Reconsidering “Limited Inerrancy” -- By: Richard J. Coleman

Journal: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
Volume: JETS 17:4 (Fall 1974)
Article: Reconsidering “Limited Inerrancy”
Author: Richard J. Coleman


Reconsidering “Limited Inerrancy”

Richard J. Coleman*

Pittsfield, Massachusetts 01201

Surprisingly enough the discussion of Biblical inerrancy swirls around us with almost the same ferocity as in the 1880s and the 1930s. The stance was taken then, namely by B. B. Warfield and J. Gresham Machen, that the traditional view of Biblical inerrancy should not be compromised by the promulgation of a limited view of inspiration. Well fought issues do not die easily and such is the case with the interrelationship between Scriptural inerrancy and its inspiration. The difficulties faced by Warfield and Machen in defending a strict view of inerrancy are still with us, if not more intensely, and thus the proponents of some kind of limited inspiration are still with us. The debate, however, has often been clouded by imprecisions and generalities. Thus, my purpose is to unpack some of the commonly used terms in this controversy leading to a more careful definition of the alternatives.

When heresy charges were brought against Charles A. Briggs concerning, among other matters, his view of limited inerrancy, Henry P. Smith came to his defense.1 As an OT scholar who accepted some of the results of the critical historical method, Smith defined the issue as thus: “Whether the Biblical writers were also divinely guided to remove from previous existing literary material every error of fact, no matter how indifferent in its bearing on faith and morals, and whether in giving their own observation and experience they were so far lifted above universal liability to error that they never made a mistake, even in the sphere of secular science or history.” In this manner Smith carried the question of inspiration one step beyond that of the immediate recordings of the Biblical writers. In some matters, namely those concerned with faith and morals, the authors gave evidence of being directly inspired, but on other matters the written text gave evidence of being dependent upon secondary sources, oral traditions, redactions, and scribal errors. In other words, inspiration was limited to the unmediated parts of Scripture and for that reason the Bible could be declared to be “the only infallible rule of faith and practice.”2

*B.A. degree from Johns Hopkins U; B.D. and Th.M. from Princeton Seminary; currently executive director of the Christian Center in Pittsfield.

Henry Smith was bound to lock horns with Benjamin Warfield. The latter took Smith to task on several fronts.3 If we were willing to agree with...

You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe
visitor : : uid: ()