August 10, 2020

iMonk 101: Inerrancy Posts

There are several posts here at Internet Monk that relate to the post and discussion of inerrancy and escalating theological rhetoric.

C.S. Lewis and Inerrancy.

Five Reasons I Don’t Use the Term Inerrancy.

Ten Questions On the Bible.

Answers Not In Genesis.

A Conversation in God’s Kitchen. (My major essay on the Bible.)

Conrad Hyers: The Man Who Ruined Me on Creationism

“We Thought He Was Such A Nice Boy…..Until We Discovered He Didn’t Believe in Inerrancy.”


  1. Brian Pendell says

    Thank you very much, Michael . I am re-posting this at PC Moot. It’s amazing how many people are not Christians because they believe that if they did so they would have to throw their science into the trash and become lulus like the flat earth society.

    — although actually I *am* a creationist. It’s just that I know it’s a real stumbling block to others, and it’s not a necessary stumble to faith.

    One question I would ask though: Why should I take the gospels literally if I don’t take Genesis 1 literally? The main reason we don’t accept Genesis 1 is because it’s scientifically incredible. The resurrection is even more scientifically incredible. So why should I believe the one literally happened and not the other? What’s the difference here? For that matter, why should I believe *any* of the miracle stories in the Bible? If I can believe God raised dead people to life and made the sun to stand still (goodness knows what that really means), why should I balk at a literal 7-day creation?

    For that matter .. why should I believe any of it at all? Have *you* seen anyone raised from the dead lately? Walked on water? Manna from Heaven? Parted the Red Sea or the Jordan? Had fire come down on your altar?


    Then why should I believe it ever did happen? I’m reading a bit of history, and it’s amazing how many so-called miracle workers, of the pagan or Jewish variety, were running around back then. IIRC, even Vespasian was supposed to have cured a leper, if you believe the stories. Why should one set of ancient stories have any more credibility than another?


    Brian P.

  2. ““We Thought He Was Such A Nice Boy…..Until We Discovered He Didn’t Believe in Inerrancy.”

    Good stuff. I think I get it now.

  3. TF Torrance – “Rational Fundamentalist” + Bonus, he ties it into the “Immaculate Conception”

    start at 5:00 min into the Lecture

  4. One can hold to inerrancy without holding to an “Answers in Genesis” view of Genesis 1. One of the standard statements of inerrancy is the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy. The authors of this document purposefully avoided including young-earth creationism in their explanation of what they meant by inerrancy.

    I believe the Bible says what God wants it to say, and that God is truthful. So I am comfortable with the term “inerrancy.” But I’m not going to tell someone that they aren’t a Christian if they don’t believe in inerrancy.

  5. Memphis Aggie says

    I had to laugh when I came across “…plus I don’t like to be bullied. I get a rash.” in the “Nice boy” post.

  6. Peter Parslow says

    Brian said: “Why should I take the gospels literally if I don’t take Genesis 1 literally?”

    Surely a good place to start is to consider the literary forms? “scientifically incredible” is merely one of the many pointers to the view that neither of these bible books was written as a science book. I’m aware that there are discussion about what the literary forms of each part are, but it seems to me that Genesis 1 is a socio-religious tract, demonstrating the superiority of God as creator; the gospels are more akin to 1st century biographies – nearer to history, but with each with a social purpose (in John, made explicit in the text) Alternatively, Mark may be based on sermon notes…

    You can then take things “literally” in a relevant sense, taking into account their “literary-ness”. What is the “literal” sense of the parable of the sower? or Psalm 23?