Objections to the Bible’s Claim to Inerrancy

            Obviously, non-interrantists will object to the conclusion of the argument. So where might they find fault with it? Stephen T. Davis objected to a similar argument, though it is the “therefore, the Bible cannot lie”[1] version. However, his only real objection is that it is “deductive in the extreme.”[2] His problem was with the method of the argument, and he claimed that history has shown how “dangerous deduction can be.”[3] This, of course, does not show that deduction in relation to inerrancy is necessarily “dangerous,” nor is it clear that such a charge could successfully be leveled at the more modest deduction being put forward here. Whether or not a form of argument is “dangerous,” the argument still needs to be dealt with.

            The first premise reflects a strong view of inspiration such that God is involved in some way in originating the words that comprise the text of the Bible. Someone with a weaker view of inspiration would likely deny the first premise. That person would then need to put forth adequate interpretations of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 1:21, as well as the other passages that point to God’s authorship of the Bible. As it stands, it appears that the clearest and most reasonable interpretation of these passages is that the words of the Bible originated with God in some way. Many who deny inerrancy do, in fact, affirm this premise. Davis, for example, said “somehow, the Bible’s words are God’s words.”[4]

            It is likely the case that most Christians would not deny the second premise outright. They would affirm that anything that comes directly from God must be true. However, non-inerrantists may object that such a belief is not relevant to the argument for inerrancy. Davis raised this objection in his earlier work. “But the Bible containing an error is not the same thing as God lying. (The question, “But can God lie?” is sometimes used as a rhetorical device by unsophisticated defenders of inerrancy.)”[5]< There are only two ways that the Bible containing an error may not be the same thing as God lying. The first is if the Bible was not inspired by God. Divine inspiration of the Bible has already been defended and Davis has repeatedly affirmed it. If God is in some way the author of the Bible, an error is found, and God is not lying, then the only other alternative is that God is ignorant. He could not be accused of lying if He didn’t know what He claimed was false. But denying God’s omniscience is not biblically defensible[6], a popular view, nor is it likely that Davis denies it. Unfortunately, Davis has not proposed any other alternatives, nor explained how errors being found in God’s words do not make God a liar. Until he does so, his “rhetorical device” charge more accurately describes his own objection.

            Perhaps another objection could be made claiming that though the premises are true, the conclusion does not follow. This would be difficult to maintain considering the apparent validity of the argument and the biblical evidence for the premises. It is not likely, then, that an effective objection could be found in this way.