Uploaded September 2024 | Updated September 2026, 4 days ago
In this video, we play two clips by John MacArthur on the inerrancy of the Bible. We also provide quotes from Carl F. H. Henry and Francis Schaeffer on the matter. Finally, we conclude by answering the objection by Michael Licona that "Norman Geisler considered inerrancy an essential of the Christian faith."
Sources:
youtube.com/watch?v=vA5rGF35-Cw&t=243s
youtube.com/watch?v=aPtGVtCOlLE
bible-researcher.com/schaeffer1.html
richardghowe.com/index_htm_files/InerrancyExplainingInerrancy.pdf
The same criticism from Carl F. H. Henry could be labeled against those who affirm who affirm a "flexible" view of inerrancy (i.e., limited inerrancy).
"Those critics who would partition Scripture into errant and inerrant segments have never achieved a logically persuasive division; those who venture to take this course disagree radically among themselves. They have never, moreover, adduced a theological, philosophical or biblical principle that objectively justifies dividing the Scriptures into “truth and error” rather than “rightly dividing the word of truth”(2 Tim. 2:15, KJV). The inevitable consequence of insisting on biblical authority and inspiration on the one hand and an errant Bible on the other is, of course, that inspiration ceases to be a guarantee of the truth of what the Bible teaches; the authority of Scripture must then somehow be divorced from the truth of its content. The problem with such alternatives is that they destroy the objective truth of the Christian religion, trivialize theology, and lead finally to skepticism. The historic Christian case for the inspiration, authority, and inerrancy of Scripture is not predicated on wildly irrational argumentation, nor has it been logically invalidated by modern biblical studies. What has led modern critical scholars away from this evangelical affirmation has been considerations of another kind, that is, philosophical preconceptions to which they alternatively adjust the evidence, and which often involve—even while the critics lay claim to be Christian—a conception of God different in many respects from the God of the Bible who himself is truth and who cannot lie."
--Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, 4:192-193.
In this video, we play two clips by John MacArthur on the inerrancy of the Bible. We also provide quotes from Carl F. H. Henry and Francis Schaeffer on the matter. Finally, we conclude by answering the objection by Michael Licona that "Norman Geisler considered inerrancy an essential of the Christian faith."
Sources:
youtube.com/watch?v=vA5rGF35-Cw&t=243s
youtube.com/watch?v=aPtGVtCOlLE
bible-researcher.com/schaeffer1.html
richardghowe.com/index_htm_files/InerrancyExplainingInerrancy.pdf
The same criticism from Carl F. H. Henry could be labeled against those who affirm who affirm a "flexible" view of inerrancy (i.e., limited inerrancy).
"Those critics who would partition Scripture into errant and inerrant segments have never achieved a logically persuasive division; those who venture to take this course disagree radically among themselves. They have never, moreover, adduced a theological, philosophical or biblical principle that objectively justifies dividing the Scriptures into “truth and error” rather than “rightly dividing the word of truth”(2 Tim. 2:15, KJV). The inevitable consequence of insisting on biblical authority and inspiration on the one hand and an errant Bible on the other is, of course, that inspiration ceases to be a guarantee of the truth of what the Bible teaches; the authority of Scripture must then somehow be divorced from the truth of its content. The problem with such alternatives is that they destroy the objective truth of the Christian religion, trivialize theology, and lead finally to skepticism. The historic Christian case for the inspiration, authority, and inerrancy of Scripture is not predicated on wildly irrational argumentation, nor has it been logically invalidated by modern biblical studies. What has led modern critical scholars away from this evangelical affirmation has been considerations of another kind, that is, philosophical preconceptions to which they alternatively adjust the evidence, and which often involve—even while the critics lay claim to be Christian—a conception of God different in many respects from the God of the Bible who himself is truth and who cannot lie."
--Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation and Authority, 4:192-193.
