“Thy word is truth.”

So said our Lord (John 17:17)—and, in saying this, He confronted us with an issue, the issue of the ages. And also, the issue for the 80s.

This is the issue with which the Bible begins and with which it also ends.

This was the issue also in Paradise at the beginning when the serpent, with devilish cunning, called the matter into question by asking: “Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of any tree of the garden?” That was the first instance of the so-called “new hermeneutic.”

And that is the issue also as the Lord brings His Word to its awesome conclusion when He says of the Scriptures with utmost finality: “If any man shall add unto them, God shall add unto him the plagues which are written in this book; and if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are written in this book” (Rev. 22:19).

“Thy word is truth.”

This is the lodestar to guide life’s mariner to the only haven of safety; the touchstone for him who seeks to know what is the true, the good, and the beautiful; the secret of those who give up the pleasures of sin that are but for a season; and who, with Moses, look unto “the recompense of reward” (Heb. 11:26).

Of those who presume to sit in judgment on the Word, Sir Walter Scott once said so well:

“And better had they ne’er been born, Who read to doubt or read to scorn.”

The issue is whether Thus saith the Lord! is for us to be or not to be. And part and parcel of this crucial issue is the question: Is our Bible inerrant, yes or no?

   

A live issue – No, we are not now about to whip a dead horse, or to belabor a question that no one is asking. The yes or no of the inerrancy of Scripture is a live and a current issue. It is such notwithstanding the contempt of the liberals who may judge the discussion of it to be much ado about nothing; notwithstanding the concern of certain evangelicals who would rather squelch it as an unnecessary and a nasty squabble that will do no more than spread disunity among their ranks; and notwithstanding the aloofness of those peace-at-any–price evangelicals who refuse to become involved in their hope that the matter will just go away of itself.

Indeed this is a n issue, and one that is very much alive. And, try as we will, we can see this as nothing less than an instance of incipient higher criticism now asking for and also receiving acceptance in evangelical circles. The same devil whom Jesus calls “a liar, and the father thereof” (John 8:44), the one who at the beginning led Eve astray in the Garden, is still at it. The trick is to start ever so small (merely to concede errors in the Bible as to history, science, geography, chronology, and other “non-revelational” matters)—and then how easy it is to go on from there.

Voltaire, a deist and an opponent of all organized religion, knew what he was talking about when he once said: “If we would destroy the Christian religion, we must first destroy man’s belief in the Bible.” But, in making his attack, satan is wily enough to begin with a soft touch and not with a sledgehammer.

In his “Foreword” to God’s Inerrant Word (edited by J. W. Montgomery) R. C. Sproul writes: “At the turn of the century, Abraham Kuyper warned of the possibility that developing trends in the higher criticism of the Christian Scriptures could become an exercise in ‘Biblical vandalism.’ That warning is no longer a future possibility but a fait accompli . . . ‘Studied ambiguity’ is the hallmark of modern confessional statements. In a word, the foundations of the church have been rudely shaken.”

It was intriguing to learn recently of a church with a pulpit desk on the back of which confronting the preacher is this inscription: Preach the Word, and on the front of which confronting the congregation is the inscription: Thus saith the Lord. A pulpit will continue to have power only to the extent that it proclaims the Word, the whole Word, and nothing but the Word as being, inspired, infallible, inerrant, and authoritative—not only in part but in its entirety from start to finish.

Recent trends – The recent trends with respect to the inerrancy issue among evangelicals have been spelled out clearly and definitively by Dr. Harold Lindsell in his The Battle for the Bible (1976, Zondervan) and now in a second volume The Bible in the Balance (1979, Zondervan).

In “The Introduction” to the second book, Lindsell states: “The Battle for the Bible appeared in print in the spring of 1976. Time magazine featured it in the religion section shortly thereafter. In a few months’ time the book elicited national and international responses which ranged from enthusiastic approval to intense opposition … This writer has published fifteen books through the years . . . More letters concerning this book were received than for all of the other works combined. The mail was supportive, encouraging, and appreciative, except for two or three letters at most. Those who reacted negatively chose to make their opinions known in other ways” (p. 9).

It will be recalled that Dr. Lester De Koster, former editor of The Banner, took vigorous issue with Lindsell’s The Battle for the Bible even to the point of calling it “a highly incompetent work, at most a reservoir of unseemly gossip,” an unbecoming and regrettable slur.

The current trend is to affirm the infallibility of the Bible while, at the same time, denying its inerrancy. For example, Dr. Stephen T. Davis, in his The Debate about the Bible: Inerrancy versus Infallibility (1977) writes “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 any matter of faith and practice. In these senses, I personally hold that the Bible is infallible but not inerrant” (p. 23).

The current trend is evident also from a 1973 table of statistics as to the percentage of ministers still in agreement with the following statement: “Scriptures are the inspired and inerrant Word of God not only in matters of faith but also in historical, geographical, and other secular matters.”

The statistics reveal a significant disparity in the percentage of agreement on the part of ministers over 55 and those under 35 as follows:

Episcopalians: Over 55 – 8%; Under 35 – 4%

Methodist: Over 55 – 17%; Under 35 – 8%

Presbyterian: Over 55 – 21%; Under 35 – 6%

American Baptist: Over 55 – 42%; Under 35 –17%

American Lutheran: Over 55 – 50%; Under 35 – 6%

Missouri Synod Lutheran: Over 55 – 90%; Under 35 – 63%

These figures speak for themselves. It would be interesting to know what a survey of CRC ministers would reveal on this score. And please don’t say, “It can’t happen to us.”

Dr. Harry R. Boer, whose recent gravamen denying reprobation is still fresh in our memories, in The Reformed Journal of March, 1978 stated forthrightly: “I do not at all believe that we have a Bible that is ‘without error in all its parts.’ Such a statement may be piously meant, but it is scripturally untrue. It is contradicted by a stream of data that flows from Genesis to Revelation . . .” (p. 17). Notwithstanding such a bold disavowal of the inerrancy of the Bible, Dr. Boer is allowed to go freely on his way as a member and as a minister “in good standing” in the CRC.

Theological seminaries are on record occupying opposite positions on the inerrancy issue. John Warwick Montgomery in God’s Inerrant Word (1974, Bethany Fellowship) writes: “Today, entire evangelical faculties of theology line up on either side of the issue: Covenant, Dallas, Talbot, Trinity, Westminster, France’s Faculte Libre de Theologie Reformee, Germany’s Bibelschule Bergstrasse affirming the total reliability of Scripture; Asbury, Bethel, Fuller, North Park, the Free University of Amsterdam allowing the issue of biblical error to remain an open question” (p. 20). How gratifying it would be if Calvin Theological Seminary would remove doubts and misgivings on the part of the CRC constituency by publishing a consistent and unambiguous pro-inerrancy stance. If the trumpet is to give forth no uncertain sound from CRC pulpits, this also is of the essence.

The issue stated – In ascribing both infallibility and inerrancy to the Bible it is necessary that we define our terms precisely. Why, we are being asked, is it now necessary to add “inerrant” if we already have professed the Bible to be “infallible”? The answer: for two reasons.

First, the trend today among evangelicals is to ascribe only a limited inerrancy to Scripture while at the same time saying that it is infallible. We are being told by some that the Bible is infallible but that its inerrancy pertains only to matters of “faith and practice” or to what they call “revelational” matters while this does not pertain to matters of history, chronology, geography, science, and other secular matters regarded by them as “non–revelational.” In maintaining the historic Christian position, we hold that all of Scripture is revelational, and that both infallibility and inerrancy are to be ascribed to it in all its parts.

Second, it ought to be recognized that, although similar, infallible and inerrant are not identical in meaning. The Bible is infallible in that it is not liable to error; it is inerrant in that, as a result of its infallibility, it is actually free from error. Although the two terms may at one time have been synonymous in their connotation and coverage, this is no longer true and hence it is necessary to distinguish clearly.

To be sure, the inerrancy ascribed only to the autographs (the original manuscripts as they came from the Bible writers) does not apply to the copying, translating, and printing of the Scripture done throughout the years by those who were not infallibly inspired in what they did.

The objection is made, of course, that it is nonsense to affirm inerrancy for documents that we no longer possess. However, we may believe that God in His gracious providence, barring errors in copying, translating, and printing, has for all practical purposes preserved the autographs for us in the Bible we have. It may also be true that we no longer have the original manuscripts of the writings of Cicero, Plato, Shakespeare, or John Bunyan, but no one denies that we actually do have what they wrote. The Bible we have is inerrant to the extent that it is a true copy and translation of what the authors of Scripture were inspired by God to write.

To maintain the inerrancy of the Bible does not mean that we are now able to resolve every alleged error or apparent discrepancy with which we may be confronted. In many instances the solution is not difficult. For example, when the gospel writers do not give identical accounts of certain happenings, it does not follow that one must be in error, when both accounts may very well be true. Inerrancy does not necessarily require duplication or uniformity. Moreover, it is nothing else than picayune to say that Scripture is in error when it speaks of the sun setting or when it uses some other popular (but not strictly scientific) expression. Even the most learned men of science do the same.

As for those alleged errors or contradictions for which no solution has yet been found, we have no qualms about laying them aside until more light will appear. It is told of a believer and an infidel aboard a train that while they were enjoying a delicious fish dinner the infidel wanted to know of the believer what he did with errors and contradictions in the Bible in which he placed his trust. “The same thing that you are doing with this delicious fish,” replied the believer. “You eat the fish and you lay the bones aside.” For the believer, the inner testimony of the Holy Spirit is sufficient, and he is not dissuaded when difficulties arise that he is not yet able to understand.

It‘s in the Bible – There are those who have no patience with uncompromising evangelicals who are intransigent in holding that inerrancy is a corollary of the divine inspiration of the Bible. Such intransigence is thought to be obscurantism. Nevertheless, we hold inerrancy to be non–negotiable because of our conviction that it’s in the Bible.

Rene Pache in his The Inspiration and Authority ofScripture (1969, Moody Press, translated from the French) spells out the Bible’s testimony to its inerrancy as follows:

“The authors of the Old Testament speak most explicitly: 3,808 times they claim to be transmitting the very words of God . . .

“The psalmist cries out over and over: ‘The law of Jehovah is perfect . . . I trust in thy word . . . I have seen an end of all perfection; but thy commandment is exceeding broad . . . Thy word is very pure; therefore thy servant loveth it . . . All thy commandments are truth . . . The sum of thy word is truth; and every one of thy righteous ordinances endureth for ever . . . Let my tongue sing of thy word; for all thy commandments are righteousness’ (Ps. 19:7; 119:42, 96, 140, 142, 151, 160, 172.”

“Christ specifically confirmed the whole Old Testament . . . He consistently based His arguments and exhortations on Scripture. He declared: ‘One jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all things be accomplished’ (Matt. 5:18). Discussing a single word with the Jews, He said: ‘The scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10:35). And He exclaimed toward the end of His days on earth: ‘Sanctify them in the truth; thy word is truth’ (17:17)” . . .

“For the author of the epistle to the Hebrews, the Word of God, effectual and penetrating, goes so far as to judge even our feelings and our innermost thoughts (Heb. 4:12). It is not our prerogative to set ourselves up as its critic . . .”

Add to the above the well–known words of 2 Timothy 3:16, “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness . . .”, and the evidence is altogether conclusive. The whole Bible is of one piece. There is no warrant whatsoever for separating that which is “revelational” from other parts that are “non-revelational,” or that which is inerrant from other parts that are said to be in error.

The idea that the Bible admits of errors or is even riddled with them is foreign to the consistent tenor of everything the Lord tells us in His Word.

A fatal concession – To concede that the human authors of the Bible have erred here and there is by no means as insignificant and innocent as some would have us believe. The price for yielding on this point is simply too high.

The late John Murray in his contribution to The Infallible Word (1946, Eerdmans) has said it well. “Human fallibility cannot with any consistency be pleaded as an argument for the fallibility of Scripture unless the position is taken that we do not have in the Scripture content of any kind that is not marred by the frailty of human nature” (p. 5).

And that is so serious because then in reality we have no Bible left at all. As soon as anyone claims the right to deny the inerrancy of some of Scripture he must grant others the same right to deny the rest of it. There is a domino effect when we push over any part of the Bible that soon results in knocking down other parts of it as well. This is fatal because it lands us in a subjectivism that deprives us of any objective and ultimate source of truth outside of ourselves. Then man becomes the measure of all things and spiritual and eternal bankruptcy is the sure result.

“Thy word is truth.”

Jesus said it. We neither dare nor care to say anything less. It is only then that we can keep on singing “How firm a foundation.”