02 So Many Words

So Many Words To affirm clearly one’s belief in the inspiration of the Bible demands many words today. That was not always so. Formerly, it was enough to say, “I believe in the inspiration of the Bible.” That said it all. Everyone understood those words to mean that the Bible was from God, completely accurate and reliable, and therefore authoritative.

Verbal inspiration. Later, it became necessary to add, “I believe in the verbal inspiration of the Bible.” Verbal emphasized the fact that the very words were inspired, not only the thoughts, as some were saying. If only thoughts are inspired, they said, there can be considerable freedom in the choice of words to express those thoughts; thus, they concluded, “It is not possible to speak about the inspiration of the words of the text of Scripture.” But those who held to full inspiration of words as well as thought insisted that God must have guided the very words used by the writers, or the Bible is less than inspired. Hence the phrase “verbal inspiration” seemed necessary.

Verbal, plenary inspiration. But some sought to undermine inspiration by asserting that although words might be inspired, not all of them were. They insisted that there was no way to claim that every word in the Bible was inspired. So to affirm inspiration it became necessary to add, “I believe in the verbal, plenary (complete, full) inspiration of the Bible.” That assured that no part of the Bible would be omitted.

Verbal, plenary, infallible inspiration. In time another attack on the complete inspiration of all the Bible was launched. Some denied that the Bible, though “inspired,” was infallible. Then it became necessary to say, “I believe in the verbal, plenary, infallible inspiration of the Bible.” That affirmed that the words were exactly the ones God wanted in the text, and therefore every word was authoritative.

Verbal, plenary, infallible, inerrant inspiration. Nevertheless, some could not accept the idea that the words were exactly those God intended, and yet they were reluctant to abandon the authority of Scripture. So there developed the attempt to allow for errors in the text while keeping the “infallibility” of the message. To counter that, it became necessary to say, “I believe in the verbal, plenary, infallible, and inerrant (without error) inspiration of the Bible.” Adding the word “inerrant” focused on the necessary relation between accuracy of the words and authority of the message.

Verbal, plenary, infallible, inerrant, unlimited inspiration. Today there has appeared yet another attempt to undermine full inspiration. The new doctrine affirms belief in inerrancy but limits the extent of inerrancy. The Bible, they say, “is not inerrant when it speaks of science, history, or genealogies, and so on.” In other words, it possesses only “limited inerrancy.” But why say “limited inerrancy”? Why not “limited errancy”? If the Bible has limitations on its inerrancy, then obviously it is errant, though not completely so. So limited inerrancy and limited errancy amount to the same thing. But why do the proponents of limited inerrancy not want to use the equivalent label “limited errancy”? One cannot be sure of the answer, but it could hardly be denied that limited inerrancy is a much more palatable label than anything that has the word errancy in it. What evangelical would not want to avoid using a label that suggests he believes that there are errors in the Bible? To speak of limited inerrancy seems much more respectable, but it is also more deceitful. Intentional or not, it is a semantic game played to help cover up a dangerously deceptive view. We need to expose limited inerrancy for what it is. If parts of the Bible are not inerrant, then those parts are errant. That is an inescapable conclusion.

Therefore today, “in order to affirm clearly a belief in the full inspiration of the Scripture,” it has become necessary to say, “I believe in the verbal, plenary, infallible, unlimited inerrancy of the Bible.” Is the question of inerrancy truly important? Many are saying no, but others insist that inerrancy is a crucial doctrine. Some try to drive a wedge between parts of the total affirmation; others insist the whole statement stands or falls together. Is this a major issue or not? To help answer the question we need to examine some of the excuses offered for not accepting a doctrine of inspiration that includes inerrancy.