Inerrancy Issues

The materials provided on this page are not intended to challenge the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy. Instead, they identify contemporary issues relevant to the doctrine—issues that a student of theology may find beneficial, but which are often not included in theological texts.

While I respect every theologian referenced in this section, I do not necessarily agree with all of their conclusions. They are included here because their insights are instrumental in defining the specific issues at hand.

More information on New Testament Reliability is available here.

As I intend to use this page for my theology reading group, I want to state clearly for the record: I BELIEVE IN INERRANCY."

This video by Michael Kruger is from the EhrmanProject.com, a site dedicated to answering Bart Ehrman's allegations against Christianity. The video addresses the charge that the Gospels contain errors. Dr. Kruger responds by explaining some key principles of ancient biographical writing.

[01:14] Dr. Kruger states, "Dr. Ehrman spends a lot of time in Jesus, Interrupted explaining where there are discrepancies in what Jesus says in one account compared to what he says in another account. The problem with his argument is that once you understand the way ancient historiographies worked, you realize those discrepancies are in fact not discrepancies at all, but the normal way things were done back in the ancient world. One example is the account of Jesus cleansing the temple. It is well known that in the synoptic Gospels Jesus cleanses the temple at the end of his life during the Passion Week. But John takes that very same event and shares it at the beginning of his Gospel. The question is “Is John telling something that is contradictory to the Gospels because he has Jesus cleansing the temple at the beginning of his ministry, and the Synoptics have Jesus cleansing the temple at the end of his ministry?” Again, when you understand ancient historiography, often authors take a story from a particular individual’s life and do not put it in chronological order; but for thematic reasons, topical reasons, and other various reasons, put it in different places. That seems to be exactly what John is doing. He wants to tell the story of Jesus cleansing the temple at the very beginning of his Gospel for his own reasons – one particular reason being that John has a great emphasis on the temple, and on Jesus being the new temple and the one who would replace the temple. So there is no doubt that John has rearranged things outside their strict chronological order for thematic reasons. Does that mean it is unhistorical? No, it just means you have to understand the way ancient biographies actually worked."

Dr. Kruger's view is important because it exemplifies one position taken by inerrantists regarding this passage. Which can be contrasted with the treatment found in the ESV Study Bible note for John 2:13-22, which states in part, "(The Synoptic Gospels record a second, later temple clearing, just prior to the crucifixion; see Mark 11:15-19 par.)"

So, the ESV Study Bible harmonizes John and Mark by interpreting two cleansings - one at the beginning of Jesus ministry and one at the end. And Dr. Kruger, and other notable conservative scholars, interpret Mark as reporting a single historical cleansing, that John "rearranged" placing it at the beginning of Jesus ministry.

However we elect to treat this passage - it seems important that we be aware of this issue.

Luther, Calvin, and Copernicus — A Reformed Approach to Science and Scripture by Keith MathisonAfter stating that the church’s understanding of special revelation had been corrected by students of natural revelation, Dr. Sproul illustrated his point with

This is an excellent treatment from a reliable source, addressing Luther and Calvin's understanding of the Bible's perspective on a scientific issue that these theological giants clearly got wrong due to their interpretation of Scripture. It appears their a priori views were not sufficiently nuanced to account for the Bible's use of phenomenological language. Given the stature of these men, their oversight should be highly instructive to us.

"Both Calvin and Luther rejected Copernicus as a heretic in the 16th century. I don’t know anybody in orthodox Christianity today who’s pleading for geocentricity. Do you? Do you know anybody? In that case the church has said, 'Look, we misinterpreted the teaching of the Bible with respect to the solar system, and thank you scientists for correcting our misunderstanding.'" -- R.C. Sproul

"Geocentricity, however, is not the main point. The main point Dr. Sproul is making by pointing out these past mistakes Christians have made in the interpretation of general and special revelation is to remind us of the possibility of contemporary mistakes. Theologians and biblical scholars have not developed the attribute of infallibility since the time of Luther and Calvin." -- Keith Mathison

This video will be easier for those who have some familiarity with the compositional devices frequently used by ancient biographical writers—specifically the ones Mike Licona treats. But even without any background this video also will demonstrate the difference between Licona's view of 'Flexible Inerrancy' and Howe's view of inerrancy based on his understanding of the Chicago Statement. Here again, this content is presented to shine a light on the important issues it raises.

[01:50:42]: Dr. Howe explains that because of what can be "demonstrated by reason about what God is like" (specifically that God is omniscient and infallible), it follows that His breathed-out word is "incapable of having an error."

[01:52:27] Dr. Licona argues that believers must accept Scripture as God gave it rather than "insisting that it conform to a model that's shaped by how we think he should have [given it]."

With the a priori aproache that Howe seems to take towards Scripture, it seems very close to how the Church, Luther and Calvin seemed to think about scripture at the beginning of the Copernican Revolution (see the Ligonier paper above).

Here is a short treatment by James White where he discusses some critical issues that both sides of the Licona v. Howe debate appear to be missing. Dr. White seems to critique Howe for failing to recognize that the way God has used men involves their individual characteristics more than Howe acknowledges.

Conversely, White seems to critique Licona for lacking a category for God being able to sovereignly ensure that the Scriptures are sufficiently inspired to be exactly what God intended—without resorting to divine dictation. I don’t believe Licona is Reformed, which could explain the issue White raises.

Gospel Difference Examples (Don't be alarmed - but do be informed)

The Cleansing of the Temple (Early vs Late in the Ministry)

Gospel of John 2:13–22 — beginning of ministry
Gospel of Matthew 21:12–13, Gospel of Mark 11:15–17, Gospel of Luke 19:45–46 — final week
ESV Study Bible states that there were two cleansings. One where John places it, and another where Matthew places it.

The wording of the centurion’s request (Matthew vs. Luke)

Matthew 8:5–13 – The centurion appears to speak directly to Jesus.
Luke 7:1–10 – Jewish elders speak to Jesus on the centurion’s behalf.

Augustine explicitly says Matthew condenses the story and attributes the message directly to the centurion, even though Luke describes intermediaries.

Augustine’s explanation

“Matthew, wishing to abbreviate the narrative, has introduced the centurion himself as speaking, whereas in reality he sent others to speak for him… For it is a common usage of speech to say that a man does something when he does it through others.”
— Harmony of the Gospels II.20

What Augustine is claiming

Augustine explains the discrepancy by appealing to normal linguistic convention:

The centurion actually spoke through messengers (Luke).
Matthew reports the request as if the centurion spoke personally, because the message originated from him.

This shows Augustine accepting a form of narrative compression or representation, not a strict word-for-word record.

Jairus’ Daughter

Gospel of Matthew 9:18–26
Gospel of Mark 5:21–43
Gospel of Luke 8:40–56

Matthew. Jairus says: “My daughter has just died.”
Mark/Luke. He says: “My daughter is dying.”

The daughter dies later in the narrative. Matthew appears to compress the story significantly.

The inscription on the cross (four different wordings)

Matthew 27:37 – “This is Jesus the King of the Jews.”
Mark 15:26 – “The King of the Jews.”
Luke 23:38 – “This is the King of the Jews.”
John 19:19 – “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews.”

Augustine acknowledges that the Gospels record four different forms of the same inscription.

Augustine’s explanation

“Each evangelist has given what he remembered of the inscription… they have all conveyed the same meaning, although they have not all given the same words.”
— Harmony of the Gospels III.12

He argues that:

The complete inscription likely contained all elements.
Each evangelist reported part of it or arranged the words differently.

Augustine’s principle

For Augustine, the evangelists were faithful because they preserved the sense of the inscription, even if the wording differed.

The Speech of the Father at Jesus' Baptism

Yes—there is explicit textual evidence that Augustine believed an evangelist deliberately adjusted the wording of the heavenly voice for theological or communicative reasons. The passage appears in Harmony of the Gospels, where he discusses the difference between:

Matthew 3:17 – “This is my beloved Son…”
Mark 1:11 / Luke 3:22 – “You are my beloved Son…”

Augustine argues that the heavenly voice likely spoke one form, but an evangelist intentionally rendered it differently to express its meaning to the audience.

Augustine explicitly says the wording was intentionally altered

Here is the key statement:

“For the heavenly voice gave utterance only to one of these sentences; but by the form of words thus adopted, namely, ‘This is my beloved Son,’ it was the evangelist's intention to show that the saying was meant to intimate specially to the hearers there the fact that He was the Son of God. With this view, he chose to give the sentence, ‘Thou art my beloved Son,’ this turn, ‘This is my beloved Son,’ as if it were addressed directly to the people.”

This passage shows several things clearly:

Augustine thinks only one wording was actually spoken by the voice from heaven.
The evangelist rendered it differently in his narrative.
The reason was communicative/theological: to show that the testimony about Jesus was meant for the people who were present.

Augustine’s explanation of the difference

Augustine further explains that the evangelists preserve the sense, not necessarily the exact wording:

“Both the words as Matthew gives them, ‘This is my beloved Son,’ and as the other two, ‘Thou art my beloved Son,’ express the same sense… one shows an intention of addressing the testimony to those who stood by; the other of addressing it to Himself.”

The Cursing of the Fig Tree

The difference appears between:

Gospel of Matthew 21:18–19
Gospel of Mark 11:12–14, 20–21

Mark’s sequence (chronological)

Mark gives a two-day timeline:

Day 1. Jesus curses the fig tree.
Day 2. The disciples notice the tree has withered.

Matthew’s narrative

Matthew presents the story as though:

Jesus curses the tree
the tree withers
the disciples react immediately.

Augustine’s explanation

Augustine argues that Matthew is recapitulating the outcome of the miracle.

The logic of his explanation is:

Jesus cursed the tree.
The tree actually withered as a result of that curse.
The disciples later observed the withering (as Mark narrates).
Matthew combines the curse and its visible result into a single narrative moment.

Thus Matthew is summarizing the entire episode, while Mark describes the chronological unfolding.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse