JOURNAL ARTICLE CRITIQUE

of

Andrew, Stephen L. “Biblical Inerrancy.” Chafer Theological Seminary Journal 08, no. 1 (January 2002): 2-21.

THEO 525-B04 LUO (fall 2013)

Systematic Theology I

Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary

Jennifer C. Wood (ID# L25703677)

September 1, 2013

Contents

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………….1
Brief Summary…………………………………………………………………………………….1
Critical Interaction………………………………………………………………………………...2
Conclusion
Selected Bibliography

Introduction This paper is a critical examination of Stephen Andrew’s “Biblical Inerrancy” as published January of 2002 in the Chafer Theological Seminary Journal. Andrew writes the article as a graduate student at Fuller Theological Seminary pursuing a Master of Arts in Theology. In the exposition he presents a historical overview of the biblical inerrancy debate and reviews arguments concerning inerrancy of the bible as relevant to modern evangelicalism. Due to spatial limitations, Andrew restricts his focus to examining the views in support of and against inerrancy from four major perspectives: the slippery slope, epistemological, historical, and biblical arguments.
Brief Summary The article is written as an exhortation for the promotion and defense of the inerrancy doctrine while warning against a universal acceptance of all supporting arguments. Andrew opens by defining inerrancy according to Paul D. Feinberg1, as well as Article XII of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy2; and “limited inerrancy” using a description by Stephen T. Davis3. He traces the debate from its origination in the late 19th century, with B.B. Warfield advocating inerrancy and James Orr opposing him in favor of limited inerrancy, through to its decline in the 1980s. He notes the apex of the debate as the publication of Harold Lindsell’s The Battle for the Bible4 and includes a comprehensive list of scholars on both sides of the controversy. Then, Andrew sets about presenting arguments in favor of biblical inerrancy, proclaiming invalidating weaknesses in the slippery slope argument but agreeing with the remaining three. Next, he evaluates evidence against inerrancy as used by proponents of limited inerrancy; pointing out areas of concern with each view point. The article concludes with a declaration of inerrancy having “borne its burden of proof.”5
Critical Interaction Andrew writes with the presupposition of God inspired Scripture and admits that he is “sympathetic to inerrancy.”6 His point of view is limited to the grammatical-historical hermeneutic approach of Protestant evangelicalism. Thus, the article, true to its thesis, is more of an apologetic practice for biblical inerrancy than an unbiased commentary on the subject. His examination of the slippery-slope argument highlights the potential impact to the sola scriptura principle that changing the current orthodox view could present. An important consideration, especially in light of James Thomson’s observation that “the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments recognized by Protestants have been understood to be the rule of faith and life- not church councils or ancient creeds, not pronouncements of bishops or conclaves.”7 Still, he remains faithful to biblical inerrancy using Davis’ words to expose the weakness of the slippery-slope argument: “The real question to ask is whether or not a doctrine is true, not what the pragmatic effects of believing it will be.”8 He agrees with Davis again when he denounces deductive epistemological reasoning, but quickly returns to defense of the argument as long as it is based on a “primary inductive historical investigation.”9 He shows historically that inerrancy has been a dominate view since the Early Church Fathers, and soundly dismantles all five of the traditional points used by limited inerrantists to attack the biblical argument for inerrancy using Scriptural intent and logic.
Conclusion
Overall, Andrew’s article is a comforting defense of biblical inerrancy, but it offers little help to any reader that remains undecided as to whether or not the bible can be shown to err. His attack of arguments used against inerrancy beneficially leaves out any information that might be used to support limited inerrancy. One would need to conduct further research of the arguments made by proponents of limited inerrancy in order to deduce an opinion based on personal consideration of the evidence. Additionally, the complicated undulation presented by Andrew’s discussion of the four arguments in support of inerrancy and the subsequent defense of them against inerrantists could have been avoided by simply presenting both sides of the individual arguments at the same time.
---Notes---
1. “Inerrancy means that when all facts are known, the Scriptures in their original autographs and properly interpreted will be shown to be wholly true in everything that they affirm, whether that has to do with doctrine or morality or with social, physical, or life sciences.” Paul D. Feinberg, “The Meaning of Inerrancy,” in Inerrancy, ed. Norman L. Geisler (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1980), 294.

2. “We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit. We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.” “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy,” appendix to Inerrancy, ed. Norman L. Geisler (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1980), 496.

3. “The Bible is inerrant if and only if it makes no false or misleading statements on any topic whatsoever. The Bible is infallible if and only if it makes no false or misleading statements on faith and practice.” Stephen T. Davis, The Debate About the Bible: Inerrancy versus Infallibility (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1977), 23.

4. Harold Lindsell, The Bible in the Balance (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979).

5. Stephen L. Andrew, “Biblical Inerrancy” Chafer Theological Seminary Journal 08, no. 1 (January 2002), 21.

6. Andrew, 7.

7. James Thomson, “Sola Scriptura: Tried and True- or Problematic” The Presbyterian Record 135, no. 10 (November 2011), 17.

8. Davis, 40.

9. Andrew, 17.

Bibliography
Andrew, Stephen L. “Biblical Inerrancy.” Chafer Theological Seminary Journal 08, no. 1 (January 2002): 2-21.
Davis, Stephen T. The Debate about the Bible: Inerrancy versus Infallibility. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1977.
Geisler, Norman L, ed. Inerrancy. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1980.
Lindsell, Harold. The Bible in the Balance. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979.
Thomson, James. “Sola Scriptura: Tried and True- or Problematic.” The Presbyterian Record 135, no. 10 (November 2011), 17-18.