J. Munch and David Sengel, “Does Arminian Theology Allow for Biblical Inerrancy?”

Biblical Inerrancy and Arminianism

In the early 20th century, Protestantism witnessed a re-emergence of debate surrounding the concept of inerrancy, prompted by rationalist critiques of the Bible.¹ In evangelical circles, the 1978 Chicago Declaration on Biblical Inerrancy marked a significant moment in this debate and appeared to represent the pinnacle of a project aimed at rationalizing evangelical theology.²

The term inerrancy is relatively ambiguous as it may refer to various notions. On one hand, biblical inerrancy may only apply to the original biblical manuscripts or, to a lesser extent, their later copies.³ On the other hand, perspectives differ regarding its scope within the texts (e.g. limited to redemptive matters or unlimited).⁴ This article will only explore two common variations:

The first variation is “inerrancy of purpose,” which asserts that the biblical writings, including the original and later copies and versions, are without error in that they infallibly convey divine vision, divine purpose, and divine revelation to humanity.⁵ The second variation, “unlimited inerrancy,” is stricter, stating that the original manuscripts contain no errors in any aspect, such as redemption, ethics, history, and science. Note that this latter understanding is that of the Chicago Declaration, and of many members of the ETS,⁶ and that in this restricted sense, its informed users simply call it “inerrancy”.⁷

Regarding the debate on inerrancy, Arminians take various positions.⁸ Some Arminians criticize strict forms of biblical inerrancy (such as unlimited inerrancy),^{9, 10, 11} while others defend them.^{12, 13}

This article examines whether Arminianism permits belief in biblical inerrancy without contradiction, whilst considering the two previously mentioned variations. The relevance of these variations is not commented on in this article.

It is important to note that most of the books of the Bible are the result of compilation by various communities, sometimes over several centuries, as in the case of the Pentateuch. Before the appearance of a stable written text, there was a period of oral testimony involving the contributions of many people, not just a single author. In some cases, this probably rules out certain forms of inspiration, such as dictation or verbal inspiration.¹⁴ However, in discussing the means that God could have used to ensure inerrancy, we focus here on their theoretical feasibility, without assessing the likelihood of their individual or combined use.

Finally, our consideration will be limited to the case where it was men who wrote the biblical manuscripts under divine inspiration, and not directly God or angelic creatures.

The Incompatibilist Position of Arminianism

Free will theism and in particular Arminianism is from an incompatibilist position, that is to say, this theology describes the free will necessary for moral responsibility as incompatible with determinism.¹⁵ Thus, Arminianism asserts that man’s habitual life experience is the libertarian free will that guarantees his moral responsibility. In this perspective, it supports the idea of ​​providential divine influence and supervision. On the other hand, it can tolerate the idea of ​​God’s absolute control over man as long as the acts involved do not involve human responsibility.¹⁶ As Olson puts it: “Arminianism includes no particular belief about whether or to what extent God manipulates the wills of men (human persons) with regard to bringing his plans (e.g., Scripture) to fruition.”¹⁷

A. Guarantee of Inerrancy in Accordance with Human Self-determinism

According to Arminianism, individuals typically experience a level of freedom known as libertarian free will or self-determinism. Therefore, a person may fail to properly carry out a mission assigned by God.

Firstly, in this context, God can ensure biblical inerrancy through providential means. It is possible for God to grant a person adequate knowledge on the subjects to be addressed. This knowledge can be further enhanced until it meets the desired level of precision. During the act of writing, man can benefit from a particular insight into his intelligence through the synergistic influence of the Holy Spirit. In the event of an incomplete objective, it is believed that God has the ability to start the process again in a different manner. This providential process is based on “non-verbal theories” of inspiration,¹⁸ such as “dynamic inspiration”.¹⁹

Take Paul as an example. It is possible that God chose him for his expertise in linguistics, history, culture, and theology. Moreover, God potentially revealed theological insights through Paul’s life experiences, divine visions, and visit to the third heaven. These occurrences may have influenced the content that Paul conveyed to both direct and indirect recipients of his Epistle. Even if Paul did not entirely accomplish his objective, God might have eliminated the problematic letter and steered Paul or another servant to commence anew.

Secondly, it is conceivable that God is merely dictating a text to a person without any influence over the latter. It is not difficult to imagine that a willing and meticulous individual could carry out this straightforward writing task without mistakes. In the event that errors persist, the same process can be utilized for correction. This is what is referred to as the “dictation theory,”²⁰ but without any form of control.

Regarding the two methods of inspiration that do not involve God’s control over man, we conclude the following: While dictation appears to offer unlimited inerrancy, the mode of inspiration by divine providence seems to be unable to guarantee it.²¹ On the other hand, both dictation and divine providence appear to ensure inerrancy of purpose.

B. Guarantee of Inerrancy Under God’s Control

Arminianism allows for God to exercise temporary control over a person to ensure biblical inerrancy. There are two levels of control, one producing a feeling of constraint and the other not.

The first level enables control over a person’s physical body without his consent. God could control a person’s hand or voice, or even their entire body, allowing them to write or dictate biblical text to a writer. In such instances, God need not seize control of a person’s will. This form of inspiration is referred to as “dictation.”

Alternatively, God may have taken over a writer’s desires or will, allowing this writer to act without constraint and without the option to behave any other way. This kind of inspiration can be classified as “dictation” or “verbal plenary inspiration.”²²

We can observe that the second process of inspiration differs from Calvinist theological determinism. Orthodox Calvinism asserts that man is responsible for his actions, which are simultaneously predetermined by God,²³ a view known as semi-compatibilism.²⁴

In contrast, Arminianism denies the notion that God holds an individual accountable for actions performed under divine control, where God is the initial cause. Man is responsible only for what God leaves under his control.²⁵

There are two processes of inspiration that involve God’s control over man, one leading to a feeling of constraint, and the other not. Through both processes, it is possible to guarantee unlimited inerrancy and inerrancy of purpose without a shadow of a doubt.

Conclusion

From the perspective of Arminian theology, and more generally that of free will theism, we draw the following conclusions. Quite clearly, a mode of inspiration by dictation or its equivalent, whether or not it involves temporary divine control, can fully ensure both inerrancy of purpose and unlimited inerrancy. On the other hand, within the framework of human self-determinism, a mode of inspiration relying on divine providence is sufficient to guarantee inerrancy of purpose.

______________________________________

• 1 BRATCHER, Dennis. The Modern Inerrancy Debate. In: The voice [online]. 2023 [viewed 2023-06-09]. Available from: https://www.crivoice.org/inerrant.html “The modern debate [on biblical inerrancy] arose between 1900 and the 1920s, and was developed into the 1970s, as a defense against historical skeptics who were launching some very scathing attacks against the authority of Scripture from the perspective of historical positivism and scientific naturalism. However, in the zeal to defend Scripture, many simply capitulated to the rationalistic mind set and tried to defend the Bible on that alien turf by ground rules set by the critics. The ensuing “battle for the Bible” is thus a battle largely fought in an area far removed from Scripture itself, and by the premises and logic of very rationalistic categories. […] The defenders, on quite different grounds than empirical evidence, assumed that the Bible was true as a starting point. No problem there, at least from the perspective of faith confession. But the defense took shape as a logical syllogism that worked backward toward the rationalists. Since the Bible is true as an assumption, and since only verifiable historical events can be true (thus accepting the premise of the rationalists), then the Bible must contain only actual and verifiable historical events and can contain no error. Thus inerrancy as a very rationalistic response to the rationalists was born.”
• 2 OLSON, Roger E. Is Real Communication as Perfect “Meeting of Minds” Possible? Some Radical Thoughts about Words like “Inerrancy”. In: Roger E. Olson: My Evangelical, Arminian Theological Musings [online]. Patheos, 2016-02-17 [viewed 2022-09-09]. Available from: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2016/02/is-real-communication-as-perfect-meeting-of-minds-possible-some-radical-thoughts-about-words-like-inerrancy/ “I think [that the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy and its council] was part of a larger, longer project led by adherents of the type of evangelical theology that looks back to Charles Hodge and B. B. Warfield as the true prototypes of modern evangelical theology to define “evangelical theology”. […] My own observation and study leads me to believe the driving motive was to exclude neo-orthodoxy from evangelical ranks.”
• 3 GRUDEM, Wayne A.. Systematic theology: an introduction to biblical doctrine. Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 2009, p. 96. “For most practical purposes, then, the current published scholarly texts of the Hebrew Old Testament and Greek New Testament are the same as the original manuscripts. Thus, when we say that the original manuscripts were inerrant, we are also implying that over 99 percent of the words in our present manuscripts are also inerrant, for they are exact copies of the originals.”
• 4 GEISLER, Norman L.. How Should We Define Biblical Inerrancy?. In: Defending Inerrancy [online]. 2016 [viewed 2023-06-09]. Available from: https://defendinginerrancy.com/define-biblical-inerrancy/ “Some hold only to an inerrancy of “purpose” (vs. the propositions). Others hold only to an inerrancy of “major” or “essential” teachings (vs. peripheral ones). Of the two broad categories of inerrantists, the dispute is over limited inerrancy vs. unlimited inerrancy. Stated this way, the issue is whether inerrancy covers all matters on which the Bible speaks or whether is it limited to only redemptive matters.”
• 5 LEMKE, Steve. W.. The Inspiration and the Authority of Scripture. In: CORLE, Bruce [ed.]. Biblical Hermeneutics: A Comprehensive Introduction to Interpreting Scripture. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2002, p. 186. “Purpose inerrancy affirms that the purpose of the Bible is to bring people to salvation and growth in grace. The Bible accomplishes its purpose without fail (infaillibility).”
• 6 FARNELL, F. David. [ed.]. Vital issues in the Inerrancy Debate. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011, p. 62. “The CSBI defines inerrancy as unlimited inerrancy, whereas many of ETS participants believe in limited inerrancy. Unlimited inerrancy affirms that the Bible is true on whatever subject it speaks—whether it is redemption, ethics, history, science, or anything else.”
• 7 WILLIAMS, Joel S. Inerrancy, Inspiration, and Dictation, Restoration Quarterly, 1995, vol. 37, n° 3, art. 2, p. 161. Available from: https://digitalcommons.acu.edu/restorationquarterly/vol37/iss3/2 “To the average layman “inerrancy” means the Scriptures are without a single mistake, even in minor details of geography, history, numbers, or science. […] [on the contrary] “Inerrancy is a highly technical term that knowledgeable inerrantists usually apply to the original autographs rather than to the contemporary Bible that is constructed out of varying manuscripts.””
• 8 OLSON, Roger E.. Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009, pp. 87-88.
• 9 GRIDER, J. Kenneth. Wesleyanism and the Inerrancy Issue. WTJ, 1984, vol. 19, n°2, pp. 53-61. Available from: https://wesley.nnu.edu/fileadmin/imported_site/wesleyjournal/1984-wtj-19-2.pdf
• 10 OLSON, Roger E. Why inerrancy doesn’t matter. In: Roger E. Olson: My Evangelical, Arminian Theological Musings [online]. Patheos, 2010-08-19 [viewed 2022-09-09]. Available from: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2010/08/why-inerrancy-doesnt-matter/ “The claim made by most conservative evangelicals (and, of course fundamentalists) is that biblical authority stands or falls with inerrancy. If the Bible contains any real errors it cannot be trusted. Then they admit every Bible that exists probably contains errors. Only the original manuscripts on which the inspired authors wrote can be considered perfectly inerrant. […] You can’t make authority depend on inerrancy and then say no existing Bible is inerrant without calling every Bible’s authority into question. It’s a hole in inerrantists’ logic so huge even a sophomore can drive a truck through it.”
• 11 DUNNING, H. Ray. Grace, Faith, and Holiness. Kansas City: Beacon Hill, 1988, pp. 60-62
• 12 REASONER, Vic. The Importance of Inerrancy: How Scriptural Authority has Eroded in Modern Wesleyan Theology. Evansville, IN: Fundamental Wesleyan Publishers, 2014. Available from: https://defendinginerrancy.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/Inerrancy.booklet.2.pdf
• 13 FORLINES, Leroy. The Quest For Truth. Nashville, TN: Randall House, 2001, pp. 50-55
• 14 LAW, David R.. Inspiration. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2010, pp. 64-65. “Literary and historical analysis has revealed, however, that many of the biblical texts are not the result of the literary activity of one individual but came into existence over a long period of time and as the result of agency of many, unnamed individuals. This has become particulary apparent in certain of the Old Testament writings, which were often the result of the bringing together and editing of variety of different sources. This presents the theory of verbal inspiration with a serious problem: if the principle of personal authorship has been undermined in this way, how can we continue to speak of verbal inspiration? […] Biblical scholarship has revealed that in most cases the prophets were not themselves responsible for the final version of the texts that ultimately emerged bearing their names. Rather, the process seems to have been that the teaching of the prophets was handed down in oral form by their followers. In the process these oral traditions were modified and edited, before eventually being put into written form many years later. If we argue that inspiration resides in the final version of a text, we are in the odd position of regarding the final edition of a prophetic work as more inspired than the prophet whose utterances ultimately led to the composition of the work.”
• 15 OLSON, Roger E.. The Classical Free Will Theist Model of God. In: WARE, Bruce. Perspectives on the Doctrine of God: Four Views. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2008, p. 149. “Classical free will theism is that form of this model found implicitly if not explicitly in the ancient Greek church fathers, most of the medieval Christian and theologians […] Classical free will theism describes free will as incompatible with determinism”.
• 16 OLSON, Roger E.. The Classical Free Will Theist Model of God. In: WARE, Bruce. Perspectives on the Doctrine of God: Four Views. Nashville, TN: B&H Publishing Group, 2008, p. 151. “Occasionally God suspends free will with a dramatic intervention that virtually forces a person to decide or act in some way.”
• 17 OLSON, Roger E.. Arminianism FAQ Everything You Always Wanted to Know. Franklin, TN: Seedbed. 2014, p. 8. Available from: https://my.seedbed.com/product/arminianism-faq-by-roger-e-olson/
• 18 BOWDEN, John. Encyclopedia of Christianity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 630. “Non-verbal theories situate inspiration not in the words themselves but in the message conveyed by those words or in the processes that led to the composition of the Bible. The inspiration of the biblical text is the result of this”.
• 19 OLSON, Roger E.. The Mosaic of Christian Beliefs: Twenty Centuries of Unity & Diversity. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2016, p. 103. “Those who regard the authors and not the words or propositions of Scripture as inspired by God also tend to regard the process of inspiration as indirect and the words of Scripture as more the human authors’ than the Holy Spirit’s. This view is sometimes known as “dynamic inspiration.””
• 20 LEMKE, Steve. W.. The Inspiration and the Authority of Scripture. In: CORLE, Bruce [ed.]. Biblical Hermeneutics: A Comprehensive Introduction to Interpreting Scripture. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2002, p. 178. “The dictation perspective (sometimes labeled the “mechanical dictation” perspective) views Scriptures as the divine Word of God, with humans being only instruments or stenographers through whom God spoke his message.”
• 21 BIGNON, Guillaume. Inerrancy, Is It a Matter of Luck?. In: TheoloGUI [online]. 2014-07-13 [viewed 2022-11-04]. Available from: https://theologui.blogspot.com/2014/07/inerrancy-is-it-matter-of-luck.html “It is ultimately proposed that inspiration and inerrancy are so improbable on open theism and classical Arminianism as to be virtually impossible […] I thus conclude that a proponent of inspiration as defined by the E.T.S., if he is to remain coherent, should either be a Calvinist, or a Molinist who believes in some divine luck.”
• 22 LEMKE, Steve. W.. The Inspiration and the Authority of Scripture. In: CORLE, Bruce [ed.]. Biblical Hermeneutics: A Comprehensive Introduction to Interpreting Scripture. Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2002, p. 180. “The plenary verbal perspective describes Scriptures as being the Word of God. “Plenary” means “fully,” and “verbal” emphasizes that inspiration extends to the very words themselves, so that every word of the Bible is inspired.”
• 23 ALEXANDER, David E., JOHNSON, Daniel M.. Introduction. In: ALEXANDER, David E. [ed.], JOHNSON, Daniel M. [ed.]. Calvinism And The Problem Of Evil. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications, 2016, p. 4. “Calvinists are committed to saying that moral responsibility and any sort of free will that is necessary for moral responsibility are compatible with whatever sort of determinism is entailed by Calvinist views of providence.”
• 24 FISHER, John M.. Semicompatibilism. In: TIMPE, Kevin [ed.], GRIFFITH, Meghan [ed.], LEVY, Neil [ed.]. The Routledge Companion to Free Will. New York, NY: Routledge Taylor & Francis, 2017, p. 5. “[A]s regards causal determinism, semicompatibilism is the view that causal determinism is compatible with moral responsibility, quite apart from whether causal determinism rules out freedom to do otherwise. Again, semicompatibilism does not take a stand on whether causal determinism rules out freedom to do otherwise; it is thus consistent with both classical compatibilism […] and the rejection of classical compatiblism.”
• 25 KANE, Robert. Libertarianism. In: Four Views on Free Will. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2007, p. 7. “We libertarians typically believe that a free will that is incompatible with determinism is required for us to be truly morally responsible for our actions, so that genuine moral responsibility, as well as free will, is incompatible with determinism.”

[This article was taken from Arminianisme Évangélique and is used with permission. Any reproduction of this article is prohibited.]