The Defense of Biblical Inerrancy in the 20th Century

Introduction

The aim of this project is to delineate from a pastoral perspective, the historical theology of biblical inerrancy in the twentieth century, all the while expressing why its defense is necessary beyond that scope of time and into ours, from the pulpit to the back pew. The twentieth century was the battlefield on which the war of Biblical reliability was waged. The inerrancy, infallibility, and sufficiency of Scripture, are all battles fought therein. The line is drawn between twentieth century liberal theologians and conservative orthodox Christianity. As Roger Olson says of the prior group, for them, “The Bible was and is subject to the authority of the modernity-shaped enlightened conscience”.[1] This affirms the consensus of Gary J. Dorrien in his historical theology, exploring the development of liberal theology up to the dawn of the twentieth century and further, that for liberal theologians, “the tests of sound theology and discipleship are strictly modern”.[2] Conservative orthodox Christianity on the other hand, refuses to filter the Word of God through the tests of modernity, and instead understands it in light of its divine authorship, asserting ultimately that it is free from error in all its teaching and communicative intent, due to the very fact that it is the product of the triune God who Himself cannot err.[3] It is this latter position I aim to articulate the necessary defense of during the twentieth century.

Historical Narrative

            The affirmation of Biblical inerrancy is widely regarded as the distinctive feature of conservative orthodoxy, particularly after the construction of the Chicago Statement, formulated by well over 200 evangelical authors in 1978. But the work of these individuals in defending the doctrine of inerrancy spans long before this event. The more recognizable signers include, Jay Adams, Greg Bahnsen, James Montgomery Boice, D.A Carson, Ralphe Earle, John Frame, Norman Geisler, W. Robert Godfrey, Wayne Grudem, Stanley Gundry, Dennis Kinlaw, Josh McDowell, John MacArthur Jr, Charles Ryrie, R.C Sproul, J.I Packer, Carl F.H. Henry, and many more. Henry, who published a large portion of the statement in his book, God, Revelation, and Authority: God who Speaks and Shows, was perhaps the most notable evangelical theologian of the later twentieth century.  He has been referred to as the prime interpreter of evangelical theology by Bob. E Patterson in his book, Makers of the Modern Theological Mind: Carl F.H Henry, wherein Patterson also notes that in 1978, TIME Magazine named Henry evangelicalisms “leading spokesman”.[4] Though a bold claim, it is fair by estimation of his work and influence. For the sake of preserving the brevity of this project, Henrys thought will be representative of the general conservative perspective and consensus regarding the doctrine of inerrancy in the twentieth century.

Henry, as well as many evangelical thinkers, believed commitment to the truthfulness of Scripture meant understanding that biblical inerrancy rested on the notion of divine inspiration. As Grenz & Olson put it in their book, 20th Century Theology: God and the World in a Transitional Age, “He (Henry) saw these two dimensions of the doctrine of Scripture intimately related. Inspiration asserts that God is the ultimate Author of Scripture, with the result that the divine revelation in the Bible is free from error.”[5] For Henry, the Inspiration of Scripture meant that, “the Holy Spirt superintended the Scriptural writers in communicating the biblical message…safeguarding them from error.”[6]

Although the idea of inerrancy isn’t remotely new to church history, the need for its formal establishment arose out of late nineteenth to twentieth century challenges to the inspiration and authority of Scripture. Defections from the aforementioned orthodox conservative view of inspiration became more and more prevalent. Views such as natural inspiration and dynamic inspiration either did away with the notion of dual authorship, or weakened it by making the human author primary. Partial Inspiration taught that only some parts of the Bible are inspired, and concept inspiration acknowledged the concepts of the Bible to be inspired but not the words.[7] Karl Barth, whose followers generally align with the liberal school of biblical criticism, taught that some parts of Scripture are more important in their witness than others, and that although the Bible is authoritative instrumentally because it points to Christ, the parts that more explicitly point to Christ have more authority than those that less explicitly do so.[8]

The challenges to the orthodox view of inspiration allowed theological liberalism to flourish during this period, and with this came a degradation of any lofty view of Scripture. This lofty view was replaced by a book that was authoritative instrumentally rather than inherently so, written primarily by fallible men opposed to being divinely Authored, and by proxy being fallible itself, and therefore open to error. Thus, the need for an established view of Biblical inerrancy was necessary to express that Scripture is indeed free from error in all its teaching and intent, thereby serving as a flag planted in affirmation of the traditional orthodox teaching of Scripture, and a wake-up call to just how far the consensus of the church had fallen away in other regards such as the inspiration, authority, and infallibility of Scripture.

The twentieth century liberal grew to the opposition of inerrancy quite naturally, as shown by their misunderstanding of dual authorship in terms of Scriptural inspiration. Individuals such as J. Gresham Machen saw this downward spiral early and responded accordingly. In his book, Christianity and Liberalism, published in 1923, Machen hit at this very heart of the issue when clarifying the conservative position of plenary inspiration by saying, “the doctrine of plenary inspiration does not deny the individuality of the biblical writers; it does not ignore their use of ordinary means for acquiring information; it does not involve any lack of interest in the historical situations which gave rise to the biblical books. It supposes that the Holy Spirit so informed the minds of the biblical writers that they were kept from falling into the errors that mar all other books”.[9]

In his book, Why Conservative Churches are Growing, written in 1972, Dean Kelley reflects on the effects of the liberal abandonment of theological absolutes of orthodoxy and its minimal moral and doctrinal demands for its members.[10] Earle Cairns summarizes these effects expressed by Kelley, noting the decline in numbers, missionaries, and giving since 1945, whereas in conservative evangelicalism, there was growth in each of these categories.[11] Cairns further delineates the mass exodus of membership in churches as a result of the growth in liberal theology within them. “The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A) lost more than 1.5 million members between 1965 and 1995, while the Episcopal church declined 30 percent, the United Methodist Church over 15 percent…in England the Anglican Church lost a quarter of its members…similar losses were experienced in Australian and South African Churches. The United Church of Canada has declined by about one third of its members. The number of missionaries sent out by mainline denominations in America has decreased from approximately eleven thousand in 1925 to three thousand in 1985.”[12] It is important to point this out because the influence of liberalism in the church is not merely a matter of intellectual upper hand, but rather a problem with dire eternal ramifications.

Cairns continues by contrasting this with the conservative denominations at this time, such as the Church of the Nazarene, which grew nearly 50 percent, and the Southern Baptist Convention growing by nearly 40 percent. “The number of evangelical missionaries also increased from about ten thousand in 1953 to over thirty-five thousand in 1985.”[13]

Though the growth of liberalism extends beyond the issue of biblical inerrancy, it is the vortex of the entire storm in that once one departs from a viewpoint that holds upright the divine authorship and plenary inspiration of Scripture, its authority, and trustworthiness, anything goes. It is the gentle slope to Hell soft underfoot that C.S Lewis warns of, and the outright rejection of the blessed notion that “all Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching…”[14]

Case Study: Fuller Theological Seminary’s Abandonment of Inerrancy

            Fueling the growth of liberalism during this time was the departure from inerrancy made by some of the larger theological schools, most notably Fuller Theological Seminary. In, Historical Theology for the Church, Dr. Nathan Finn writes, “Fuller Theological Seminary, long the flagship evangelical seminary, revised its statement of faith in 1970 to remove the claim that Scripture is “free from error in the whole and in the part.”[15]Even now, the seminary’s website has a written statement on “the language of inerrancy and its dangers”.[16]

            Harold Lindsell, one of only four faculty members at the time of Fuller Theological Seminary’s founding in 1947, clarifies that although there was no specific statement of faith at its formation, the vision for the school was aimed towards apologetics, specifically in regards to issues such as inerrancy and infallibility.[17] Carl F.H. Henry was also one of those first four faculty members, which is in itself a testament to this emphasis. Gradually, as the seminary grew, so did the liberal pressures of the century. In the sixties there were board members, as well as faculty members that openly rejected the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, with little to no consequence. This snowball rolled downhill even faster with the presidency of David A. Hubbard in 1963 who, “wanted to do away with the use of the word inerrancy. It ‘is too precise, too mathematical a term to describe appropriately the way in which God’s infallible revelation has come to us in a Book’”.[18] This position led to the hiring of more and more faculty members who shared in the denial of inerrancy, and by proxy the resignations of those who desired to stayed true to their conservative evangelical convictions. Some of the more notable of these resignations included Harold Lindsell, Charles Woodbridge, Wilbur Smith, and Gleason Archer.[19]

            In response to more of the specifics to the conversation of Fuller Theological Seminary’s rejection of the doctrine of inerrancy, Dr. Randy Alcorn makes note of a book that Harold Lindsell wrote saying, “Much of the discussion goes back to Harold Lindsell’s The Battle for the Bible,… published in the 70s and contained many pages of documentation of statements from Fuller professors denying biblical inerrancy, and affirming that the original manuscripts of Scripture contain a variety of errors”.[20] This is mostly contained within chapter six of the book, but it is very telling first hand documentation that speaks to the seminary’s gradual turning away from the doctrine of inerrancy, whereas the rest of the book addressed denominations and theologians that had shared in this falling away. Of course, this invited backlash from these groups directly. In regard to Lindsell’s book, Finn makes mention of theologians, Jack Rogers and Donald McKim, who wrote a book in response titled, The Authority and Inspiration of the Bible: An Historical Approach, which he summarizes, “In their work, the authors contended that the historic Christian position was that the Bible’s message was infallible, and that verbal inerrancy was an overly scholastic minority view that had been popularized by the Princeton theologians”.[21]

            Due to this, Fuller Theological Seminary as a subject of conversation, became one of the larger battlegrounds on which the 20th century war over biblical inerrancy was waged. In just the thirty-year span from 1947-1970, they went from being a beacon of light proclaiming a lofty view of Scriptural inerrancy, to instead having a statement of faith known more for what it omits than what it solidifies, and a seemingly endless reserve of semantic arguments for why Christians can trust in a Bible filled with error. The historical result now is that the seminary is inseparably characterized by this radical departure from their aim as it was originally focused.

For the Church

Progressive Christianity, liberalisms offspring, has ironically “progressed” beyond anything that resembles Christianity. In this sense, the victory has been handed to conservatives, not because they have been so diligent or noble in our 21st century to defend a lofty view of God’s Word, but because the opponent has left the battlefield entirely, feeling no need to fight over views of a Scripture they hold as ultimately subjective. The conversation has now shrunk in terms of its ferocity and number of voices, but has broadened in scope. Rather than a lofty view of God hinging solely on questions of inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility, these matters are only the beginning, from which discourse branches more practically towards reverent exposition, or authoritativeness regarding one’s Christian walk.

Nonetheless, the doctrine of inerrancy remains the litmus test of orthodox bibliology. All doctrines gathered are gathered from the Word of God. If there is any hesitance therefore on its inerrancy, then reluctance, and even doubt, for all doctrine that follows becomes justified. That established, it is of utmost importance ministers give full attention to this matter, and every matter preceding it from the pulpit lest their congregation stumble. There must be clarity in dealing with terms such as inspiration so that it is well understood by the flock that all Scripture has to say was first spoken by God into it in a fashion most sovereignly deliberate. Only on such grounds of inerrant authorship can an inerrant Word ever be sensible or have efficacy.

FOOTNOTES

 [1]  Roger E. Olson, Against Liberal Theology: Putting the Brakes on Progressive Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2022), 60

[2]  Gary J. Dorrien, The Making of American Liberal Theology: Idealism, Realism, and Modernity, 1900-1950 (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 62.

[3]  Stephen J. Wellum, Systematic Theology: From Canon to Concept, Volume 1 (Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2024), 311.

[4]  Bob E. Patterson, Makers of the Modern Theological Mind: Carl F.H. Henry (Waco, TX: Word Publishing Group, 1983), 9.

[5]  Stanley J. Grenz & Roger E. Olson, 20th Century Theology: God and the World in a Transitional Age (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1992), 293.

[6]  Carl F.H. Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority: The God who Speaks and Shows (Waco, TX: Word Publishing Group, 1979), 166-167.

[7]  Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology: A Popular Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1999), 84-85.

[8]  Ibid., 85-86.

[9]  J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism (Grand Rapids, MI: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1923), 74.

[10]  Dean M. Kelley, Why Conservative Churches are Growing (New York, NY: Harper and Row, 1972).

[11]  Earle E. Cairns, Christianity Through the Centuries: A History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 505.

[12]  Ibid., 507.

[13]  Ibid.

[14]  2 Timothy 3:16-17 ESV.

[15]  Jason G. Duesing, and Nathan A. Finn, Historical Theology for the Church (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2021), 265.

[16]   “What we Believe and Teach”, fuller.edu, Fuller Theological Seminary, 2024, https://www.fuller.edu/about/mission-and-values/what-we-believe-and-teach/.

[17]  Harold Lindsell, Battle for the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1978).

[18]  Ibid., 115.

[19]   Gregg Allison, Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 119.

[20]   Randy Alcorn, My Professors at Fuller Don’t Oppose Inerrancy, Just a Particular Definition of Inerrancy. Isn’t This Mostly a Matter of Semantics, epm.org, Eternal Perspective Ministries, 2010, https://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Mar/4/my-professors-fuller-dont-oppose-inerrancy/.

[21]  Duesing and Finn, 265.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alcorn, Randy. My Professors at Fuller Don’t Oppose Inerrancy, Just a Particular Definition of Inerrancy. Isn’t This Mostly a Matter of Semantics?, epm.org, Eternal Perspective Ministries, 2010, https://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Mar/4/my-professors-fuller-dont-oppose-inerrancy/.

Allison, Gregg. Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011.

Cairns, Earle E. Christianity Through the Centuries: A History of the Christian Church. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996.

Dorrien, Gary J. The Making of American Liberal Theology: Idealism, Realism, and Modernity, 1900-1950. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003.

Duesing, Jason G. and Finn, Nathan A. Historical Theology for the Church. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2021.

Grenz, Stanley J, and Olson, Roger E. 20th Century Theology: God and the World in a Transitional Age. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 1992.

Henry, Carl F.H. God, Revelation, and Authority: The God who Speaks and Shows. Waco: Word Publishing Group, 1979.

Kelley, Dean M. Why Conservative Churches are Growing. New York: Harper and Row, 1972.

Lindsell, Harold. Battle for the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1978.

Machen, J. Gresham. Christianity and Liberalism. Grand Rapids: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1923.

Olson, Roger E. Against Liberal Theology: Putting the Brakes on Progressive Christianity. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2022.

Patterson, Bob E. Makers of the Modern Theological Mind: Carl F.H. Henry. Waco: Word Publishing Group, 1983.

Ryrie, Charles C. Basic Theology: A Popular Guide to Understanding Biblical Truth. Chicago: Moody Press, 1999.

Wellum, Stephen J. Systematic Theology: From Canon to Concept, Volume 1. Brentwood, TN: B&H Academic, 2024.