Dr. Alister McGrath continues the discussion started in EN on the question of Biblical inerrancy . . .
It is a great pleasure to be invited to contribute once more to the discussion on biblical authority in this newspaper. Evangelicalism has always taken its stand on the total reliability and trustworthiness of 'the word of God incarnate and the word of God written', seeing the closest of connections between Jesus Christ and Scripture. It is excellent that evangelicals continue to affirm these seminal truths in an age in which the uniqueness of the Christian gospel is being challenged on many fronts.
It will be clear from the discussion in EN that there is a genuine debate within evangelicalism over whether the word 'inerrancy' is the most appropriate word to use when we affirm the total reliability and trustworthiness of Scripture. My personal position is that the crucial issue of the supreme authority and total trustworthiness of Scripture as the written word of God can be affirmed perfectly well using other terms, and I would be saddened if our common evangelical commitment to this vital insight is overshadowed by debates about exactly which word we use. I fully respect the motives and concerns of those who feel that the word 'inerrancy' is the most appropriate; my own preference is for a phrase such as 'the total reliability and trustworthiness' of Scripture, which states the same insight in a positive manner. As J.I. Packer comments: 'Inerrancy and infallibility thus become synonyms, differing only in nuance and tone (the former accenting trustworthiness as a source, the latter accenting trustworthiness as a guide). Neither word need be used; both may be used to advantage.'
Rationalist assumptions?
A genuine area of discussion concerns the extent to which evangelicals have allowed rationalist assumptions to influence their defence of biblical authority. My personal perception (and, I must stress, I am open to correction on this point) is that there is a danger that the general approach set out by Charles Hodge and Benjamin B. Warfield ends up by making the evangelical defence of the authority of Scripture dependent on some rationalist beliefs especially associated with the Scottish Enlightenment.
As many readers will know, this is currently a subject of considerable discussion in the writings of leading North American evangelicals such as Donald Bloesch and Mark Noll.
I must stress that I am in no way criticising Hodge and Warfield for drawing on what they regarded as the best arguments and resources available to assist them in their task of defending the authority of Scripture at a very difficult time. The history of Christianity shows that Christian theologians and apologists have regularly made use of ideas and arguments which were widely accepted in their cultures as part of their apologetic and evangelistic strategy. (For example, we might think of the way in which Justin Martyr used Platonism and Thomas Aquinas used Aristotelianism in their writings.)
The difficulty here, as Martin Luther pointed out, was that secular philosophy ended up having far too great a say in Christian theology. Luther argued for the need to purge Christianity of secular philosophy. Indeed, part of the vision for Christian theology which is set out in the invaluable slogan 'sola Scriptura' is the principle that nothing outside and apart from Scripture must be allowed to become of determining importance in Christian thought and life. Those of us who are deeply committed to the principles of the Reformation see this constant process of checking our theology against Scripture (and especially of maintaining watchfulness against the intrusion of secular philosophical ideas) as vital to the health and well-being of modern evangelicalism.
The question which I raised in A Passion For Truth (IVP, 1996) is whether the line of argument developed by Hodge and Warfield relies on assumptions linked with the rationalist worldview of the Enlightenment. Let me stress that this would not constitute a criticism of their approach. There is no doubt that both writers were concerned to develop an effective defence of the authority of Scripture which would carry weight in the increasingly rationalist world of the 19th century. Anyone who engages in apologetics finds themselves making tactical use of prevailing ideas to defend the Christian faith, and Hodge and Warfield cannot be faulted for doing this so effectively in the last century. The difficulty is just that they seem to have used ideas which would have been generally accepted at the time, but which are more problematical today. The defence of biblical authority against its critics today would therefore involve us adopting different approaches, even if the underlying strategy is substantially the same.
Being thoroughly biblical
One of my major concerns is to ensure that, as evangelicals, we are thoroughly biblical in our thinking, rather than dependent on secular ideas. This is one of the reasons why I am so anxious that we should do all we can to eliminate the lingering influence of the Enlightenment from evangelicalism. Not only is the Enlightenment over (and hence of diminishing importance to us); it is actually thoroughly anti-Christian at points, especially in its emphasis on the goodness and self-sufficiency of human nature. St. Paul urges us to put everything to the test, and hold on to what is good (1 Thessalonians 5.21). If part of Luther's agenda was the systematic elimination of Aristotelian ideas from Christian thought, perhaps our agenda today ought to be to make sure that we get rid of any remaining rationalist beliefs which have (for whatever understandable reasons) become incorporated in our thinking as evangelicals. We are under an absolute obligation to ensure that our central ideas are Scripture-based, not the result of the influence of the Enlightenment or any other philosophical system!
But these are issues for debate and discussion, and I have no intention of being dogmatic about them. If I am wrong, I will gladly concede the points. The issues I have raised can be the subject of a friendly and constructive discussion within evangelicalism, on the basis of a shared commitment to the total reliability and trustworthiness of Scripture as the inspired word of God. Yet we must make sure that our friendly discussions within evangelicalism concerning the most effective and faithful way of stating our firm beliefs about Scripture must not be allowed to divert us from reaffirming and defending its authority to those outside evangelicalism.
Wise guide
As will be clear, I regard James Packer as a very wise guide to issues focusing on the authority and inspiration of Scripture (his 'Fundamentalism' and the Word of God still seems to me to be one of the best things written in this important area). In a fascinating piece entitled Battling for the Bible, which he contributed to the Regent College Bulletin in the autumn of 1979, Packer encourages us to think in terms of engaging with the questions which our critics raise, and give effective and persuasive answers to them. His words strike me as challenging and even prophetic, pointing to the need for us to keep working in this vitally important area:
'It will be sad if zeal for inerrancy entrenches a wholly backward-looking bibliology. Fruitful questions thrown up in the liberal camp - questions about revelation as communication, about hermeneutics as the theory of understanding, about the use of Scripture in preaching and theology, about the way in which the historically relative may have absoluteness and finality for all time, about the epistemological status and quality of the knowledge Scripture gives us and so on (I could extend the list, couldn't you) - await evangelical exploration, which as yet they have hardly had. The battle for the Bible must continue as long as unbelieving babble about the Bible continues, but as Archbishop Michael Ramsey once said: 'the best defence of any doctrine is the creative exposition of it, and the creative exposition of the doctrine of Scripture requires work on these questions which still waits to be taken in hand'.
It is a challenge to which I have tried to rise, and I know that many EN readers are doing the same. It is vitally important that others are helped to discover what we already know to be true - that Scripture offers us a totally reliable and trustworthy guide to a totally reliable and trustworthy God.
