Scan barcode
A review by rustadmd
Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy by Michael F. Bird, Peter E. Enns, R. Albert Mohler Jr
4.0
Very thoughtful book. Most of the authors had good thoughts on the subject. Here's a basic summary of each position with my thoughts:
Mohler: Standard literal inerrancy (the Bible is correct in every literal detail). I found Mohler's position the weakest of the bunch. I don't buy the idea that a historical discrepancy causes the entire truthfulness of Scripture and God into question. This idea has Mohler unable to acknowledge real problems and deal with them meaningfully. I found him most thoughtful in his responses to the others, but his outlined position was not very good.
Enns: Dump inerrancy, replace with ?. I found Enn's diagnosis to be on point in several respects. He is willing to deal with the problems seriously. However, I find his prescription to be lacking. His handling of the problem texts doesn't leave a satisfying solution.
Bird: Infallibility (Scripture is accurate in faith/salvation matters), also inerrancy is American, modern and political. I liked Bird's assessment of the cultural implications of inerrancy and how it is used. In practice, he appears to take similar stances to Mohler on the problem texts.
Vanhoozer: Well-versed Inerrancy. Vanhoozer attempts to draw back the strong positions of Mohler. I found his ideas the most compelling, emphasizing historical and literary methods to make sure that we carefully distinguish interpretation from the text itself. I found his solutions to some of the problems compelling, but fails to deal meaningfully with the Jericho issue. I also prefer ditching the term 'inerrant' due to some of the baggage and mishandling that Franke and Bird discuss.
Franke: Plural theologies is somehow inerrancy? I am found Franke to be more thoughtful than I expected. Many of his objections circle around an objection foundationalism, which I found intriguing but not convincing. He argues that there is a diversity of theology in the Bible and we should not attempt to harmonize them. However this seems to then fall into picking whichever seems most amenable when there is a conflict (Canaan conquest vs. Love your neighbor). I also don't really understand how he can still term his position 'inerrant'.
Mohler: Standard literal inerrancy (the Bible is correct in every literal detail). I found Mohler's position the weakest of the bunch. I don't buy the idea that a historical discrepancy causes the entire truthfulness of Scripture and God into question. This idea has Mohler unable to acknowledge real problems and deal with them meaningfully. I found him most thoughtful in his responses to the others, but his outlined position was not very good.
Enns: Dump inerrancy, replace with ?. I found Enn's diagnosis to be on point in several respects. He is willing to deal with the problems seriously. However, I find his prescription to be lacking. His handling of the problem texts doesn't leave a satisfying solution.
Bird: Infallibility (Scripture is accurate in faith/salvation matters), also inerrancy is American, modern and political. I liked Bird's assessment of the cultural implications of inerrancy and how it is used. In practice, he appears to take similar stances to Mohler on the problem texts.
Vanhoozer: Well-versed Inerrancy. Vanhoozer attempts to draw back the strong positions of Mohler. I found his ideas the most compelling, emphasizing historical and literary methods to make sure that we carefully distinguish interpretation from the text itself. I found his solutions to some of the problems compelling, but fails to deal meaningfully with the Jericho issue. I also prefer ditching the term 'inerrant' due to some of the baggage and mishandling that Franke and Bird discuss.
Franke: Plural theologies is somehow inerrancy? I am found Franke to be more thoughtful than I expected. Many of his objections circle around an objection foundationalism, which I found intriguing but not convincing. He argues that there is a diversity of theology in the Bible and we should not attempt to harmonize them. However this seems to then fall into picking whichever seems most amenable when there is a conflict (Canaan conquest vs. Love your neighbor). I also don't really understand how he can still term his position 'inerrant'.