relation to the draft and going to war, but we continue to see it in relation to other laws that some judge as not good and therefore feel free to disobey. The authoritative teaching of Romans 13:1-14 and 1 Peter 2:1-25 does not allow that attitude. May I insert a word of caution to my fellow inerrantists? We must be very careful that our hermeneutics or artificial exegesis do not lead us to a practical denial of inerrancy by diminishing the authority of passages to which we apply such exegesis. If we do not think God straightforwardly says what He means, then we do not have to acknowledge that He means what He says. Where will all this lead? Some apparently can hold a reasonably high view of Scripture and its authority while denying its total inerrancy. Others have moved far away from a conservative view of the Bible, denying the historicity of some of its passages, diluting the miraculous, accepting some of the conclusions of the historical-critical method of interpretation, and replacing divine authority with human, existential, subjective authority. Many are somewhere in between.

Consider this illustration: There are two sausage factories in a town. When you go into one of the plants you see that everything is spotlessly clean. As you watch the process you see the workers mixing the sausage ingredients. Accidentially, one of them drops a handful of meat on the floor. He quickly reaches down and picks it up and throws it in the trash. Then he immediately scrubs the area of the floor where the meat fell until it is spotless again. In due time, the sausage comes out, is packaged, stamped Grade A, is sold, and when eaten it nourishes people.

You then visit the other factory. It, too, appears quite clean. Again you watch the workers mixing the ingredients. A similar accident happens, and one of the workers drops something on the floor. This time, however, he picks up the meat and puts it back into the mixer along with the rest. He reaches down and swipes at the floor with a rag pulled from his hip pocket. The process continues, the sausage is finished, packaged, stamped Grade A, sold, eaten, and it nourishes people. The sausage from both plants meets government standards, and all of it is nourishing. But let me ask two questions. First, which brand would you prefer to buy? Obviously, the one made in the spotlessly clean plant would be more desirable. The other might not hurt you, but on the other hand, something may have gotten into it due to uncleanliness. Eating it could make you sick. Who could be sure that a little dirt in sausage-or a little error in the Bible-will not harm the user?

Before asking the second question, let me add a few more details to the illustration. The less than spotless plant is family owned. The sons are being trained to take over the family business, and part of that training, whether by design or default, permits them to put ingredients that have fallen on the floor back into the machine. The father watches things rather closely, but not perfectly. Now the second question: When the sons take over, what will be their standards? More strict than their father’s? Or more lenient? Most likely more lenient, and more and more so as time passes. Finally, one day their product will fail to meet even government standards, and they will be out of business.

What of the Bible’s future? Perhaps the parable of the two sausage factories gives us a clue.

Errantists today are communicating what they believe to some circle of followers and are affecting people in those circles. Errantist professors affect their students who affect their churches who affect their denominations. Errantist writers plant seeds of doubt in the minds of their readers, assuring them they can have their cake (the authority of the Bible) and eat it too (the errors in the Bible). All of that not only battles for the minds of the present generation, but spills over on the next generation of teachers, preachers, and laymen. The lines are drawn. Where do you stand?

Ryrie, Charles C., What You Should Know About Inerrancy, (Willow Grove, PA: Woodlawn Publishers) 1998, c1981.