Currently listening to: “True Grand” by Sev Statik
Sev always brings wisdom.
“God is almighty – He don’t need a logo! Man-made symbols and dress it’s purely just promo
A broken cross and a fish-head cap / it’s all propaganda… Where the lost relate to that?”

This morning on The Gospel Coalition site, Russell Moore shared a link to an article by a guy named Bart Barber. The topic? The inerrancy of Scripture. For some, this topic isn’t one they’ve encountered. For others, such as myself, this topic is of extreme interest and importance. I’ve had extensive debates in the last few years on this very subject, with the constant refrain of opposition being that inerrancy dies the “death of a thousand qualifications”. So, with that in mind, I was intrigued by – and thoroughly enjoyed – Barber’s treatment of the objections to inerrancy as presented by a guy named James Denison. Although Barber’s concern and circles are Baptist, I found his breakdown of the objections helpful and I trust you will too. The shakedown is helpfully written with regular folk in mind, which doesn’t exclude the scholars but at widens the accessibility.

If you’re curious as to precisely what Barber is responding to, he shares Denison’s six primary arguments as follows:

Those main arguments are six in number:

  1. Denison argues that the word “inerrancy” has been defined and qualified in too many different and highly technical ways to be of any theological use; therefore, we ought to prefer to speak of the “trustworthiness” or “authority” of the Bible.
  2. Denison argues that the concept of inerrancy, since it is applied exclusively to the original Bible manuscripts, actually undermines the faith of believers in their own copies of the Bible.
  3. Denison argues that inerrancy is a recent doctrinal innovation not shared by those in Christian history whom we ought to emulate—that it is not among our theological “roots.”
  4. Denison argues that rather than the denial of inerrancy’s leading to other heresies, the affirmation of inerrancy leads to unwarranted divisiveness.
  5. Denison argues that inerrancy is a philosophical position not supported by the statements of the Bible itself.
  6. Denison argues that the Bible actually is not inerrant; therefore, to apply the test of inerrancy to the Bible is to set the Bible up to fail at a test that it does not and would not apply to itself, and thereby to undermine one’s belief in the “trustworthiness” of the Bible.

So, I present to you: “An Errant Bible: The Gateway Heresy“. (Strong title? Yes! Blessedly strong!).
As usual, I’m up for discussion. I think Barber hits some pretty significant points.