THEOLOGICAL POSITION PAPER: THE INERRANCY AND

Commented [EL1]: SBTS FORMAT: Overall, this paper’s

INFALLIBILITY OF SCRIPTURE format provides an excellent example. However, this title should
move up slightly so that the last line is 2” from the top of the page.
(Right now, the first line is 2” from the top of the page.) Also, it’s
acceptable to start a new line at the colon between a title and
subtitle. Dividing the title there could be a good option.
__________________

A Paper

Presented to
Dr. Gregg R Allison

The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

__________________

In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for 27060

__________________

by

Student’s Name
September 25, 2013
 THEOLOGICAL POSITION PAPER: THE INERRANCY AND
INFALLIBILITY OF SCRIPTURE Commented [EL2]: SBTS FORMAT: This title is formatted
correctly for this page: single-spaced, with the first line 2” from the
top of the page.

Issue
I propose to discuss the inerrancy and infallibility of scripture. Inerrancy simply means

that “when all facts are known, the Scriptures in their original autographs and properly
interpreted will be shown to be wholly true in everything they affirm.”1 In addition, inerrancy

means scripture is “free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.”2 Similarly, but with an important
distinction, infallibility means scripture is, “true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.”3 At

first glance, these two terms may seem to be so closely related that a careful distinction is not
necessary. It may seem that to hold one is to hold the other. On the contrary, in many theological
Commented [EL3]: THEOLOGICAL COMMUNICATION:
circles, individuals will hold to infallibility but reject inerrancy. A discussion of these issues is This paper exemplifies good theological communication by defining
terms carefully here. Not only does the paper define the terms but it
also relates the definitions to the issue the paper addresses.
not a debate over semantics, but gets to the very heart of scripture. This paper will seek to
Commented [EL4]: ARGUMENTATION & ORGANIZATION:
This sentence performs an important function for this introductory
explain and defend the doctrines of inerrancy and infallibility as necessary for an orthodox section. It shows why this paper matters. Good writers give their
readers reasons why reading a paper is a good investment of their
understanding of the nature of Scripture. This will be accomplished by examining various time.
Commented [EL5]: THESIS: This thesis statement delineates
alternative views on the doctrines of inerrancy and infallibility, presenting a conservative the student’s position clearly and provides direction for the rest of
the paper. The QEP rubric also directs writers to provide major
supporting points for their position. “An orthodox understanding of
Evangelical view, and showing why these doctrines are necessary for faithfulness to scripture the nature of Scripture” could be a supporting point, but it is not very
specific. This thesis could be strengthened by adding a preview of
and logical consistency. specific, strong points that support the thesis.
Commented [EL6]: METHODOLOGY: Which alternative
views? Being specific allows the methodology statement to preview
the rest of the paper most effectively.
Commented [EL7]: METHODOLOGY: Here is another place
where the writer might want to summarize the specific arguments he
intends to use. Which Scripture passages and logical points make
these doctrines necessary?
Commented [EL8]: METHODOLOGY: This methodology
statement gives the reader a clear idea of where the rest of the paper
1
Norman L. Geisler, Inerrancy (Grand Rapids: The Zondervan Corporation, 1980) 294. is heading—that’s what it’s supposed to do! However, making this
sentence more specific would make it even better.
2
International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, Section XII,
accessed 09-20-2013. http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html
3
Ibid., Section XI.

2
 Positions on the Issue
The first leading position is a rejection of inerrancy but an embrace of infallibility.
Commented [EL9]: SOURCES: A great strength of this paper is
This view is held by A.T.B. McGowan and presented in his book “The Divine Spiration of that it interacts with other people’s real ideas. It’s easy for writers to
talk about positions they imagine others might hold instead of taking
the time to understand what people who hold other views really
Scripture: Challenging evangelical perspectives.”4 McGowan rejects the idea of inerrancy, “I believe and why they believe it.
Commented [EL10]: GRAMMAR & MECHANICS: Since this
made the point that inerrancy is not a biblical doctrine but rather an implication of 'inspiration', punctuation mark comes between two grammatically complete
sentences, it should be a colon or semicolon rather than a comma.
based on an unsubstantiated (and somewhat presumptuous) view of what God could and could Quotes should be worked into the author’s writing so that all the
standard rules of punctuation and grammar still work smoothly.
(This error needs to be corrected at several other points in this paper
not do.”5 But he is comfortable with a form of infallibility, “The Scriptures are God's Word and as well.)
Commented [EL11]: STYLE: A reader could initially think that
God does not mislead us.”6 If the Scriptures are God’s Word, why does he reject inerrancy? He this “he” means “God” based on the beginning of the sentence.
Using McGowan’s name here instead would prevent this possible
says inerrancy is not a biblical word and inerrantists are simply deducing inerrancy from the confusion. Although a careful reader could easily figure out who
“he” means, good writers should do the work of writing as clearly as
possible to save readers the work of sorting through confusing
doctrine of inspiration (which he has modified to be “spiration”), “this inerrantist conviction that constructions.

the doctrine of the divine spiration of Scripture implies inerrancy is the weak point in their
Commented [EL12]: SOURCES: This paper skillfully uses
argument.”7 For McGowan, inspiration is clearly taught in scripture while inerrancy is not, quotes while also interpreting the source’s words for the reader.

“Those who advocate inerrancy might well (and do) argue that it is a legitimate and natural
implication of the doctrine of divine spiration, but they cannot argue that inerrancy is itself
Commented [EL13]: STYLE: Although this paper generally
taught in Scripture.”8 This is where McGowan derives the core argument of his book, “If we reads very well, a small issue with the word “this” shows up several
times. “This” should always refer back to one specific noun.
Otherwise, the writer may know exactly what “this” means, but the
accept this argument that inerrancy, properly understood, is not a biblical doctrine but rather an reader’s understanding will likely be fuzzy. An unclear “this” may
also mark a point where the writer needs to think more carefully
implication from another doctrine, then it is reasonable to ask if it is a legitimate implication.”9 about the connections between ideas.

McGowan does not believe it is legitimate to conclude that inspiration means

inerrancy because to draw that connection is to limit God, “It [inerrancy] assumes that God can

4
A.T.B. McGowan. The Divine Spiration of Scripture: Challenging evangelical perspectives
(Nottingham, England: Apollos, 2007)
5
Ibid., 209.
6
Ibid., 212.
7
Ibid., 114.
8
Ibid.
9
Ibid., 115.

3
only act in a way that conforms to our expectations, based on our human assessment of his
character. It assumes that whatever God does must conform to the canons of human reason. In

opposition to these inerrantist assumptions, we must surely argue that God is free to act
according to his will.”10 Instead, God inspired a text that is divine, but also reflects the errors and
mistakes of its human authors, “Having freely chosen to use human beings, God knew what he

was doing. He did not give us an inerrant autographical text, because he did not intend to do so.
He gave us a text that reflects the humanity of its authors but that, at the same time, clearly

evidences its origin in the divine speaking.”11 To summarize, McGowan represents the position
Commented [EL14]: STYLE: This pronoun doesn’t have a
of holding to infallibility, but not to inerrancy. It is infallible because it is as God intended it to specific noun to refer back to. Although the reader can figure out
what the pronoun means, replacing it with a noun saves the reader
the work. When writers carefully do the work of expressing their
be. It is not inerrant because God did not intend for it to be inerrant. ideas clearly, readers can focus their efforts on evaluating the ideas
instead of on trying to understand what those ideas are.
The second leading position is one that holds to a form of inerrancy, but is

uncomfortable with traditional forms of it. This view is held by Dan Gentry Kent who claims to

hold to inerrancy but thinks it is just another step on the historical continuum to control
Commented [EL15]: GRAMMAR & MECHANICS: This
interpretative uniformity; “I personally think that this rather long-running struggle has been an semicolon correctly connects the complete sentence before the quote
with the complete sentence of the quote itself.
attempt to insure that everyone will interpret the Bible the same way.”12 He largely sees the word

“inerrant” as unhelpful and misleading because it is negative, grammatically questionable,

relatively new, not biblical, lacking clear definition, and controversial. His central argument is
that one may hold to egalitarianism, aware of the verses that seem to contradict egalitarianism,

and simultaneously hold to inerrancy. After listing the verses that seem to contradict
egalitarianism, he says that he can hold to the inerrancy of scripture and egalitarianism because
Commented [EL16]: GRAMMAR & MECHANICS: A small
he holds a different hermeneutic, not a different view of scripture, than those who disagree with capitalization error: “Scripture” and “Bible” should always be
capitalized to follow the capitalization guide at the end of the
Southern Seminary Manual of Style (although “biblical” and
him. For Kent, the more important issue is not whether one holds to inerrancy or not, but how “scriptural” are not capitalized). The capitalization of “Scripture”
needs to be corrected throughout this paper.

10
Ibid., 118.
11
Ibid., 124.
12
Dan Gentry Kent. “Can You Believe in Inerrancy and Equality?” Priscilla Papers vol. 15, no. 1
(2001): 5.

4
one interprets particular passages. “Even though we believe the Bible is inerrant,” Kent argues,
“we may have some problems with the term and with some who use it to beat other people over

the head.”13
A third leading position is that of outright rejection of inerrancy and infallibility, as
explained by I. Howard Marshall. All those tasked with “communicating the word of God to

modern people,” he says, “are faced with the all-important questions of knowing where that word
is to be found.”14 Based on John 1, Jesus, as the incarnate word, would be the obvious source for

knowing God through His word. As the cornerstone of divine revelation, Jesus must be the
cornerstone of our understanding of scripture as well. However, the only record we have of what

Jesus has done and said is in the Gospels and “anybody who knows anything at all of modern
biblical study knows that it is a very big question whether the gospels do indeed lead us to a true

knowledge of what Jesus said and did.”15 Men of earlier generations assumed the gospels were

historically accurate, factual accounts, even though they were written at least thirty years after
Jesus’s death. In contrast to the understanding of earlier generations, current scholars understand

“over a period of thirty years memories may alter their form; things are seen in the light of

succeeding events, and the stories are told differently.”16 Because this is so, the important task is

to examine “what was happening to the Gospel material during the period between the death of
Jesus and the composition of the finished Gospels.”17
Commented [EL17]: THEOLOGICAL COMMUNICATION:
Upon closer examination of the Gospel records, we find a number of problems. The While this writer does an excellent job of giving different ideas a fair
hearing, he may want to distance himself a little more from the ideas
he describes throughout this section of the paper. Adding a phrase
first is the contradiction between gospel accounts. In the past, scholars had questioned the like “Marshall argues . . .” or “According to Marshall’s view . . .”
would remind the reader that the writer is describing other’s ideas
rather than his own. This kind of distance between the writer and
ideas leaves open whether or not the writer agrees with the ideas. It
allows careful writers to express others’ ideas fairly without
13
Ibid. affirming ideas with which they disagree.
14
I. Howard Marshall “The Authority of the Gospels for Interpreting Jesus.” Crux vol. 11, no. 1 (Fall
1973): 1.
15
Ibid.
16
Ibid.
17
Ibid.

5
 Commented [EL18]: GRAMMAR & MECHANICS: According
validity of John’s gospel, understanding it to be inferior to the other gospels in historical quality to the capitalization guide in our style manual, “Gospel” should be
capitalized when it refers to one of the four Gospels that begin the
New Testament. Check the appendix at the end of the Southern
due to the many differences. “But more recently,” he points out “it has been suggested that the Seminary Manual of Style for examples of correct capitalization.

same thing is true of the others, and that we cannot simply assume that they are historical
records.”18 Instead of keeping historical records, the “Gospel writers…have shaped the material
which they used and ordered it as seemed best to them.”19 Another difficulty is the theological

and religious bias of those who recorded and handed down the material the original writers
wrote, resulting in additional change and uncertainty. The resulting problems are two-fold, “one

is that the things [Jesus] really said have been altered and distorted in transmission, and the other
is that the things He really said have been surrounded by a host of things that He did not say.”20
Commented [EL19]: STYLE: Using “us” and “we” throughout
Beyond this challenge, each of us interprets the words of Jesus with our own this section could imply the author’s agreement with the ideas. The
writer’s later arguments reveal that he actually rejects these ideas.
individual bias so that “we all have different understandings of what we hear” and “the words of The first-person plural (“we,” “us,” “our”) can often be problematic
for careful writing since the group to which it refers is unclear.
Jesus will mean different things for each of us.” Because we have different experiences and
21 (Does it mean the author and other students at SBTS? The author
and one other person? The author and all other human beings?)

understanding, we will interpret the words differently as individuals. Jesus will be translated into
as many people’s circumstances as there are individuals who hear the message. Indeed, church

history shows just this type of conundrum, where “Jesus has been differently understood in

different ages” resulting in a considerable “variety of modern denominations and theological

outlooks.”22 Based on this view of inspiration, the task of the preacher and communicator “seems
Commented [EL20]: SOURCES: These sentences skillfully
well nigh impossible.”23 incorporate words from the source into the writer’s sentence. This
smooth interweaving of the source’s words and the words of this
paper’s author allows the writer to interact directly with the source
while still directing the focus and flow of the ideas. Using some
quotations adds authenticity to the conversation, but using too much
quotation can allow another author’s purposes and organization to
interrupt the flow of the paper.

18
Ibid., 2.
19
Ibid.
20
Ibid.
21
Ibid.
22
Ibid.
23
Ibid.

6
 Support for Orthodoxy of Inerrancy and Infallibility
The doctrine of Inerrancy is based on the claim of Scripture that it is not man’s words,
Commented [EL21]: GRAMMAR & MECHANICS: Although
but God’s words. Second Timothy 3:16 says “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable a small detail, writing out the word “Second” when the name of the
Bible book begins a sentence fits SBTS style exactly. Good writers
pay attention to small details!
for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” All of the Bible, both
Old and New Testaments are God’s words, breathed out by Him as a self-revelation to humanity.

When theologians speak of “inspiration,” this is the idea they are referring to. Other theologians
Commented [EL22]: STYLE: Many writing experts and graders
prefer the term “expiration” because inspiration isn’t so much what God puts into man, but what consider contractions like this one too informal for academic
writing. It might be better to write out the words as “it is” instead.
comes from God. In any case, the key point is that God is the originator of Scripture. He decides
what has gone into the Bible and has so supervised the process that the words of Scripture are

His words. Christians have always believed that God is true and speaks what is true (Num 23:19;
Commented [EL23]: GRAMMAR & MECHANICS: The way
Heb 6:19). God does not make mistakes or errors, therefore we know and believe that God’s these Bible passages are cited here fits SBTS style precisely. The
Southern Seminary Manual of Style lists abbreviations for Bible
book names to use in parenthetical citations and footnotes. As seen
words reflect his unerring character. here, those abbreviations should not end with a period. Also, notice
that the sentence’s closing period comes after the Bible references.
The claim throughout the Bible is that Scripture is the very word of God. This is
evidenced throughout the Old Testament where hundreds of times the Bible says, “Thus says the

Lord.” When prophets and other messengers of God said, “Thus says the Lord,” they were
claiming to not speak their own words, but the very words of God. There were measures to test
the authenticity of someone claiming to speak for God and consequences for those who made

this claim falsely:

I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my
words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. And whoever will
not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him. But
the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to
speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’ And if you say
in your heart, ‘How may we know the word that the Lord has not spoken?’— when a
prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the word does not come to pass or come true, that Commented [EL24]: SBTS FORMAT: We see here an excellent
is a word that the Lord has not spoken; the prophet has spoken it presumptuously. You need example of proper formatting for a block quotation. It is single-
spaced and indented 0.35” from the left margin. Also, notice that for
not be afraid of him. (Deut 18:18-22) a block quotation, the sentence’s closing period comes before the
parenthetical citation.
Here we have a clear message from God that He would put His words into the mouths of Commented [EL25]: SBTS FORMAT: This first line following
the block quotation is (correctly) not indented because it does not
begin a new paragraph.
prophets. The people were to listen to the prophet, not on the prophet’s authority, but on God’s
Commented [EL26]: ARGUMENTATION &
authority. The prophet had no authority of his own. If it could be proven that the prophet was not ORGANIZATION: This careful writer not only quotes the Bible to
support his points but also explains what the Bible passage means.
What makes a paper biblical is not just using Bible references (false
speaking God’s words, there was nothing to fear from that prophet. If, however, it could be teachers use Bible references too!) but interpreting the Bible
correctly.

7
shown that the prophet was genuinely speaking the word of God, there was much to fear. Simple
objective tests were given. If the prophet’s words came true, they were from God. If not, they

were not from God. The point here is that Scripture is clearly claiming that it is a direct word
from God, inherently testable and verifiable as authentic revelation.
Even though the above passage refers just to the words of the prophets, other parts of

Scripture claim total inspiration. As quoted above, 2nd Timothy 3:16 says, “All Scripture is God
breathed,” and was particularly referring to the entire Old Testament. Second Peter 1:20-21 says,

“No prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever
produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy

Spirit.” Again, there is a consistent witness by the Biblical authors, both Old and New
Testaments that Scripture originated with, is expelled from, and spoken by God. This does not

necessarily mean God specifically spoke each word to the authors while they mindlessly

recorded those words, though in some passages we simply have record of God’s words, but it
means the authors wrote as they were “carried along” by God to ensure His words were

communicated through the will, intentionality, and personalities of the authors.

Until this point, an argument could be made that these passages claim inspiration for

the Old Testament. Admittedly, the two passages above likely had the Old Testament Scriptures
primarily in mind. However, there are two places in the New Testament where the authors equate

New Testament writings with the same inspired authority of the Old Testament. 2 Peter 3:15-16,
Peter writes, “Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother
Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his

letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to
understand, which ignorant and unstable men distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their

own destruction” (emphasis added). Peter clearly believed Paul was writing Scripture. Again, in
1 Timothy 5:18, it says, “For the Scripture says, ‘Do not muzzle the ox while it is treading out

the grain,’ and ‘the worker deserves his wages.’” Here, the first quote is taken from

8
Deuteronomy while the second is taken from Luke. Clearly, Paul recognized Luke’s writings as
on par with Deuteronomy.

If God’s word is in fact inspired, then it carries the same authority God does, “If the
Bible contains errors, its authority is limited.”24 The Bible is only authoritative insofar as it is
God’s word. To say the Bible is not God’s word is to say it is not authoritative. If the Bible is

God’s word, it will reflect His character and perfection in its entirety, “Inerrancy is a
construction that was intended to serve the Bible’s authority for the church and the world.”25 As

an extension of His character, we expect that “Scripture does not merely witness to God’s self-
disclosure, but is his own self-interpreted, economically oriented, pro nobis, verbal extension of

his own mind and heart.”26 As Warfield has said, “we cannot modify the doctrine of plenary
inspiration in any of its essential elements without undermining our confidence in the authority

of the apostles as teachers of doctrine.”27

Given the connection between inspiration and authority, is it possible to “associate

divine authority with anything less than verbal inerrancy? Need we associate it with anything

more than general reliability?”28 Upon investigation, we quickly realize that verbal inerrancy is

necessary in order to acknowledge divine authority and even verbal plenary inspiration. In fact,

Scripture itself teaches inerrancy, “The biblical teaching includes an affirmation of scriptural
inerrancy, so that the doctrine of inerrancy must be considered an induction from the textual

24
Charles R. Swindoll and Roy B. Zuck, Understanding Christian Theology (Nashville, TN: Thomas
Nelson Publishers, 2003), 87.

25
Jason S. Sexton, “How Far Beyond Chicago? Assessing Recent Attempts to Reframe the Inerrancy
Debate,” Themelios, No. 1, April 2009 34 (2009): 46.

26
Ibid.

27
Benjamin B. Warfield, The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield: Revelation and Inspiration, vol. 1
(Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008), 181.

28
Carl F. H. Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority, vol. 4 (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1999), 162.

9
phenomena.”29 Back to the passages in 2nd Timothy 3:16 and 2 Peter 1:20-21, if God did
genuinely inspire and guide the authors of the Scriptures, what would an error mean? It would

have to mean that God was mistaken, which is contrary to His character. Instead, “The prevailing
evangelical view affirms a special activity of divine inspiration whereby the Holy Spirit
superintended the scriptural writers in communicating the biblical message in ways consistent

with their differing personalities, literary styles and cultural background, while safeguarding
Commented [EL27]: ARGUMENTATION &
them from error.”30 ORGANIZATION: It’s usually best not to end a paragraph with a
quote. This writer could add a short sentence after the quote either
explaining the quote or restating the most important points from the
paragraph as a whole. The beginning and ending sentences of a
Objections to Orthodoxy of Inerrancy and Infallibility paragraph carry the greatest emphasis, so they provide key
opportunities to remind readers of the writer’s most important
points.
One of the most popular positions on inerrancy and infallibility is a rejection of

inerrancy but an embrace of infallibility. As referenced above in the work by A.T.B. McGowan,
to draw inerrancy from inspiration “assumes that God can only act in a way that conforms to our

expectations, based on our human assessment of his character.” But is this legitimate? Is God
Commented [EL28]: ARGUMENTATION &
merely conforming to our expectations? A brief survey of the scriptural passages will show this ORGANIZATION: Questions can be an effective way to move an
argument forward, but it is best not to overuse them. Statements that
give the content of the argument should be the default rather than
to be a false criticism. In fact, God is conforming to the expectations and character He has questions about the argument.

ascribed to Himself. Scripture is a self-revelation of God to man, not man attempting to describe
Commented [EL29]: GRAMMAR & MECHANICS: It sounds
God. When God says, as 2nd Peter 1:20-21 makes clear, “No prophecy of Scripture comes from like this sentence isn’t really finished. Even excellent writers can
easily miss errors like this one, so careful proofreading is essential!
someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men
spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” If the Holy Spirit carries men

along, then our expectations for inerrancy merely reflect this claim from God. We have not
ascribed inerrancy to Him, He has claimed it for Himself. If God is true and perfect, then His

word is true and perfect. In Deuteronomy 32:4, for example, God is described, “He is the Rock,

His work is perfect; For all His ways are justice, A God of truth and without injustice; Righteous

and upright is He.” If the Scripture which is His word is found to be less than perfect, less than

29
Ibid, 163.

30
Ibid,166–167.

10
true, less than righteous, what does that say about God? Inerrancy is not a doctrine that can be
passed over flippantly. Ultimately, to question the inerrancy of Scripture is to question the very
Commented [EL30]: ARGUMENTATION &
character of God. ORGANIZATION / THEOLOGICAL COMMUNICATION: This
paragraph states an objection to the writer’s ideas clearly and then
responds with specific biblical evidence. In addition to displaying
Another common position is an outright rejection of both inerrancy and infallibility. skillful argumentation, this paragraph also shows excellent
theological communication by relating the doctrine of inerrancy to
This is perhaps the most common position in modern times. While the true message of broader theological loci, specifically, the attributes of God.

Christianity and the Bible is hopelessly opaque, some social justice and social good can be
derived from Scripture. The Bible is just one more “holy book” among many which is helpful

and informative, but not entirely relevant to our modern era. Of course, this is exactly
Commented [EL31]: ARGUMENTATION &
contradictory to what Scripture itself teaches. If the Bible is nothing more than another book, it is ORGANIZATION: At this point, citing a source would be helpful to
ensure that the writer continues to interact with ideas that real people
actually believe. When writers do not cite sources to explain an
a very dangerous, self-deceived book. Hebrews 4:12 says, “For the word of God is living and opposing view, they always run the risk of misrepresenting what
others actually believe.
powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit,

and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” If the bible

is merely a book, why does it claim to be alive and powerful? How can it pierce to the bones and
discern the thoughts and intents of the heart? Similarly, 2nd Timothy 3:16 says, “you have known

the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in

Christ Jesus.” The Scriptures are able to make wise for salvation? That’s a large claim for a

book. Finally, Revelation 22:19 says, “if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this
prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the

things which are written in this book.” The Bible claims to be a “Book of Life” from the “holy
city” and is a book of “prophecy.” The question is whether these claims are true. If true, the
Bible is inspired of God and deserving of authority. If not true, the Bible should be despised and

rejected as making outlandish claims. True believers have had their eyes opened to the truths of
Scripture, “Open my eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of your law.” The Bible is a

more sure guide than any experience, “And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you
do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star

rises in your hearts (2nd Pet 1:19).” To believe Scripture is to believe God, to reject Scripture is to
reject Him.

11
 BIBLIOGRAPHY Commented [EL32]: SBTS FORMAT: While the format of this
page as a whole meets SBTS requirements, the individual entries are
not quite up to Turabian standards. For better examples of
bibliographic entries, see the Turabian manual.
Feinberg, Paul D. Inerrancy. Edited by Norman L. Geisler, 267-304. Grand Rapids: The
Commented [EL33]: SBTS FORMAT: A citation for a section
Zondervan Corporation, 1980. of a longer book should include the title of the section in quotation
marks, followed by the title of the book as a whole.
Henry, Carl F. H. God, Revelation, and Authority, vol. 4 (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 1999),
162. Commented [EL34]: SBTS FORMAT: Publication information
belongs in parentheses in footnotes but not in the bibliography. Also,
a bibliographic entry for a book should not include a specific page
International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, Section number.
XI, accessed 09-20-2013. http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html

Kent, Dan Gentry. “Can You Believe in Inerrancy and Equality?” Priscilla Papers 15, no. 1
(2001): 5-7. Commented [EL35]: SBTS FORMAT: This entry follows the
Turabian guide for citing an article. The other listings for articles,
however, are not completely correct.
Marshall, I. Howard. “The Authority of the Gospels for Interpreting Jesus.” Crux vol. 11, no. 1
(Fall 1973): 1.
McGowan, A.T.B. The Divine Spiration of Scripture: Challenging evangelical perspectives
Nottingham, England: Apollos, 2007.

Sexton, Jason S. “How Far Beyond Chicago? Assessing Recent Attempts to Reframe the
Inerrancy Debate,” Themelios, No. 1, April 2009 34 (2009): 46.
Swindoll, Charles. and Zuck, Roy B. Understanding Christian Theology. (Nashville, TN: Commented [EL36]: SBTS FORMAT: The first author’s name
Thomas Nelson Publishers, 2003) should have a comma rather than a period after it, and the second
author’s name should not be written last-name-first.

Warfield, Benjamin B. The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield: Revelation and Inspiration, vol. 1
(Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2008), 181.

12