Journal: Priscilla Papers
Volume: PP 15:2 (Spring 2001)
Article: Equal Time Letters To The Editor
Author: Anonymous

Equal Time
Letters To The Editor

Inerrancy And Equality

In his article “Can You Believe in Inerrancy and Equality?” (PP, Winter 2001; pp. 3-7), Dan Gentry Kent is right to assert that these two distinct issues are by no means mutually incompatible. Although some opponents of CBE believe the inerrancy of Scripture precludes equality, it is clear this is not the view of perhaps most of CBE’s adherents. Professor Kent avows that he “holds to inerrancy and equality.” I hope his advocacy of equality is more solid and enthusiastic than his support of inerrancy. His article, and most of the endnotes, deprecates inerrancy and is devoted to a critical evaluation of it as improper, unbiblical, ambiguous, divisive, and a relatively novel language and concept. I wish to indicate that none of these charges is valid.

1. Inerrancy is not improper because it is a negative term. Scripture and theology often use negative expressions to assert vigorously the positive: blameless, separate from sinners (Heb. 7:26); inexpressible (1 Peter 1:8); indescribable (2 Cor. 9:15); and so on. Christian confessions of faith often did not merely state the truth, but indicated negatively their opposition to error: Nicaea (325) and Chalcedon (451).

Inerrancy is not “grammatically questionable.” Grammar deals with the organization of words and sentences; it has no bearing on word formation.

2. Inerrant, it is true, is not found in the Bible; neither are trinity, satisfaction, theology, and other words properly used to denote biblical concepts. The idea of inerrancy is reflected in Jesus’ statements, as in “The Scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), and “Your word is truth” (John 17:17).

The inerrancy of Scripture is an ineluctable implication of the frequent identification of the Scripture as “the word of God” and is logically tied up with the recognition of the divine authorship.

3. Inerrancy is not truly ambiguous. What those who oppose the term appear to dislike is that it is too clear for their taste. Of course, the word error has to be defined in this context, and this is precisely what the Chicago Statement, referred to in footnote 7, attempted to do.

The claim of ambiguity appears supported by the listing of nine types of inerrancy as distinguished by Dr. David Dockery. But only the first three are properly named inerrancy, and the six others are not positions of inerrancy at all but various levels of discounting inerrancy.

What makes the language of inerrancy highly desirable is that so many oppon...