A Philosophical Analysis Of Certain Assumptions Of The Doctrine Of The Inerrancy Of The Bible -- By: Stanley Obitts

Journal: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
Volume: JETS 26:2 (Jun 1983)
Article: A Philosophical Analysis Of Certain Assumptions Of The Doctrine Of The Inerrancy Of The Bible
Author: Stanley Obitts


A Philosophical Analysis Of Certain Assumptions Of
The Doctrine Of The Inerrancy Of The Bible

Stanley Obitts*

This article will attempt to identify and probe philosophically certain assumptions of a leading formulation of the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible. As a preliminary matter, a possible conceptual confusion in that formulation of the doctrine will be examined. The formulation to be scrutinized is that of the major association of scholars whose sole stated condition for affiliation is belief in the inerrancy of the Scriptures.

Accordingly we read in the current promotional brochure of the Evangelical Theological Society that its founding members took the following belief to be the only one “of supreme importance” in forming the Society: “The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.” This belief, introduced in the promotional brochure as a “creedal statement,” or called “the doctrinal basis” of the Society in its Journal, is obviously an enthymeme—i.e., an incompletely stated syllogism. The suppressed major premise is the following: The Word of God written is inerrant in the autographs. The fully stated syllogism would read thus:

The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written.

The Word of God written is inerrant in the autographs.

Therefore the Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is inerrant in the autographs.

As the ETS is not content to ask its members simply to assent to the conclusion of that argument however one might arrive at it but rather demands agreement with the whole syllogism, that suppressed major premise bears scrutiny.

By making explicit the major premise we bring to the forefront the old issue as to whether there is a conceptual confusion in referring to linguistic phenomena in the form of written symbols as being the locus of revelation. Since the autographs of the Scriptures are collections of symbolic markings on objects suitable for the purpose, it seems odd to think of them as revealed of or by God. Any educated person can make intelligible marks on smooth, flat surfaces. That for which God’s involvement would be a necessary condition is the truth of what was conveyed by those linguistic symbols. As has been said many times, propositions—not sentences—are in the primary sense what can be true or false. Sentences can be effective or ineffective in expressing a statement or proposition. This is the reason for Gordon Lewis’ suggestion that the term “infallible” be reserved for the never-failing ability of the words in the autographs to convey the revealed truths, while the term “inerrant” b...

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