Critique

Critique of Biblical Inerrancy by Stephen L. Andrew
Critique
The purpose of Stephen Andrew’s article is to examine the arguments supporting inerrancy and to determine the validity of each argument by both sides.

Andrew held at least three presuppositions: the existence of God to inspire the Bible, the fact of resurrection and the Hebrew scriptural canon. The first and second are reasonable because those involved question neither. To presuppose which Hebrew scripture Jesus attributed authority to may be invalid since it is vital to the Epistemological and Biblical Arguments.

Andrew basically eliminated the Slippery-Slope and Historical Arguments based on reasoning and he intends to prove inerrancy through valid support. He explained that many inerrantists have wrongly defended the Epistemological argument deductively and showed that the Historical Argument only supports inerrancy as a historical norm of Christian orthodoxy.

I see two major strengths to Andrew’s dealing with the Epistemological Argument. The first was responding to Davis’s criticism with an inductive argument rather than a deductive one. The second strength was in his final rebuttal. Andrew showed that Davis raises human reason onto a pedestal, along side the Spirit, for revealing truth, which directly violates the uses for reason which Dr. Towns described in the lesson.

The Biblical Argument presented by Andrew seemed weak. Andrew stated 2 Peter 1:20-21 referred to “Scripture” but actually only speaks of prophecy. Combining that with verses stating God never lies only proves all prophecies to be inerrant. Later, Andrew references Matthew 5:18 which in the context also seems to pertain to fulfillment of prophesy.
Andrew’s rebuttals to the attacks on the Biblical Argument are logical and complete. Andrew thoroughly addressed the counter-arguments and showed them to be false or invalid.

Personal Conclusion
I believe in inerrancy of the bible. There were several quotes in the article that I think substantiate how important inerrancy is. The clearest one was Clark Pinnock, “Inerrancy is to be regarded as an essential concomitant of the doctrine of inspiration, a necessary inference drawn from the fact that Scripture is God’s Word… If one believes the Scripture to be god’s Word, he cannot fail to believe it inerrant. …” I agree with Andrew’s intended Biblical Argument, however, I believe he arrived at the conclusion incorrectly. As I stated above, 2 Peter 1:20-21 limits God’s inspiration to just prophecy. However, Paul clearly teaches in 2 Timothy 3:16 that God inspires all scripture, as well as describing what God’s intended use for scripture is. Linking 2 Timothy 3:16, with Numbers 23:19 that claims God can’t lie, and Matt 5:18, “one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law” points to clear and concrete inerrancy of scripture. The logic would be (1) God inspired every word of Scripture, (2) God intended every word (even letters) to be written, and (3) God can’t lie. Thus, every word of the Bible must be inerrant.

This being said, the question remains as to which scriptures Jesus was referring to. The New Testament authenticity, validity, and accuracy are not brought into question by this issue. However, since the Hebrew scriptures were not canonized completely until after Jesus’ ascension Jesus may have only been referring to the books that were accepted by the Jews at the time, the books that He specifically quoted or referenced, or something less than both.