Apologetics of Inspiration

Here is a condensed list of arguments with brief rebuttals following each one


ARGUMENT: You can rely on Scripture in the Spiritual domain but NOT in the sphere of science

  1. If this were true, this would render the Bible ineffective as a divine authority, since the spiritual is often inextricably interwoven with the historical and scientific
  2. One cannot separate the spiritual truths of Christ’s resurrection from the fact that His body permanently vacated the tomb and later physically appeared (Matt. 28:6; 1 Cor. 15:13-19)
  3. If Jesus was not born of a biological virgin, then He is no different from the rest of the human race on whom the stigma of Adam’s sin rests (Romans 5:12)
  4. The death of Christ for our sins cannot be detached form His shedding literal blood on the cross (Heb. 9:22)
  5. Historical reality and the theological doctrine stand and fall together

ARGUEMENT: Scripture can be trusted on moral matters, but it is NOT always correct on historical matters

  1. If there were no literal Adam and no actual fall, then the Spiritual teachings about inherited sin and eventual or physical death are wrong (Rom. 5:12)
  2. The doctrine of the Incarnation is inseparable from the historical truth about Jesus of Nazareth (John 1:1,14)
  3. Jesus Moral teachings about marriage was based on His teaching about God’s joining together of a literal Adam and Eve (Matt. 19:4-5)
  4. Jesus directly compared Old Testament events with spiritual truths
  5. His death and resurrection were related to Jonah and the great fish (Matt. 12:40)
    • His second coming is compared to the days of Noah (Matt. 24:37-39)
    • Jesus questioned Nicodemus, “I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?” (John 3:12). In short, if the Bible does not speak truthfully about the physical world, then it cannot be trusted when it speaks about the spiritual world.

ARGUEMENT: Inerrancy Is Not Taught in the Bible

  1. The term “Trinity” nowhere appears in the Bible, nor does “substitutionary atonement” and these are Essential Doctrines. It is not a question of whether the term inerrancy is used but whether the truth of inerrancy is taught
  2. It is implied that since the doctrine of inerrancy is not explicitly taught that it is not taught at all. It can be granted that inerrancy is not formally and explicitly taught in the Bible; however, this is not to say that inerrancy is not logically and implicitly taught. The same way the doctrine of the Trinity is necessarily logically deduced

ARGUEMENT: Inerrancy Is a Late Invention

  1. The infallibility and inerrancy of the Scripture has been virtually the unanimous teaching of all the great Fathers of the Christian church down through the centuries until modern times
  2. Augustine (354-430)
    • Letters 82.1.3
    • City of God (9.5; 10.1; 11.6; 13.2; 15.8)
    • Harmony of the Gospels, 1.35.54
  1. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
    • Summa Theologica 1a.1, 8; 1a.1, 10; 2a2ae. 174,5; 2a2ae.172, 6, ad 2; 2a2ae. 172, 6, ad 2; 1a.1, 10, ad 3; 1a. 14, 3
    • Commentary on Job 13, 1
  1. John Calvin (1509-1564)
    • Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.18.4; 1.6.3; 3.2.6
    • Calvin’s Commentaries, Ps. 5:11
  1. Martin Luther (1483-1546)
    • The Works of Luther, 37:26
    • Reu, Luther on the ScripturesS, 44; 33

ARGUEMENT: Inerrancy is Based on Non-Existent Originals

  1. It is not true that we do not possess the original text, We do possess it in well-preserved. We do have an accurate copy of the original text represented in these manuscripts
  2. Nearly 5700 New Testament manuscripts we possess contain all or nearly all of the original text, and we can reconstruct the original text with over 99 percent accuracy
  3. There is a difference between the text and the truth of the text. 100 percent truth of the text comes through the 99 percent accuracy

ARGUEMENT: Inerrancy Is Unnecessary

  1. If errant copies of the original text are sufficient, then why did God have to inspire errorless originals. The reason the original text cannot err is that it was breathed out by God, and God cannot err. The copies, while demonstrated to have been providentially preserved from substantial error, are not breathed out by God. Hence, there can be errors in the copies
  2. To demonstrate, all human beings are imperfect copies of Adam, who was directly created by God. Nonetheless, as imperfect a copy as we may be, we are still 100 percent human. Adam was no more human than we are, yet there is a significant difference between Adam as He came fresh from the hand of the Creator, with absolutely no imperfections, and the imperfect copies of the original Adam that we are.
  3. We can no more conceive of God’s breathing out an imperfect original text than we can of His breathing the breath of life into an imperfect Adam
  4. What comes directly from the hand (or mouth) of the Creator must be perfect, and only later copies of it can be imperfect
  5. To claim errors in the original Adam or Bible is to allege that there are flaws in the very nature of God
    • Inerrancy Is an Unfalsifiable View
      • The principle of falsifiability itself can be challenged. Is the principle itself falsifiable? If not, then it is self-defeating
      • Even those who hold the principle often distinguish between what is falsifiable in principle and what is falsifiable in fact. For example, the claim that “there is no intelligent life in outer space” is falsifiable in principle, or it would be, if we could examine every nook and cranny of the cosmos. But since this is not presently possible, this statement is not falsifiable in fact.
      • The doctrine of inerrancy is falsifiable in fact. All that is necessary is to eitherFind an actual error in an existing but accurate copy of Scripture
        • Find an original manuscript with an error in it
        • Incidentally, since earlier manuscripts (of other works) than the originals (of Scripture) have already been found, it is not beyond possibility to find an original
      • If you find the body of Jesus, all of Christianity is proven false
    • Inerrancy Is Not a Fundamental Doctrine
      • The infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture is the foundation of all other doctrines. Every other fundamental of the Christian faith is based on the Scripture. If it does not have divine authority, then we have no divine authority for any doctrine to which we adhere
      • Inerrancy is a fundamental of the Fundamentals, and if the fundamental of the Fundamentals is not fundamental, then what is fundamental? The answer is: fundamentally nothing.
      • Inerrancy is the foundation of all churches’ creeds, councils, and confessions
    • Inerrancy Should Not Be a Test for orthodoxy 
      • One can deny inerrancy and still be saved
      • A person can be evangelical or orthodox on all other fundamentals of the faith and still be unorthodox on this one, as inconsistent as it may be
    • Objection to the Term “Inerrancy” 
      • While the term inerrancy can have a technical scientific connotation, it need not. Like most other words, there is a range of usage that must be determined by the context in which it used. The bottom line is not to insist on the term but in the truth of the matter
    • Inerrancy is a Divisive Doctrine
      • Not everything that divides is divisive. Doctrine divides those who affirm it from those who deny it, but this does not mean it is a divisive doctrine
      • Even if a doctrine were divisive simply because it divides, those who affirm the orthodox doctrine should not be considered divisive but rather thos who deny it
      • If taking a stand on a doctrine automatically makes it divisive and thereby wrong, then all stands for any doctrine would be wrong, for there is not and essential doctrine of the Christian faith that is not denied by some heresy somewhere
      • It is better to be divided by truth than to be united by error. All truth divides one from error: the real problem is not those who divide by standing for truth but those who divide by falling for error.
    • Inerrancy is Contrary to Fact 
      1. Assuming That the Unexplainable Is Not Explainable
        • No Scientist would assume that what is unexplainable in nature is unexplainable; rather, they keep on doing research. And yet, if this criticism is coming from a professing believer, for what reason are they unwilling to have faith in God’s Word?
      2. Presuming the Bible Guilty Until Proven Innocent
        • If your approach to criticizing Scripture is that it is guilty until proven innocent, then your criticism doesn’t stem from the intellectual or genuine pursuit of knowledge, but it is rather a heart issue. This especially goes for the professing Christian who wants to reject Inerrancy
      3. Confusing Our Fallible Interpretations With God’s Infallible Revelation
        • God’s Word is infallible but not the interpretation of His Word. God’s Word is inspired but not the interpretations of the readers.
      4. Failing to Understand the Context of the Passage
        • This is the most comment mistake that critics make. As the adage goes, “A text out of context it a pretext.” You can make the Bible say whatever you want by simply taking certain passages out of context. For example, “Judas went and hanged himself” (Matt. 27:5) “go and do likewise” (Luke 10:37).
      5. Neglecting to Interpret Difficult Passages in the Light of Clear Ones
        • Sometimes the difficulties of passages are due to obscurity; at other times, it is due to the fact that passages appear to be teaching something contrary to what some other part of Scripture is clearly teaching. For example, James appears to be saying salvation is by works (James 2:14-26), whereas Paul taught clearly that it was by grace (Romans 4:5; Titus 3:5-7; Eph. 2:8-9). In this case, James should not be construed so as to contradict Paul—Paul is speaking about justification before God (which is by faith alone), whereas James is referring to justification before men (who cannot see our faith, but only our works)
      6. Basing a Teaching on an Obscure Passage
        • Some passages in Scripture are difficult because their meaning is obscure, often because the context is not clear. You have to be willing to acknowledge your own finitude and limited understanding and don’t hold that against Scripture.
      7. Forgetting that the Bible Is a Human Book With Human Characteristics
        • Forgetting the humanity of Scripture can lead to falsely impugning its integrity by expecting a level of expression higher than what it customary to a human document
      8. Assuming That a Partial Report Is a False Report
        • The four gospels relate the same story in different ways to different groups of people and sometimes even quote the same saying with different word. This is not contradictory but complementary; each gives parts, but none the whole.
      9. Demanding That New Testament Citations of the Old Testament Always Be Exact Quotations
        • Critics sometimes mistakenly assume that every New Testament citation needs to be an exact quotation. Even today it is an accepted literary practice to quote the essence of a statement without using precisely the same words. The same meaning can be conveyed without using the same verbal expressions.
      10. Assuming That Divergent Accounts Are False Ones
        • Critics err in assuming that because two or more accounts of the same event differ, they are mutually exclusive. An example of this is when the critics say the gospel accounts contradict each other on how many angels were at the empty when Jesus Resurrected.
      11. Presuming That the Bible Approves of All It Records
        • The Bible does not approve of everything that it records. The Bible records numerous events and quotes numerous people and things, including the Devil!
      12. Forgetting That the Bible Uses Non-Technical, Everyday Language
        • The Bible is written for the common person of every generation, and it therefore uses everyday language.
      13. Assuming That Round Numbers Are False
        • Like most ordinary speech, the Bible uses round numbers (1 Chron. 19:18; 21:5); for example, it refers to the diameter of something as being about one-third of the circumference of something (1 Kings 7:23). This may be imprecise from the standpoint of a contemporary technological society to speak of 3.14159265… as 3, but it is not incorrect for an ancient, non-technological people.
      14. Neglecting to Note That the Bible Uses Different Literary Devices
        • The Bible uses various human literary devises: poetic style, parables, allegory, metaphors, hyperboles, poetic figures, satire, figures of speech.
      15. Forgetting That Only the Original Text, Not Every Copy of Scripture, Is Without Error
        • Inspiration does not guarantee that every copy of the original is without error, and therefore, we are to expect that minor errors will be found in manuscripts copies. When we run into a so-called ‘error’ in the Bible, we must assume one of two things: either the manuscript was not copied correctly, or we have not understood it rightly. What we may not assume is that God made an error in inspiring the original text.
        • 4 things to observe about the copyist errors
          1. They are errors in the copies, not the originals. No one has ever found an original manuscript with an error in it
          2. They are minor errors (often in names or numbers) that do not affect any doctrine of the Christian faith
          3. These copyist errors are relatively few in number
          4. Usually by the context, or by another Scripture, we know which one is in error
      16. Confusing General Statements With Universal Ones
        • Critics often jump to the conclusion that unqualified statements admit no exceptions. For instance, proverbial statements by their very nature offer only general guidance, not universal acceptance. It is a mistake to take a general statement as a necessarily particular one
      17. Forgetting That Later Revelation Supersedes Previous Revelation
        • God does not reveal everything at once, nor does He always lay down the same conditions for every period of time. Therefore, some of His later revelation will supersede His former statements. But this ia a change of revelation, not a change in revelation.
        • Bible critics sometimes confuse a change in revelation with a mistake.
        • For example, the fact that a parent allows a very small child to eat with his fingers only to tell him later to use a spoon, is not a contradiction. This is progressive revelation, each command suited to fit the particular circumstance in which the person finds himself
        • “If we are perplexed by any apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, ‘The author of this book is mistaken’; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood” Augustine
        • The mistakes are not in the revelation of God, but are in the misinterpretations of man; the Bible is without mistake, the critics are not.
      18. The Allegations That Grammatical Irregularities Are Errors
        • Like most human books, the Bible has grammatically irregular construction. It is a mistake, however, to assume this is an error
          1. There is no absolute standard for grammar. There are regular and irregular usages, but no real grammatical errors
          2. Grammar as such does not deal with truth but is only the form through which verbal truth is expressed. So an error could be expressed in good (regular) grammar, and the truth could be expressed in bad (irregular) grammar
          3. Irregular grammar is often more forceful expression of an idea, as slang reveals
    • The Bible contains the words of humans, and humans err, therefore the Bible errs
      • This does not logically follow since humans don’t always err
      • The human authors had divine aid (John 14:26; 2 Peter 1:20-21)
      • When a progressive/liberal Christian tries to argue that the Bible is not God’s Word because it was transcribed by imperfect man (only imperfection comes from imperfection) the best way to respond is by asking the following question. When Jesus was born, was He perfect? They will not deny His perfection. If Jesus was perfect and He came forth through Mary, then it is possible for something perfect to come from something that is imperfect. We should not be so quick to limit God.
      • At best, this argument only shows that the Bible CAN err, not that it actually DOES err.
      • Since the Bible is the word of men it can err (but doesn’t). This is no more a contradiction than to say of Christ, insofar as He was a human being, He did not know everything (Luke 2:52; Matt. 24:36). But insofar as Christ Is God, He does know everything (Job 11:7-9; Ps. 147:5). Both Christ and Scripture have two natures, and what is true of one is not necessarily true of the other. So one and the same words of Scripture can be inerrant in the strong sense (that they cannot err) insofar as they are the Word of God, and errorless in the weaker sense (that they do not err) insofar as they are the words of human beings.