Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy by Stanley N. Gundry

Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy Reviews

• 
  Adam Omelianchuk

  No one is indifferent to the doctrine of inerrancy, and what follows are some of my rambling thoughts about the matter after reading through Zondervan's latest `counterpoints' book Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy.
  
  On the contributors. Al Mohler loves inerrancy--the more of it the better; Peter Enns thinks it's stupid; Michael Bird really hates the word `inerrancy,' but affirms everything it traditionally stands for; Kevin Vanhoozer actually tries to flesh out its content; and John Franke thinks it's all a language game. As usual, the essays are uneven in quality. Vanhoozer's the best, Enns' is the most provocative, Bird's is funny at moments, but isn't that interesting, Franke's makes little sense, and Mohler's is frustrating.
  
  Inerrancy as deduction. I think it is relatively clear that inerrancy is not a conclusion drawn from a long inductive investigation of each and every text in the Bible; rather it is a conclusion of a deductive argument that goes like so:
  
  [1] Whatever God inspires is inerrant.
  [2] The Bible is inspired by God.
  [3] Therefore, the Bible is inerrant.
  
  This makes inerrancy an implication of perfect being theology, and an article of faith that guides the interpretation of Scripture. No reading of Scripture that calls into question the truthfulness of the text is compatible with the belief that God is truthful. This explains why inerrancy is so hard to give up; it is near the center of one's theology informed more by our intuitions about a perfect being rather than the text itself. Consequently, this explains why Mohler says, "The point is that I do not allow any line of evidence from outside the Bible to nullify to the slightest degree the truthfulness of any text in all that the text asserts and claims." The problem with this, of course, is that if outside evidence cannot challenge the veracity of the text, then neither can it confirm it. The appeal to empirical evidence outside of Scripture is simply inconsistent with affirming the authority of Scripture. Thus, while the deductive argument is surely valid, the truth of its premises can only be established by an appeal to Scripture, making it viciously circular. It seems to me that Mohler's rationale for committing to inerrancy is a case of fideism; an exercise of faith without sufficient reason.
  
  No knowledge of God without inerrancy. Mohler rhetorically asks, "If we cannot trust the Bible, in all its parts, to reveal God with perfect truthfulness, how can we know him at all?" Biblical inerrancy, in Mohler's view, is necessary for knowledge of God. But surely it is not. Abraham was without the Bible and he presumably had accurate knowledge of God. Examples like these could be multiplied. Nonetheless, the important point is that we could not know God if God were not truthful with us. This cannot be denied, yet this seems to be precisely questioned by Enns and his bizarre "incarnational" view of the Bible where ancient human texts seem to amount to nothing more than ignorant human texts that reveal diverse beliefs about God, most of which are false. I have trouble understanding why Enns would think that reading the Bible puts one in the presence of a wise, but mysterious, God. It's nice that God is willing to meet us where we are at, but why this should imply that he inspires false assertions so as to accommodate our ignorance, prejudice, and hate is left glaringly unexplained. The Bible, especially the Old Testament, is simply not worth reading if we want to know and understand who God is (assuming Enns is right).
  
  Inerrancy and ethics. Enns's essay finds its worth in its indictment of the ethics of inerrancy. As one who lost his job by those who wielded the doctrine as if it were a flaming sword, Enns deftly draws attention to the moral dissonance one experiences when one is vilified for questioning the veracity of texts that report God commanding his people to commit genocide. His money quote: "Arguing for a position on the basis of what you might lose if that position is not retained is not an argument but an expression of fear, which when allowed to reign leads to anger, either directly or indirectly by means of manipulation, passive-aggressiveness, and [...] emotional blackmail."
  
  Indeed, the same sort of deductive reasoning that gets the argument for inerrancy going forms one against it:
  
  [4] Whatever God inspires is not morally repugnant.
  [5] The Bible contains texts that are morally repugnant.
  [6] Therefore, those texts are not inspired by God.
  
  Interestingly, this sort of argument is assumed in the background as the editors task the participants with explaining how the same God who inspired texts that, on the one hand, command and approve of holy wars for the sake of total extermination, and on the other, command us to love our enemies, do good to them, and not respond in kind to violence. This argument is never directly dealt with, except for a short comment by Vanhoozer who thinks our moral intuitions are not trustworthy enough to render judgment on such things (why we need the Bible to tell us if bludgeoning babies to death is wrong is left unexplained). The same perfect being theology that gets the argument for inerrancy going undermines it when we start examining cases. Vanhoozer, again, is the only contributor to criticize our a priori assumptions about perfect being theology.
  
  Errors and their kind. The million dollar question as it relates to inerrancy is `what constitutes an error?' The answer is not so clear cut. For example, commands cannot be in error, because commands do not have truth value. But they can be well-formed or not; a well-formed command is such that it generates a duty in the one to who it is addressed. Commands that are immoral fail to do so. Thus, the concept of inerrancy is inadequate for making sense of "errors" that involve commands, because inerrancy only applies to assertions. The concept of infallibility makes better sense of whether commands are well-formed or not, because whatever is infallible is faultless.
  
  Sadly, this distinction goes mostly unnoticed and the usual ambiguous language about "every word" being inerrant or that the Bible is "infallible," but not "inerrant" is deployed. Only Vanhoozer correctly notes that the inerrancy is a species of infallibility in that it applies only to Scripture's assertions and whatever propositions that are deducible from Scripture. Moreover, the concept of truth is rarely defined, which contributors like Franke and Enns seem to capitalize on when they claim that there are multiple concepts of truth as they relate to ancient, modern, or divine persons. Others like Bird are very concerned about "precision," which is something that "inerrancy" is thought to connote. Again, Vanhoozer is helpful when he points out that truth just is what is the case. How language captures the truth is the issue; not whether there are different kinds of truth.
  
  The genre is in the details. The editors of this volume recount the sad dismissal of Robert Gundry from the Evangelical Theological Society in 1983. His crime: he thought that parts of the Matthean birth narrative were not historical. This seems like an open and shut case, but Gundry was not without a reasonable defense: the birth narrative is not a historical genre, but an artful expression of Jewish midrash that is meant to draw our attention to other things rather than historical details. The much discussed Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI) says nothing about genre (you won't find that word in it!), but it condemns any hermeneutical practice that "dehistoricizes" the text. One the other hand, it affirms that God used the distinctive "literary styles" of the writers who were inspired to write the text. The problem is that determining whether a literary style is historical or not is a matter of interpretation--not inspiration--which is why the appeal to CSBI to expel Gundry made little sense. Vanhoozer rightly draws attention to this, and the point should not be missed since affirming inerrancy is taken to be mark of authentic evangelical commitment in evangelical seminaries and scholarly societies.
  
  All and all this is a fun little book for anyone who would like to know more about this contentious doctrine. As a philosopher (in training) I find the idea of biblical inerrancy to be more interesting than ever. The intersection of the philosophy of language, the philosophy of history, literary criticism, the nature of truth, the structure of knowledge, theories of interpretation, and perfect being theology all converge to make fertile ground for philosophical reflection. Add to that the sociological drama of the consequences of affirming or denying biblical inerrancy, and you get all the trappings political intrigue thrown in. This book reflects all of that in wonderful detail.
• 
  Jeff

  This is probably a good book for you if you are interested in current thinking as touching the issue of biblical inerrancy. The Five Views are presented by Al Mohler, Peter Enns, Michael Bird, Kevin VanHoozer, and John Franke which seems to me to be a good range of credible scholars to speak to the issue. Mohler, of course, takes the most conservative stance, insisting that inerrancy has always been the evangelical position towards the bible. While his presentation is 'nice' it does not address a number of the issues specific issues raised by the others and ultimately seems predicated on an ideological agenda rather than what appear to be "the facts." Bird, an Australian, points out that the inerrancy issue is largely an American bug-a-boo and not necessary for evangelical faithfulness. He goes on to critique Mohler's presentation at several points but, at the end of the day, he, too, takes a conservative stance. Enns believes that "inerrant" is an inappropriate adjective with which to describe the bible, at least as it is framed in the Chicago statement and by most/many conservative evangelicals. He explains why by pointing to on-the-ground research and the biblical text itself which seems to contradict or at least undermine the biblical record as inerrant. More than that, he is clearly upset with the way that certain "inerrantists" seek to enforce their agenda and the price that some have to pay for this. VanHoozer wants to redeem the concept of inerrancy from a large part of its current understanding and begins to do so by pointing out that it is the bible that is inerrant and not our interpretations. This would seem to undercut the ability of using inerrancy as some kind of evangelical litmus test and I'm good with that but I'm not clear on how it resolves several of the issues raised by Enns. Lastly John Franke makes a thoughtful presentation on the plurality of truth and some of the implications of this for the subject at hand. Summing it up, we need to deal with the bible that we have, not the original autographs that still appear in the dreams of some evangelicals but are nowhere to be found. In light of this reality adherence to inerrancy seems to me to be first of all a philosophical/ideological stance and not a biblical category. Let it rest.
• 
  Jesse Thorson

  Really good read -- really good coverage of evangelical(-ish) perspectives on biblical inerrancy.
  
  Mohler -- didn't have much to offer in my opinion.
  Enns -- classic overview of his "incarnational" paradigm of scripture
  Bird -- nice international perspective, but overall failed to deal with the moral questions raised by the Canaanite conquest narrative
  Vanhoozer -- surprisingly good. His "well-versed" inerrancy is compelling, and he does a solid job of engaging with linguistics (and criticizing the 'foundationalist' philosophical paradigm of most inerrantists), but I think he could be pushed a little further out of typical evangelical boxes
  Franke -- really, really cool. He frames inerrancy as being missional and functional...
  
  Overall, I thought the strongest part of this book is the fact that all five authors get to respond to the other 4 authors. So, that makes for something like 25 essays in total.
• 
  Kendall Davis

  I really enjoyed the format of this book. It's a quick and easy way to become acquainted with different views of notable scholars.
  
  I found Mohler's essay more compelling than I thought I would. He understands that inerrancy is more a statement about God than it is about the scriptures and that it is going to be an a priori assumption about the scriptures NOT a conclusion we come to after sifting through all of the evidence (contra Enns). However he doesn't seem to see the need for significant caveats or guarding against abuses of the doctrine that the other writers recognize the need for.
  
  I thought Enns was a severe disappointment. His vitriol against Mohler was clearly the result of personal baggage and trauma that Enns has against conservative evangelicalism. Too often Enns sounded like a rebellious schoolboy. His theology is not mature and just feels reactionary. I was often astounded at how simplistically he reads the scriptures and how he seemed to not actually understand what people like Mohler and Vanhoozer were saying. I'm glad there was a major dissenting voice, but surely there could've been someone with more substance and less childishness than Enns?
  
  Bird was quite good. He was the funniest by far. I think he's right that there's something quite off about the American Inerrantist Tradition (as he calls it) but I don't know if he articulated exactly what that is. I also thought his position could've been clearer especially as it contrasts with the AIT.
  
  Vanhoozer was the best. Unlike Mohler he appreciates that a lot of nuance must go into defining what we actually mean by inerrancy and he provides a compelling and imo workable model for inerrancy using speech-act theory. His point that abuses of inerrancy do not negate the doctrine seemed to be lost on Enns particularly.
  
  Franke was a bit of an oddball to say the least. I think he's right that our doctrine of scripture needs to be more dynamic and less static and that it needs to be more clearly connected to our doctrine of God. However, what he ends up talking about as inerrancy is not really inerrancy in any meaningful term. And as helpful as his corrections against foundationalism are, I think that he is too constricted by his prior philosophical/theological assumptions, e.g. God as fundamentally a "being-in-act."
• 
  Barry

  A panel of prolific professors present a panoply of possible perspectives to ponder. While penetrating profundities predominate, a pair of proposals, pace Enns and Franke, are particularly perplexing.
  
  Regarding readers requiring revealing recapitulations of these recondite reflections with reduced ridiculousness, I recommend reading these rather reasoned and relevant reviews:
  
  
  
  https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
  
  
  https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
  
  
  https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...
• 
  Hannah Ross

  I almost wish it was required to read a book of this style before forming and/or sharing opinions on any given topic. I'm definitely coming away with more questions than answers, but in a good way, I think! It was helpful to realize that certain views of Scripture that I've historically written off as obviously incorrect actually have more sound logic and reasoning behind them than I've ever given them (or those who hold them) credit for. If you have found yourself asking questions about how or why Christians think the Bible is trustworthy, I would recommend this book as a resource for engaging those questions. This is the first Counterpoints book that I've read, but I am eager to read more of them and would also recommend looking into the other topics covered in the series.
• 
  Basil Chong

  Does what it sets out to do - draws five very different perspectives on Biblical Inerrancy into conversation with one another.
  
  As an aside, reading this book made me acutely aware of the ways my history and personal preferences predispose me one way or another. For that reason alone, highly recommended as an exercise in espistemological humility.
• 
  James Hogan

  I have been putting off writing this review mainly because I'm still not quite sure where I stand, even after finishing it! I started off this book feeling extremely negative and not at all impressed by the editorial bias that seemed to be showing. But now I'm feeling this was a fairly successful book at what it set out to do. For truly, what was this book? It aimed to show multiple perspectives both defining the doctrine of inerrancy and setting out what it is or should be, specifically in light of the way inerrancy was defined in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (henceforth abbreviated to CSBI). Apologies for the previous convoluted sentence, but if it made your head hurt, that's how my head felt reading this book. But in a good way? It is not a bad thing to wrestle with one's beliefs and attempt to understand the convictions you hold and understand what they mean. Inerrancy is something that I have heard about for a long time now - and my understanding of this term has come with certain assumptions. Reading a book with five scholars debating back and forth about what biblical inerrancy is (or isn't) was fascinating and definitely eye-opening. I came at this book from a position of ignorance of the theological and scholarly debating history on this topic. I started reading this book and said "What's a CSBI?" I obviously have heard of a few of these scholars, but Mohler is the only one who I had any real exposure to before reading this book (heard him preach at Ligonier a few times and have read some of his articles!) He is a classic polemicist who is willing to fight for what he believes is biblical truth and he doesn't pull his punches. I rather assumed I would totally agree with him and be dismissive of the other authors. And...while I'm not saying I disagree with Mohler, reading all five of these perspectives opened my mind in certain ways and gave me a greater understanding of those who don't necessarily believe in inerrancy in the way I've been taught. So for all of that, this book was most welcomed.
  
  That said. I did have some struggles with how this book was laid out. My initial accusation of editorial bias in the structure of this book may have been a bit strong, but I still believe that this book's portrayal of inerrancy was a bit slanted because of the strictures put on the contributors by the editors. The editors asked the contributors to discuss inerrancy particularly in regards to the way inerrancy was defined by the CSBI (long held to be the definitive word on inerrancy - as before said, to my ignorance and shame apparently). The editors also asked each contributor to look at 3 distinct biblical texts and discuss any perceived issues with those texts in light of their view on inerrancy. Again (most certainly because of my lack of knowledge and involvement in this arena), none of these texts I have previously looked at before as being in any way problematic. So my eyes were opened in that regard (for which I am grateful!). But, the texts chosen did seem to be chosen with an eye to challenging those holding to a higher view of inerrancy while giving those with a looser view of inerrancy an open field for pushing their arguments across. Again though, as someone who feels it is not a bad thing to have to wrestle with one's convictions and beliefs in this (and other) areas, this was actually helpful for me. One of the main contentions I have with this book is the term inerrancy itself. What does biblical inerrancy actually mean? If I do a quick search engine query I get a definition for inerrant being "incapable of being wrong". With that basic secular definition, it would seem that a definition of biblical inerrancy would be something along the lines of the "Bible being incapable of being wrong". But what does "wrong" mean? And that is a very sticky question. The whole point of the CSBI seems to have been to properly define or delineate the term biblical inerrancy. No self-respecting Christian professing to be in the bounds of orthodox Christianity would want to say "I do not believe the Bible is inerrant" thus the definition of this term is extremely important. The five contributors to this book all have their own spin on the definition of inerrancy, but here I feel the book falls down a bit. By directing the contributors to focus on the CSBI, they give certain contributors a clear window to attack the CSBI and its perceived shortcomings instead of actually putting forth their own preferred definition of inerrancy (or stating that the concept of inerrancy is unhelpful and should not be used). I would have preferred a slightly more open question to be put to these authors. Instead of focusing on the CSBI - answer the questions of "How would you define biblical inerrancy?" and "Is this a necessary doctrine of the Christian church?" or something of the like. But writing these words, I waver. A much bigger book would have needed to be written. As the editors themselves acknowledge in the conclusion, the scope of this discussion might have been a bit wider than they anticipated.
  
  Nonetheless. I ramble. Back to this book. The contributors themselves all are highly trained and educated and I appreciated the chance to eavesdrop on their debates with one another. I quite enjoyed the format of the book in which each contributor got a chapter, then each other contributor was able to respond to that chapter. By the end of the book, you are quite able to anticipate their responses and lines of attack! If you want to have a brief understanding of each contributor, you could put them on a spectrum as I did. Starting with the most "fundamentalist" and ending at the most theologically "liberal", you go: Mohler, Vanhoozer, Bird, Franke, Enns. I think that's fair. I quite liked Bird's writing style and humour! He had the most relaxed tone of the five and I would love to sit and have a meal with him! I did disagree with some of his conclusions and I don't think his qualms with the CSBI were quite warranted. While it is fair to make points on the lack of international representation of the contributors to the CSBI, I don't see how this is a worthy criticism of the merits of the statement itself. Still, I appreciated his graciousness and love for the gospel and desire to see all peoples come to Christ. Enns...oh what do I say about Enns. While I know he is quite intelligent and could walk rings around myself in debate, his view of inerrancy troubled me the most. I almost wish he would have just said "I do not believe the Bible is inerrant" but of course he could not go that far (again - what does inerrant mean?) Franke's thoughts on inerrancy also challenged me and while I appreciated his writing style, I could not fully agree with his conclusions. As for Mohler, while I don't disagree that "when the Bible speaks, God speaks", I did feel his chapter was not as strong as it could have been, to my surprise. I went into this book expecting to be fully on Team Mohler. He wrote his chapter from a position of "You believe the Bible is inerrant...or else." My words, not his! But he came out swinging and I don't think he did a good job of adequately addressing the legitimate concerns of those who are not quite sure what biblical inerrancy means. While I appreciate Mohler's passion for the truth of God, I think he could have written in a slightly more piercing and enlightening way instead of bluntly dismissing those who have questions. I thought Mohler's responses to each of the other contributor's chapters were far better written than his actual chapter! As for Vanhoozer, I may have enjoyed his chapter the most! Of course, enjoyment is probably the wrong word. But while I still cannot say I disagree with Mohler, I feel that Vanhoozer had some of the best and most insightful statements on what Biblical inerrancy actually is. As someone with a rather intellectual bent, I appreciated the way he worded his arguments and spoke to the real questions that some have on the "issues" in the Bible. Am I Team Vanhoozer? Possibly!!
  
  Now I have written far more words than I should be writing for this book. Far more than I have written for a review yet. But I see this book as one that is discussing something most critical in our current age. What is truth? That question still rings in our ears and we all want to know the answer. Is the Bible truth? If so, how should we read it to find this truth out? Does the Bible perfectly communicate truth? If so, in what way? This book fascinated me, because all five contributors (and the editors!) would say that the Bible does perfectly communicate truth. But our interpretations of the Bible's communicated truth differ. This book may have been more helpful if it would have honestly acknowledged that the real issue isn't the definition of inerrancy, but rather - how should Scripture be interpreted to understand what God is communicating to us? (Almost) no orthodox Christian believes in a strictly literal interpretation of the Bible. (Almost) all orthodox Christians understand the differing genres of the Biblical texts and of the varying ways in which language is used. All orthodox Christians would agree that when we read that Christ rose again, He actually rose again. But which texts are not meant to be read in such straightforward fashion? I would have loved a little bit of an acknowledgement of the critical nature of hermeneutics as applied to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. We didn't get that here - instead we got a sharp focus on the CSBI and the assumption of a fundamentalist reading of that statement by the majority of the contributors. Even the editors (as much as I appreciated their candor and passion for God's gospel!) seemed to have their hand on the scale a bit in terms of the texts chosen for discussion. While I appreciate and agree with the need for cordial Christian dialogue, cordiality itself should not be the desired end goal of such a book. What is truth? Is there truth? And if so, can we know it? This last question may betray an unredeemable Western perspective, but acknowledging God speaks acknowledges that God has a message to communicate in a way that may be understood by created beings. At the end of the day though, with all my prickliness and my pride acknowledged, I do believe this book was a helpful read for me. Would I recommend it to all? I'm not sure. Some that are struggling with their faith may find this book challenging. By the grace of God, my faith in the nature and work of God is strong and I still found certain parts of this book challenging to my conception of Scripture. But the side of me that appreciates knowing what others believe and think about our Christian faith rather liked reading this. Each of these men genuinely seemed to have a passion and love for the God of the Bible, no matter how wrong some of them may be. Each of these men genuinely wanted to communicate their understanding of the Bible and the truths it contains. I long that all people may come to the written word of God and see the glories of His salvation as communicated most fully in the person of Jesus Christ. God came to this world and was born, died and rose again. These truths are sure. We may quibble on some of our interpretations of other texts but I am still grateful to call these men brothers who confess themselves born again in the knowledge of the gospel. Last thoughts? Should you read this book? I think it's worthwhile and if anything, it's actually increased my faith (or should I say - the Spirit has increased my faith as I've considered the wonder of the God who speaks!) If you are currently struggling with your faith or understanding of who God is, this book might not be a helpful starting point. It's rather academic and at times pedantic and may discourage you more than anything. But it is a helpful aid to understanding certain evangelical perspectives on Biblical inerrancy and for that, I thank the editors and contributors. I believe this book accomplished what they set out to do and for that, I cannot fault it. I glory as I think that God has given certain people such gifts of intelligence and ease with words but I would ask that we all remember at the end of the day, knowledge is not the end. Instead, let us as little children kneel humbly before God and rest in faith in Him, knowing that He is God and He desires that we be with Him.
• 
  Радостин Марчев

  Изключително интересна размяна на мнения. Бих дал петица ако книгата не включваше направо ужасяващото есе и отговори на Албърт Мьолер.
  Лично моето мнение се доближава най-много до това на Майкъл Бърд, който е единственият не-американец, но и Ванхузер определено има какво да предложи - и като есе и като добронамерена, макар и на места доста "твърда" критика. Въпреки доста голямото ми разочарование от неговото Evangelical theology авторът (Бърд)все повече ми харесва като богословски подход начин на мислене. Неговият глобален и исторически подход към въпроса според мен определено поставят пред непогрешимостта, така както е изразена в CSBI, някои доста трудни въпроси. Когато към това добавим причините, поради които авторите от древната църква са утвърждавали своята вяра в Писанието както и начина, по който са правили егзегетика (който от своя страна им дава възможност да направят подобни твърдения за цялостна достоверност) - съвсем не ограничаващ се до историко-граматическия метод - нещата стават още по-сериозни.
  Едно от основните неща, които човек може да научи от подобен род диалози е никога да не смята, че разбира какво означава дадена дума докато тя бъде ясно дефинирана. Ако пропуснем да го направим това много лесно може да сложи прът в колелетата на всякакъв що годе смислен по-нататъшен разговор - особено когато става дума за фино нюансирани позиции. В случая, след като е прочел книгата, човек се пита как така напр. и Мьолер и Ванхузер защитават непогрешимостта и CSBI когато на практика изповядват напълно различни доктрини.
  P.P. Интересен анализ на мнението на Молър от страна на Скот МакНайт, който горе долу се доближава до моето усещане може да се намери на адрес
  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscre...
  
• 
  Josh Wilson

  Mohler is solid, Enns is confused, Bird is hilarious, Franke is opaque, Vanhoozer is right.
• 
  Joshua

  Great work with a lot of interesting ideas. Out of the arguments I thought the following:
  
  Vanhoozer had the strongest argument that was difficult to refute. His idea that the Bible is inerrant if you read it right is logical and makes sense with the nature of its literature being taken into account.
  
  Bird was the second strongest. I liked the ideas he brought to the table about the global church but since he had no voices outside of white ones it did not land as well as it should have. He’s a comical guy too.
  
  Mohler was not fantastic and reminds you of every fundie you have ever read. He is gracious to the others but his view lacks a lot in my perspective and creates a mindset that may be unhelpful.
  
  Enns I agreed with in spirit in that he took the human part of the Bible more seriously but in the end it was slippery to follow him and I did not think his treatment of the OT was fair.
  
  Francke was the weakest and the most slippery. It was like theological art that you interpret in your own way.
• 
  Corey

  I really appreciated this book. Vanhoozer was the best and affirmed that there is a path forward for inerrancy without turning off your brain. Mohler’s essays were the worst of the bunch. Enns was equally unsatisfying for entirely different reasons. Bird and Vanhoozers essays were a breath of fresh air.
• 
  Andrew Mcneill

  In this volume of the Counterpoints series, five authors provide their take on inerrancy with specific reference to the Chicago Statement on inerrancy and three Scripture passages that might offer a challenge to the doctrine of inerrancy (The fall of Jericho, who heard Jesus speaking to Paul according to Acts 9 and 22, and reconciling the command to kill the Canaanites with Jesus' command to love our enemies). The five views presented are:
  
  1. Albert Mohler presents the classic view in alignment with the Chicago Statement. It is a rather straightforward inerrantist view.
  2. Peter Enns presents his challenge to inerrancy and argues that the concept is useless. His approach is more deconstructive than constructive and leaves the reader wondering how Scripture functions normatively for Christians.
  3. Mike Bird presents his cross-cultural challenge and says that inerrancy is a US concept that lacks relevance outside of North America. However, I'm skeptical that he can speak for the "majority world" given that Australia is part of Western culture and society for the most part. I felt that the plea for cross-cultural considerations was a bit thick on rhetoric and thin on substance.
  4. Kevin Vanhoozer argues for more literary nuance in understanding inerrancy. I found this chapter most helpful in his affirmations of how we ought to understand inerrancy, but as Mohler points out in his response, his emphasis seems to lie on disputing with other inerrantists as to how to define inerrancy rather than with those who deny inerrancy. Nevertheless, his perspective was helpful in emphasising that we should not rush to reconcile difficult passages but should seek to understand why different passages have different emphases.
  5. John Franke proposes a version of "inerrancy" that basically means that we ought to let the polyphony of Scriptural voices be accepted as true, but given that these voices are sometimes at odds with each other, we ought to recognise that there are multiple truths. Now, a lot of what he says at the beginning of his chapter is actually really good (about the socially constructive nature of language and how God's voice shapes our world in eschatologically focussed ways). But when he starts talking about how there are multiple truths in Scripture that should be heard, he spells out a recipe of hermeneutical disaster. The inherent contradiction of such a position is that it makes room for all views, except for any views that might be so dogmatic as to insist there is only one normative view! So, we ought to accept the polyphony of voices in the Bible about war and peace - but woe betide anyone who dares suggest that the Bible has a single voice that might threaten to oppress others! In short then, his position is more narrow-minded than he lets on.
  
  In conclusion, this was a helpful book and the perspectives of Mohler and Vanhoozer were encouraging to me. However, there are other issues that the book didn't touch on that I would have liked to have seen dealt with; but given the nature of the book, I suppose it couldn't be expected to touch on all the interesting issues.
• 
  Brian Watson

  Whether the Bible is inerrant is a very important question. Why? Because this issue not only touches on our religious epistemology (how we know who God is, how to have a relationship with him, and what he expects of us), but also on the doctrine of God. If God communicates to us through the Bible, and the Bible contains errors, what does this say about God?
  
  Because this issue is important, this book is important. The editors of the book have gathered five significant contributors. My main gripe is that I wish the editors had asked each contributor to speak directly to what, exactly, the Bible is and to Jesus' view of Scripture. Instead, the contributors seem to be reacting mainly to the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. The contributors were also asked to make sense of "problematic" passages in the Bible: Joshua 6 (is the battle of Jericho an actual historical event?); Acts 9:7 and 22:9 (do the passages contradict each other?), and Matthew 5, in light of Deuteronomy 20 (does Jesus contradict/correct the Old Testament?).
  
  Al Mohler represents a rather traditional evangelical view. Though I agree with much of what he says, I don't often like Mohler's way of making a case. He doesn't seem to make a careful distinction between whether the Bible is inerrant and how people interpret the Bible. Peter Enns says just about nothing positive about the Bible. I think John Franke's response is spot-on: "O reading his essay, I can't shake the impression that Enns is still in reaction to his departure from Westminster [Theological Seminary] and the controversy his work has created among evangelicals." Enns seems negative, bitter, and hell-bent (yes) on showing that the Bible can't be trusted. He makes statements that aren't true (that the CSBI rules out discussions about science and faith) and makes some straw man arguments (those who uphold inerrancy are perhaps gnostics who reject the idea that a God could condescend and accommodate his revelation to finite human minds). And then there are these statements, both on page 91: "inerrancy portrays a weak view of God" and "inerrancy prevents us from grappling with the God of the Bible." Interestingly, Enns quotes C. S. Lewis positively at the end of his essay to show that Lewis thought there were errors in the Bible. Unfortunately, Lewis did hold this view, though it seems to go against his view of God in general. But in the long block quote of Lewis, we find these words: "For we are mortals and do not know what is best for us, and it is dangerous to prescribe what God must have done." Yet, ironically, that is what Enns seems to be doing.
  
  Michael Bird seems to support inerrancy, yet he thinks inerrancy is an American concept and any view of the Bible should be "global," that is, it should reflect the global church. The CSBI wasn't global enough for Bird to agree with it. I wonder how differently an Australian evangelical views the Bible than an American evangelical. At any rate, it seems that Bird commits some kind of informal logical fallacy by requiring there to be some kind of global consensus on how to view the Bible. Just because Christians from across the globe agree on something doesn't guarantee it is true. That aside, Bird's view on Scripture isn't all that different from mine or Mohler's or Vanhoozer's. His jokey style of writing gets a bit old, however.
  
  Next up is Kevin Vanhoozer. He's a brilliant man, one who enjoys sophisticated word plays (and enjoys wordplay too much, I think). He is great when it comes to theoretical principles. His view of inerrancy is this: "To say that Scripture is inerrant is to confess that faith that the authors speak the truth in all things they affirm (when they make affirmations), and will eventually be seen to have spoken truly (when right readers read rightly)." It seems he doesn't do as well when dealing with the individual passages. Still, if I had to align myself with one of the contributors it would probably be Vanhoozer.
  
  Finally, John Franke represents a postmodern view. He critiques the strong foundationalism epistemology of the people who wrote the CSBI, preferring instead something called post-foundationalism. He seems to make a significant error: in stating that God is infinite and we are not, which is undoubtedly true, he seems to suggest that just because we don't know everything about God means that we can't be sure of what we do know. It's simply false to say that just because we don't have exhaustive knowledge about God doesn't mean what God has revealed isn't true. (After all, if we can't be sure of the truth, how can be sure that we don't know the truth about God? This is like people who say with certainty that it is a sin to speak with certainty about God.) His essay assumes that the Bible doesn't have a coherent message or theology, but is rather a plurality of stories/theologies. (This is his postmodernism shining through.)
  
  As with these multi-view books, each author responds to the other's essays. The book has an introduction and a conclusion written by its editors.
  
  I recommend the book to understand how different theologians view the Bible. Yet I wish they had been asked to present their views on what, exactly, the Bible is, how it relates to the doctrine of God, and, more specifically, how they make sense of Jesus' view of Scripture. Jesus held a very "high" view of Scripture. He saw it as God's work, unbreakable, authoritative, and not subject to change. It would be very hard to argue that he saw it as anything less than true. To say that the Bible is anything less than the unbreakable, authoritative, and true written word of God is to say that the Word of God had it wrong. And I don't think Christians can say that.
  
  (Finished reading on April 10, 2015. Reviewed on July 19, 2017. Because I procrastinate.)
• 
  Nate

  It was enjoyable to watch Peter Enns attack Albert Mohler's position. Not so fun to read Albert Mohler's position. I don't think the idea of inerrancy really works anymore. Enns was the only one who didn't try to defend some shade of the term. The problem with "inerrancy" is that it frames the debate in black-and-white. It's very unhelpful, and a waste of time to debate this. It's a leftover from the late 19th, early 20th centuries' fundamentalist/modernist culture war. We've moved past that, but conservatives still defend the use of this term and fight amongst themselves over it. A better question to ask than "Is the Bible inerrant" would be "Does the Bible serve the purpose for which it was written, even today?" That is a much more productive conversation.
• 
  Trevor Lloyd

  These 'Counterpoints' type books can be useful, but also rather overwhelming. This did not convince me to return to the inerrantist position. I am somewhere between Peter Enns and Michael Bird, but I really also liked John Franke. There is a definite welcome shift in the way we view and approach the Bible, and I think it is away from the conservative approach. It is possible in our pilgrimage away from the conservative fortress to wander down some paths we may need to retrace in the future. But it is worth exploring new and fresh approaches and those who decry such explorers as heretics (as Mohler seems to) only show how much they are still in the fortress.
• 
  Justin Meek

  Excellent discussion of an important issues. I feel this gave me a great introduction to some of the schools of thought currently being debated amount evangelicals. Even the essays I mostly disagreed with were instructive and made very good points. I'm still struggling with some big questions, but would recommend this as a great starting place for those wishing to get a summary of options and a survey of the debate.
• 
  Chris Baik

  As the title suggests, this book provides an overview of five different views on Biblical Inerrancy. All in all, I found it highly educational and helpful for my personal journey in understanding where in the spectrum of views I personally fall.
  
  Here's my paraphrased understanding of what each author writes:
  
  Mohler - God is truth, and the Bible is God's Word, so the Bible is truthful. This is not limited to any particular domain, implying, for example, that the Bible is historically and scientifically precise in all topics mentioned.
  
  Enns - We should get rid of "inerrancy" as a concept. The Bible is full of culturally conditioned texts that have varying agendas based on their authors' context. For example, texts about conquering the Canaanites aligns with the genre of near-Eastern mythic propaganda.
  
  Bird - The American concept of "inerrancy", while valuable in many ways, is unnecessary for a healthy global Church. American Christians are guilty of attempting to imperially impose these views on the rest of the world.
  
  Vanhoozer - "Inerrancy" as a concept is often abused but can be salvaged by exercising "well-versed inerrancy", which is genre and context-aware, and understands that the Bible is not formed of only propositions.
  
  Franke - God is infinite, missional and pluralistic (i.e. cannot be understood simply by one rigid human doctrinal system). The Bible, therefore: (1) contains a finite glimpse into an infinite God, (2) is intended to aid in the missional work of mobilizing Christian community, and (3) is a compilation of multiple authors with multiple perspectives whose views may seemingly contradict, but we do not necessarily need to harmonize these differences.
  
  Some of the high points of this book for me were:
  - Vanhoozer's point that "inerrancy alone does not a hermeneutic make." More or less, that inerrancy does not necessitate a particular method of interpreting the Bible, though this conflation often regrettably occurs (Mohler being the prime culprit in this book).
  - Franke's points about holding to "fallibilism" when it comes to a human ability to understand and interpret Scripture and reality. We have to always acknowledge that we're doing our best to understand, but that our human lens of looking at anything are prone to flaws.
  - Vanhoozer's critique of views of the Bible which see it purely as a compilation of propositions was surgical in pointing out the root of the problem in naive views of inerrancy.
  - Franke's point that literal inerrantists often hold to "classic foundationalism", essentially wanting a single source of foundational truth on which we can base all our knowledge. While this can seem attractive, it's a temptation that can potentially make the text itself into a golden calf.
  - Bird's overall point that Americans are obsessed with different things than the rest of the world.
  - Enns' instinct of wanting to jettison "inerrancy" as an unredeemable term. I somewhat share this instinct, as language is always laden with latent associations that are difficult to fix. For example, if I were to shout, "I'm gay" in the middle of the street in 2022, nobody would second guess what I meant, despite the fact that "gay" historically could have meant "happy". But in 2022, I should have used a different word if "happy" is very much what I meant.
  - Mohler's belief that God is truthful, and some of his defensive instincts against full-blown postmodernism. I gathered that much of his response seems to be reactionary against a postmodern view that all truth is subjective. In my experience, I've felt that the rigid view of "inerrancy" and the narrow definition of "truth" that Mohler holds to has been far more harmful to the Church and the world than postmodernism ever has been. Of course, that's merely what I think.
• 
  Mark

  Very thoughtful book. Most of the authors had good thoughts on the subject. Here's a basic summary of each position with my thoughts:
  
  Mohler: Standard literal inerrancy (the Bible is correct in every literal detail). I found Mohler's position the weakest of the bunch. I don't buy the idea that a historical discrepancy causes the entire truthfulness of Scripture and God into question. This idea has Mohler unable to acknowledge real problems and deal with them meaningfully. I found him most thoughtful in his responses to the others, but his outlined position was not very good.
  
  Enns: Dump inerrancy, replace with ?. I found Enn's diagnosis to be on point in several respects. He is willing to deal with the problems seriously. However, I find his prescription to be lacking. His handling of the problem texts doesn't leave a satisfying solution.
  
  Bird: Infallibility (Scripture is accurate in faith/salvation matters), also inerrancy is American, modern and political. I liked Bird's assessment of the cultural implications of inerrancy and how it is used. In practice, he appears to take similar stances to Mohler on the problem texts.
  
  Vanhoozer: Well-versed Inerrancy. Vanhoozer attempts to draw back the strong positions of Mohler. I found his ideas the most compelling, emphasizing historical and literary methods to make sure that we carefully distinguish interpretation from the text itself. I found his solutions to some of the problems compelling, but fails to deal meaningfully with the Jericho issue. I also prefer ditching the term 'inerrant' due to some of the baggage and mishandling that Franke and Bird discuss.
  
  Franke: Plural theologies is somehow inerrancy? I am found Franke to be more thoughtful than I expected. Many of his objections circle around an objection foundationalism, which I found intriguing but not convincing. He argues that there is a diversity of theology in the Bible and we should not attempt to harmonize them. However this seems to then fall into picking whichever seems most amenable when there is a conflict (Canaan conquest vs. Love your neighbor). I also don't really understand how he can still term his position 'inerrant'.
• 
  John Pawlik

  This book was a wonderful exercise for me in which to strain my understanding of the inerrancy of the biblical canon and think about the various approaches to Scripture. I have come away severely aware of the difficulties of this question while also much more confident in my ability to a least operate with a working definition.
  
  If any of you are interested, I think the best way to view scripture is as the final and sole source of ultimate authority we have on the life of faith. I say “ultimate” because there are other sources of authority for this life of faith, such as tradition, reason, and experience, but that Scripture itself is inerrant while these are confined to the limitations of our knowledge and contexts.
  
  I think tradition, reason, and experience should be seen as the culturally rooted lenses through which we interpret Scripture (Scripture has its own cultural roots, but these are not always our own). So our interpretation of Scripture is done precisely by our use of traditions, reason, and experiences! This makes them authoritative tools, used to interpret Scripture and thus the life of faith, but we test our tools, and not the source material in my opinion. The assumption of inerrancy is an act of faith in which you say that it is your own tools of tradition, reason, and experience that need to stand on trial when exegetical issues arise and not the conclusion that Scripture is to be left behind in exchange for some other source.
  
  Of course, questions about inerrancy are left unanswered such as when the Bible is making an assertion and when it is not, but those are questions for another conversation after the (admittedly) a priori matters are laid out! I am aware of the brashness of treating Scripture as authoritative as an a priori assumption, but this is, I think, the best way to understand what it means to have “faith seeking understanding.”
• 
  Alexander de Freitas

  Keep in mind I did not finish; I read the Albert Mohler and Pete Enns sections and skimmed through the rest.
  
  Mohler does a good job summing up the Chicago Statement inerrantist perspective on the Bible, but has no ability to properly contend with the arguments put forth by Peter Enns, in fact none of the other writers do. I was shocked to read the book and discover the inadequacies of the other authors in making a compelling case for an infallible Bible.
  
  I ultimately put down the book after skimming the pages after Enn’s essay and realizing no one had a better answer, or that their answers were not directed towards the question of the book. Instead there were long passages skirting the issue and how how inerrancy across the globe looks differently than American inerrancy.
  
  I don’t know if I should give it 3 stars for the 4 authors failing to defend inerrancy properly or give it 5 stars for revealing the hollowness of the infallible view and on the enterprise of evangelical hermeneutics as a whole.
  
  I owe a lot to this book,that I never finished,for being the straw that broke the proverbial camel’s back when it came to my own view of inerrancy and for introducing me to Pete Enns and his work. But because I’m certain the publisher’s aim was to defend the evangelical view; I’m giving it 3 stars.
  
• 
  Warren Davie

  By the format alone, this book merits attention. Each author writes a long essay, which is then critiqued by the other four. The end result is 25 essays that act as a conversation and spirited critique that do not fall into the shouting and cross-talking of televised debates. Being a Christian work, I felt like every response started with charity and admiration before substantial disagreement. By format alone, I am very interested in reading more entries in this series.
  
  I was also impressed by the range of the authors. All spoke from an evangelical perspective, yet they managed to find a hardline conservative who unapologetically endorses infallibility, a more progressive scholar who reject the term all together, and a postmodern thinker who reframes the question entirely. While I do find myself more partial to some positions over others, even in the views I disagreed with I found thought provoking arguments and counter arguments.
  
  My only slightly negative comment is that by the end, after hearing some of the authors write 4 essays beforehand, the reading felt pretty exhaustive. Perhaps this is the consequence of reading it all in one sitting, this is certainly the kind of book I could see my self referring to in order to study one particular perspective.
• 
  Vanjr

  Five different views of inerrancy from a those with inerrant or nearly inerrant stance. Useful to see some variation and discussion rather than one sentence polemic statements that say "my way or the highway." Several useful things came out of it for me. First and most important is that the subject of inerrancy can be a theological club to pound home a singular interpretation of a passage. This book allows some to disarm the theological club technique. (It was good to see that Mohler's inerrancy take is not the only one out there.)
  
  I am pleasantly surprised that many other reviewers had positive statements on Vanhoozer. I had not heard of him, but am interested in reading some of his other material after being exposed to him in this volume.
  
  Recommended for those who are interested in this topic. (Not all are, nor should they).
• 
  Jason Bailey

  This book is exactly what I expected it to be. Mohler emphasizes circular a priori belief that the Bible is inerrant because it is true. Enns suggests that inerancy according to Mohler is incompatible with serious scholarship... then there's the scholor who says, "Come on guys, can't we all just get along?"
  
  Of course, there is a lot more depth and detail. As such, I highly recommend reading this book in its entirety. It will likely cause your stomach to turn at certain points no matter what your views are on inerancy, but it is worth it to watch these scholarly gentlemen battle out their views in a civil yet honest manner.