What do you think?
Rate this book
Inerrancy
This is another in a series of books sponsored by the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. The fourteen leading evangelical scholars who have contributed to this volume come from various denominations and have written on a wide range of topics related to the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible. Believing that this doctrine is "an essential element of the authority of Scripture and a necessary ingredient for the health of the church of Christ," they have made a strong defense of it. This book is presented as an appeal to the church of Jesus Christ. To those churches that hold to the inerrancy of Scripture, it is a call to hold the line. To those churches that have given way to the persuasions of radical higher criticism, it is a call to return to the historic position of Christianity. Inerrnacy is shown to be a doctrine of crucial importance to the church. Among the chapter titles are these: Christ's View of Scripture - Alleged Errors and Discrepancies in the Original Manuscripts of the Bible - Higher Criticism and Biblical Inerrancy - Legitimate Hermeneutics - The Human Authorship of Inspired Scripture - The Meaning of Inerrancy - Philosophical Presuppositions of Biblical Errancy - The View of the Bible Held by the Church - B. B. Warfield Versus G. C. Berkouwer on Scripture -- Included as an appendix is the Statement of the Council. This Statement consists of three parts: a Summary Statement, Articles of Affirmation and Denial, and an Exposition. The intent of this declaration underlies all of the chapters in this significant book.
526 pages, Paperback
First published May 7, 1980
14 people are currently reading
357 people want to read
About the author
Norman L. Geisler
226 books320 followersNorman L. Geisler (PhD, Loyola University of Chicago) taught at top evangelical colleges and seminaries for over fifty years and was a distinguished professor of apologetics and theology at Veritas Evangelical Seminary in Murrieta, California. He was the author of nearly eighty books, including the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics and Christian Ethics. He and his wife lived in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
April 26, 2025
This book isn't quite what I expected, although that's partly because I didn't look closely at the table of contents when I bought it. I was hoping for a basic book explaining and defending the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Bible. Instead it's a collection of essays written in response to the ongoing controversy over the authority and reliability of the Bible that raged in evangelicalism in the 1970s and early '80s. In particular it seems to be a response to another compendium I also happen to have on my shelf: Biblical Authority, edited by Jack Rogers, which I read the year before I went to Seminary back in the mid-’80s. In that book, Rogers and a collection of other well-known evangelical scholars argue that the doctrine of biblical inerrancy never existed in its present form until it was created by evangelical Protestant scholars in the 1600s through the 1900s. (The authors of Inerrancy refute this claim, showing that while the term “inerrant” was seldom used, up until the time of the Enlightenment both church officials and scholars treated the Bible as if it was without error.) The authors of Biblical Authority argue that “infallible” is a better word to describe the nature of scriptural authority than “inerrant.” They point out that “infallible” is used in the Westminster Confession and other key church documents. Furthermore, Biblical Authority posits that the Bible is reliable in matters of Christian faith and practice, but was never intended to teach science or history. So the authors of Biblical Authority argue that the Bible is accurate and trustworthy in all it affirms pertaining to salvation through Christ but that what Scripture says about science or history is primarily a reflection of the times and knowledge available when it was written. Inerrancy, edited by Geisler, was created as a rebuttal to these and similar assertions.
(Here I’ll add a parenthetical comment that those who hold to the doctrine of inerrancy see the terms ‘inerrant’ and ‘infallible’ as interchangeable. Those who hold the non-inerrancy position, who prefer the word ‘infallible' to describe their view of Scripture, use the terms ‘inerrant’ and ‘infallible’ with different connotations. This latter group understands the word ‘inerrant' to mean the Bible is without any errors whatsoever, while they use the term ‘infallible' to say that the Bible is trustworthy in all it affirms about spiritual matters.)
First of all I would say, if you're looking for a basic book to help you better understand the doctrine of inerrancy, this may not be it. On the other hand, if you're already aware of the issues at stake in the controversy over the nature of Scripture’s authority and you want to better understand the inerrantist position, this book could be a helpful resource.
Honestly, I found Inerrancy to be tedious reading at points, partly because some of the ideas were already familiar and basic to me, and therefore rehearsing what I already knew; and partly because some of the chapters consist of very extensive and finely detailed arguments. It didn't help that I came away feeling the book isn't well organized. For example, the term biblical inerrancy isn't defined until halfway through. A chapter explaining the philosophical presuppositions of scriptural inerrancy also doesn't appear until the middle of the book. I think there’s a better logical order for the chapters than that in which they appear. Therefore after finishing the book I went through the table of contents and put numbers by the chapters in the order I think makes the most sense.
One of the primary conclusions I drew after reading this material is that inerrancy is not so much a historically or scientifically proven idea as it is an a priori presupposition that guides the formulation of the doctrine. The assumption is that if the Bible proves to be erroneous at any point then its overall reliability comes into question. In other words, if something in the Bible should be proven untrue, how could we be certain that any of it is true? That would reflect negatively on the power and character of God, if God is neither willing nor able to make sure we have an unquestionably reliable Bible.
The book starts with two chapters looking at the ways Jesus and the apostles talked about Scripture, which for them was the Old Testament. The first of these chapters looks closely at many places in the four Gospels where Jesus is said to cite or refer to passages from the Old Testament. The chapter examines the ways Jesus refers to those passages, how he uses them, and what he says about them. The second chapter looks at how the apostles use scripture in the epistles and how they (the apostles) are said to cite scripture in the book of Acts.
Those two chapters make a very convincing case that both Jesus and the apostles used, cited, and spoke of the Old Testament Scriptures as if they viewed them to be without error in any respect. Moreover, the case is made that the apostles also spoke of the teachings of Jesus as authoritative, and expected the churches to view their own statements and writings as authoritative, too. And of course, the implication is that if the apostles and Jesus himself viewed the Scriptures as inerrant, we should also. This is possibly the strongest overall argument in the book, and probably why the editor put those chapters first. However, I think it would have been more helpful to start with chapters explaining inerrancy, and then providing the chapters about Jesus’ and the apostles’ use of Scripture as supporting evidence.
Of course the book also looks at how modern critical scholars view the Bible, because really that’s the problem at issue. Modernist scholars question the reliability of what we're told about Jesus in the Gospels, so they don't take anything the Bible says about Jesus as a matter of course. For this reason, ironically, the account given by the authors of Inerrancy regarding the way in which Jesus is said to have used and spoken of the Scriptures is not convincing to modernists–which is probably why the authors proceed to address more basic philosophical and interpretive issues as well.
When proponents of inerrancy claim the Bible is inerrant, they mean the original autographs are without error. The idea is that the books of the Bible as they were originally written by the authors of Scripture is specifically what is inerrant. The problem immediately pointed out by opponents of inerrancy is that these original autographs no longer exist. All we have are copies, and we know from textual criticism (the science of carefully examining all the existing Bible manuscripts) that those manuscripts contain errors, because they don't agree at every point. Now, an expert in textual criticism no less eminent than the late Bruce Metzger, who was by no means a fundamentalist, said several things to give us great confidence in the reliability of the Bible: for one thing, the New Testament is the most well attested of all ancient documents, and it's not even close. All or portions of roughly 5600 New Testament manuscripts exist, while having even just 100 manuscripts of any other ancient book is exceedingly rare. Moreover, differences between New Testament manuscripts consist primarily of minutiae, but when it comes to significant content, the manuscripts agree in something like 99% of their content. Metzger also says that despite the inconsistencies between the many different manuscripts, no essential Christian doctrines are called into question by any of those discrepancies.
From these facts scholars who support the inerrantist position, like B.B. Warfield (considered the father of the modern doctrine of inerrancy), are able to make the claim that even though we don't have the original autographs, we can be confident that what we do have is very close to the originals and therefore can be accepted as accurate and authoritative. This is how we are able to say that for all intents and purposes, the Bible we use, as long as it's a faithful translation, can be thought of as without error.
Defenders of inerrancy concede that even having the original autographs would not solve all the problems of biblical interpretation. For example, having the original autographs very well might not change the fact that the gospel accounts do not agree in every minute detail. A chapter in Inerrancy is devoted to principles of interpretation designed to help students of the Bible navigate these and other interpretive challenges.
Besides the chapters dealing with how Jesus and the apostles viewed scripture, perhaps the most penetrating argument I found in the book is the challenge that if the Bible is not accurate about science or history, which can be more easily verified, why should we believe it’s accurate in matters of faith and spirituality, which cannot be verified? In general the book helped me understand the doctrine of inerrancy better, but this argument struck me as the most persuasive rationale in favor of inerrancy versus the infallibility position.
Being reared in the liberal Presbyterian denomination as I was, and yet seeing myself as a conservative in that denomination, from the time I read Biblical Authority back in the 1980s (see above), I was persuaded of the infallibility viewpoint because no one in my circles held to strict inerrancy and the infallibility position seemed like a good conservative position to hold while still acknowledging the interpretive problems raised by liberal scholars.
However, recently as I reviewed the list of contributors to Biblical Authority again after many years I noted that in the decades since the book was published, several of its contributors have embraced decidedly more liberal theological positions. This leads me to conclude that the infallibility viewpoint may actually be a slippery slope toward liberalism. I also note that while the inerrancy view is still very strong among evangelicals today, I no longer ever hear any evangelicals profess the view of mere infallibility. It would seem that the theological middle has dropped away on this question and all we’re left with are the inerrancy stance on one side, and a liberal or progressive view of scripture on the other, which doesn't hold scripture to be reliable.
Inerrancy is tough sledding at points. Not every chapter is well-written, and some of the arguments are convoluted and hard to follow. The most readable chapters are those written by the most well-known names: J.I. Packer, Norman Geisler, and R.C. Sproul; but several others are especially helpful, too.
There are a lot of books out there on biblical inerrancy, though some may be out of print today. For the reader simply desiring to better understand what we mean when we say the Bible is inerrant there are probably other books that are more straightforward and better suited for that purpose than this one. This book is mainly for those interested in digging more deeply into this matter, or who have very specific methodological, theoretical, or philosophical questions. This is a book for scholars and laypeople who want to refine their thinking about the issue of biblical authority and reliability.
(Here I’ll add a parenthetical comment that those who hold to the doctrine of inerrancy see the terms ‘inerrant’ and ‘infallible’ as interchangeable. Those who hold the non-inerrancy position, who prefer the word ‘infallible' to describe their view of Scripture, use the terms ‘inerrant’ and ‘infallible’ with different connotations. This latter group understands the word ‘inerrant' to mean the Bible is without any errors whatsoever, while they use the term ‘infallible' to say that the Bible is trustworthy in all it affirms about spiritual matters.)
First of all I would say, if you're looking for a basic book to help you better understand the doctrine of inerrancy, this may not be it. On the other hand, if you're already aware of the issues at stake in the controversy over the nature of Scripture’s authority and you want to better understand the inerrantist position, this book could be a helpful resource.
Honestly, I found Inerrancy to be tedious reading at points, partly because some of the ideas were already familiar and basic to me, and therefore rehearsing what I already knew; and partly because some of the chapters consist of very extensive and finely detailed arguments. It didn't help that I came away feeling the book isn't well organized. For example, the term biblical inerrancy isn't defined until halfway through. A chapter explaining the philosophical presuppositions of scriptural inerrancy also doesn't appear until the middle of the book. I think there’s a better logical order for the chapters than that in which they appear. Therefore after finishing the book I went through the table of contents and put numbers by the chapters in the order I think makes the most sense.
One of the primary conclusions I drew after reading this material is that inerrancy is not so much a historically or scientifically proven idea as it is an a priori presupposition that guides the formulation of the doctrine. The assumption is that if the Bible proves to be erroneous at any point then its overall reliability comes into question. In other words, if something in the Bible should be proven untrue, how could we be certain that any of it is true? That would reflect negatively on the power and character of God, if God is neither willing nor able to make sure we have an unquestionably reliable Bible.
The book starts with two chapters looking at the ways Jesus and the apostles talked about Scripture, which for them was the Old Testament. The first of these chapters looks closely at many places in the four Gospels where Jesus is said to cite or refer to passages from the Old Testament. The chapter examines the ways Jesus refers to those passages, how he uses them, and what he says about them. The second chapter looks at how the apostles use scripture in the epistles and how they (the apostles) are said to cite scripture in the book of Acts.
Those two chapters make a very convincing case that both Jesus and the apostles used, cited, and spoke of the Old Testament Scriptures as if they viewed them to be without error in any respect. Moreover, the case is made that the apostles also spoke of the teachings of Jesus as authoritative, and expected the churches to view their own statements and writings as authoritative, too. And of course, the implication is that if the apostles and Jesus himself viewed the Scriptures as inerrant, we should also. This is possibly the strongest overall argument in the book, and probably why the editor put those chapters first. However, I think it would have been more helpful to start with chapters explaining inerrancy, and then providing the chapters about Jesus’ and the apostles’ use of Scripture as supporting evidence.
Of course the book also looks at how modern critical scholars view the Bible, because really that’s the problem at issue. Modernist scholars question the reliability of what we're told about Jesus in the Gospels, so they don't take anything the Bible says about Jesus as a matter of course. For this reason, ironically, the account given by the authors of Inerrancy regarding the way in which Jesus is said to have used and spoken of the Scriptures is not convincing to modernists–which is probably why the authors proceed to address more basic philosophical and interpretive issues as well.
When proponents of inerrancy claim the Bible is inerrant, they mean the original autographs are without error. The idea is that the books of the Bible as they were originally written by the authors of Scripture is specifically what is inerrant. The problem immediately pointed out by opponents of inerrancy is that these original autographs no longer exist. All we have are copies, and we know from textual criticism (the science of carefully examining all the existing Bible manuscripts) that those manuscripts contain errors, because they don't agree at every point. Now, an expert in textual criticism no less eminent than the late Bruce Metzger, who was by no means a fundamentalist, said several things to give us great confidence in the reliability of the Bible: for one thing, the New Testament is the most well attested of all ancient documents, and it's not even close. All or portions of roughly 5600 New Testament manuscripts exist, while having even just 100 manuscripts of any other ancient book is exceedingly rare. Moreover, differences between New Testament manuscripts consist primarily of minutiae, but when it comes to significant content, the manuscripts agree in something like 99% of their content. Metzger also says that despite the inconsistencies between the many different manuscripts, no essential Christian doctrines are called into question by any of those discrepancies.
From these facts scholars who support the inerrantist position, like B.B. Warfield (considered the father of the modern doctrine of inerrancy), are able to make the claim that even though we don't have the original autographs, we can be confident that what we do have is very close to the originals and therefore can be accepted as accurate and authoritative. This is how we are able to say that for all intents and purposes, the Bible we use, as long as it's a faithful translation, can be thought of as without error.
Defenders of inerrancy concede that even having the original autographs would not solve all the problems of biblical interpretation. For example, having the original autographs very well might not change the fact that the gospel accounts do not agree in every minute detail. A chapter in Inerrancy is devoted to principles of interpretation designed to help students of the Bible navigate these and other interpretive challenges.
Besides the chapters dealing with how Jesus and the apostles viewed scripture, perhaps the most penetrating argument I found in the book is the challenge that if the Bible is not accurate about science or history, which can be more easily verified, why should we believe it’s accurate in matters of faith and spirituality, which cannot be verified? In general the book helped me understand the doctrine of inerrancy better, but this argument struck me as the most persuasive rationale in favor of inerrancy versus the infallibility position.
Being reared in the liberal Presbyterian denomination as I was, and yet seeing myself as a conservative in that denomination, from the time I read Biblical Authority back in the 1980s (see above), I was persuaded of the infallibility viewpoint because no one in my circles held to strict inerrancy and the infallibility position seemed like a good conservative position to hold while still acknowledging the interpretive problems raised by liberal scholars.
However, recently as I reviewed the list of contributors to Biblical Authority again after many years I noted that in the decades since the book was published, several of its contributors have embraced decidedly more liberal theological positions. This leads me to conclude that the infallibility viewpoint may actually be a slippery slope toward liberalism. I also note that while the inerrancy view is still very strong among evangelicals today, I no longer ever hear any evangelicals profess the view of mere infallibility. It would seem that the theological middle has dropped away on this question and all we’re left with are the inerrancy stance on one side, and a liberal or progressive view of scripture on the other, which doesn't hold scripture to be reliable.
Inerrancy is tough sledding at points. Not every chapter is well-written, and some of the arguments are convoluted and hard to follow. The most readable chapters are those written by the most well-known names: J.I. Packer, Norman Geisler, and R.C. Sproul; but several others are especially helpful, too.
There are a lot of books out there on biblical inerrancy, though some may be out of print today. For the reader simply desiring to better understand what we mean when we say the Bible is inerrant there are probably other books that are more straightforward and better suited for that purpose than this one. This book is mainly for those interested in digging more deeply into this matter, or who have very specific methodological, theoretical, or philosophical questions. This is a book for scholars and laypeople who want to refine their thinking about the issue of biblical authority and reliability.
August 12, 2011
"Inerrancy.... what? ....why? ....of what practical purpose does taking a stance on a bunch of no longer existing documents serve?" These are the questions I hear from the modern (post-modern, for you politically correct out there) pew warmer, of which I myself am included. At first I am always taken aback by the question, but then I remember the technicality (sometimes even ambiguity) of the term and the ignorance of the individual are primarily the reasons it is being asked. To begin with, inerrancy, so defined by the authors, is a term meant to reflect God's originating the very words of Scripture and uses men (who retain their distinct personalities, contexts, grammar forms, and so on) to pen these words without any error (whether in speaking of history and science or faith and practice). Inerrancy refers ONLY to the original documents and penned words. The scribes who copied the original were not, nor were their words, inspired by God. So why care? The autographa (original documents) are not available to us, if they even still exist. So the question has some force - it is a good question.
However, while I could offer a plethora of reasons I submit to you only two. I believe they are sufficient enough for the honest Christian, as these are whom I write this to. They are: (1) the self-testimony of Scripture and (2) the transforming power of the Word. I will mainly focus on the second aspect, being as it is there are many fine apologia that have been offered that deal with the self-testimony of Scripture (this being one of them).
To start, the burden of proof lies upon the skeptic, or any for that matter, who say Scripture teaches that it is not completely without error. This certainly wasn't the view of Jesus or His apostles, as the opening chapters of the book reveal. The trustworthiness of Scripture is further proven by how Christ was willing to base entire arguments on one word (once he offered an apology that stood merely on the tense of a verb! {Matt. 22}). Christ and Paul's appeal to Scripture as THE final authority are evidence in and of themselves of this truth.
Secondly, and this is what is important for you pragmatic Christians who have a tendency to see doctrines such as inerrancy as abstract, for scholars, and unable to be of any practical value.
THIS IS WRONG.
From one Christian to another I want to remind you of the words Paul spoke to Timothy, "all Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching....reproof....correction....training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16-17). A verse before he reminds young Timothy how the Scriptures are able to make one wise unto salvation (v. 15). Paul did not shrink from preaching the whole counsel of God (Acts 20) because he knew it carried the power to renew the mind and thus transform the individual (Romans 12).
So I leave you with this: If inerrancy is a doctrine taught by Scripture, it is one you should hold to and love and learn of. And for the foremost reason that what Scripture teaches is profitable in all areas of life and is able to renew your mind that you may be transformed from the wicked patterns of this world. Yes! even what seems to be the minutiae of the Word can do this. That IS the glorious aspect of God's Word - because "God breathed" it, because it originates with Him, it has the power to affect change in your life that is by far practical. Don't buy into existential philosophies that wish to separate the historic and scientific truth from the faith and practical truth in Scripture. Faith is firmly rooted in historical objective truth (such as the resurrection!). Remember that all Scripture is "God breathed," all Scripture renews the mind, and inerrancy is apart of the whole counsel of God - stay true to the Word (1 Tim. 4:11-13) and proclaim it!
"Watch your life and doctrine closely" (1 Timothy 4:16).
However, while I could offer a plethora of reasons I submit to you only two. I believe they are sufficient enough for the honest Christian, as these are whom I write this to. They are: (1) the self-testimony of Scripture and (2) the transforming power of the Word. I will mainly focus on the second aspect, being as it is there are many fine apologia that have been offered that deal with the self-testimony of Scripture (this being one of them).
To start, the burden of proof lies upon the skeptic, or any for that matter, who say Scripture teaches that it is not completely without error. This certainly wasn't the view of Jesus or His apostles, as the opening chapters of the book reveal. The trustworthiness of Scripture is further proven by how Christ was willing to base entire arguments on one word (once he offered an apology that stood merely on the tense of a verb! {Matt. 22}). Christ and Paul's appeal to Scripture as THE final authority are evidence in and of themselves of this truth.
Secondly, and this is what is important for you pragmatic Christians who have a tendency to see doctrines such as inerrancy as abstract, for scholars, and unable to be of any practical value.
THIS IS WRONG.
From one Christian to another I want to remind you of the words Paul spoke to Timothy, "all Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching....reproof....correction....training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16-17). A verse before he reminds young Timothy how the Scriptures are able to make one wise unto salvation (v. 15). Paul did not shrink from preaching the whole counsel of God (Acts 20) because he knew it carried the power to renew the mind and thus transform the individual (Romans 12).
So I leave you with this: If inerrancy is a doctrine taught by Scripture, it is one you should hold to and love and learn of. And for the foremost reason that what Scripture teaches is profitable in all areas of life and is able to renew your mind that you may be transformed from the wicked patterns of this world. Yes! even what seems to be the minutiae of the Word can do this. That IS the glorious aspect of God's Word - because "God breathed" it, because it originates with Him, it has the power to affect change in your life that is by far practical. Don't buy into existential philosophies that wish to separate the historic and scientific truth from the faith and practical truth in Scripture. Faith is firmly rooted in historical objective truth (such as the resurrection!). Remember that all Scripture is "God breathed," all Scripture renews the mind, and inerrancy is apart of the whole counsel of God - stay true to the Word (1 Tim. 4:11-13) and proclaim it!
"Watch your life and doctrine closely" (1 Timothy 4:16).
April 22, 2016
I am convinced that the doctrines of the inspiration, authority and inerrancy of Scripture are more important today than ever. In light of cultural changes, many Christians want to either reinterpret or outright contradict the teachings of the Bible. Though this book was compiled in 1980, it addresses many of the issues surrounding the inerrancy of Scripture historically, textually and philosophically.
Since it's hard to give a single rating to a selection of essays, I rated each essay individually and took the average:
"Christ's view of Scripture" by John W. Wenham - 5
"The Apostles' View of Scripture" by Edwin A. Blum - 5
"Alleged Errors and Discrepancies in the Original Manuscripts of the Bible" by Gleason L. Archer - 4
"Higher Criticism and Biblical Inerrancy" by J. Barton Payne - 4
"Legitimate Hermeneutics" by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. - 3
"The Inerrancy of the Autographa" by Greg L. Bahnsen - 4.5
"The Adequacy of Human Language" by J.I. Packer - 5
"The Human Authorship of Inspired Scripture" by Gordon R. Lewis - 5
"The Meaning of Inerrancy" by Paul D. Feinberg - 5
"Philosophical Presuppositions of Biblical Errancy" by Norman L. Geisler - 4.5
"The Internal Testimony of the Holy Spirit" by R.C. Sproul - 5
"The View of the Bible Held by the Church: The Early Church Through Luther" by Robert D. Preus - 5
"The View of the Bible Held by the Church: Calvin and the Westminster Divines" - 5
"B.B. Warfield Versus G.C. Berkouwer on Scripture" by Henry Krabbendam - 5
Average 4.64
Since it's hard to give a single rating to a selection of essays, I rated each essay individually and took the average:
"Christ's view of Scripture" by John W. Wenham - 5
"The Apostles' View of Scripture" by Edwin A. Blum - 5
"Alleged Errors and Discrepancies in the Original Manuscripts of the Bible" by Gleason L. Archer - 4
"Higher Criticism and Biblical Inerrancy" by J. Barton Payne - 4
"Legitimate Hermeneutics" by Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. - 3
"The Inerrancy of the Autographa" by Greg L. Bahnsen - 4.5
"The Adequacy of Human Language" by J.I. Packer - 5
"The Human Authorship of Inspired Scripture" by Gordon R. Lewis - 5
"The Meaning of Inerrancy" by Paul D. Feinberg - 5
"Philosophical Presuppositions of Biblical Errancy" by Norman L. Geisler - 4.5
"The Internal Testimony of the Holy Spirit" by R.C. Sproul - 5
"The View of the Bible Held by the Church: The Early Church Through Luther" by Robert D. Preus - 5
"The View of the Bible Held by the Church: Calvin and the Westminster Divines" - 5
"B.B. Warfield Versus G.C. Berkouwer on Scripture" by Henry Krabbendam - 5
Average 4.64
July 25, 2018
I am a Christian and I don’t believe in inerrancy. I read this book to try and understand the extreme Fundamentalist position that the Bible is perfect and without error. The authors were not persuasive. In fact, quite the contrary the essence of their message is that the burden of proof is on the skeptic. Nope, that’s not how it works fellas. Unlike the Strobel’s Case for Christ which is very persuasive, this book is simply a who’s who of pompous preachers saying they’re right and everyone else is wrong. I love the Bible but it is full of contradictions, confusing passages, and problematic text. To me, that makes it more real. To say that it’s perfect is a lie. Recommended only if you like preaching to the Choir. If you’re a skeptic, read Strobel. Jesus would’ve scoffed at this book as being written by Pharisees.
August 15, 2017
A classic on a really important topic. Somewhat hit or miss. But, the essays by Wenham, Kaiser, Bahnsen, and Feinberg are worth the price of admission.
August 23, 2017
I had to read this for school and read it in one week. If the topic interests you, it's well written and it held my attention in a few places even though I had very little interest in it. It's 14 different authors and that helps change things up.
December 12, 2008
I was a bit disappointed with this one...supposedly a standard read on the innerancy front but I didn't feel it delivered.
May 29, 2009
Excellent.
May 8, 2012
Excellent, well though out book that has timeless value.
September 11, 2016
Somewhat forced at times, overall typical views.
June 19, 2014
Bahnsen's chapter is worth the price of the book. He addresses the question of copies of the bible being inerrant! Awesome!
January 21, 2017
As one would expect, some essays are better than others. Bahnsen's and Feinberg's were spectacular.
May 30, 2009
Bad title, excellent conclusion.
May 19, 2018
decent intro on responding to critics of inerrancy
December 17, 2018
A classic book on Inerrancy...glad it is over
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews