Apologetics paper

This is my Apologetics paper talking about infallibility versus inerrancy. It kind of stinks. Sorry. I was lazy when I wrote this paper. 

R.C. Sproul and Donald Bloesch both take on the theological subjects of inerrancy and infallibility, but they stand on different ground. According to Bloesch, Sproul stands on “the shifting sands of scientific and historical research” (Bloesch, 67) by believing that the entire original biblical text is infallible and inerrant. Yet Sproul says that Bloesch’s belief of only regarding the core message of the Bible as infallible and inerrant is limiting. 

R.C. Sproul believes that the entire, original biblical text is inerrant and infallible. Even though the writers were humans, with human nature, the entire text of the Bible is unaffected by this because the authors were inspired by God. But Sproul also makes the distinction between the authors being omniscient and the text being infallible. By “omniscient” Sproul refers to the knowledge of a person and by “infallible” he means the truth in that person’s statement (Sproul, 30). “Thus we say that though the biblical writings are inspired, this does not imply the thereby that the writers knew everything there was to be known or that they were infallible themselves” (Sproul, 30). Sproul then brings up the fact that the authors of the biblical text were inspired for God and “if it is possible for an uninspired person to speak the truth without error, how much more will it be the case for one who is under the influence of inspiration” (Sproul, 31). The authors’ knowledge was limited but not errant. Another point of “weakness” in the biblical text addressed by Sproul are the absence of the original texts. Since we do not have them all, how do we as Christians know that the text we have today matches up with the original text? To this question Sproul simply answers: textual criticism. While he acknowledges that copyists can make small errors, he also trusts textual criticism. “The Old and New Testament Scriptures are probably the texts which have reached us with the most extensive and reliable attestation” (Sproul, 33). He acknowledges that the biblical text we have today may err from the original text, but the original text he believes to be inerrant and infallible. R.C. Sproul places his faith in the inspiration of the authors, believing that the entire, original text of the Bible is inerrant and infallible. 

Donald Bloesch, in contrast, believes that only the core foundation of the Bible is inerrant. “The doctrine or message of Scripture, which alone is infallible and inerrant, is hidden in the historical and cultural witness of the biblical writers. They did not err in what they proclaimed, but this does not mean that they were faultless in their recordings of historical data or in their world view, which is now outdated” (Bloesch, 65). Bloesch believes that the core message of the Bible is inerrant and infallible but the less important, historical details are not. He says that “we have the infallible, perfect Word of the living God enclosed and veiled in the time-bound, imperfect words of sinful men” (Bloesch, 69). The authors that wrote the original biblical texts were bound by their sin and because of their human nature, were liable to make errors. They were also in a different, historical setting. Despite this, Bloesch believes that the core message of the Bible is inerrant and infallible. 

While Sproul believes that the entire, original biblical text is inerrant and infallible, Bloesch says that only the core message of the Bible is without error and infallible. Sproul “explicitly rejects the tendency of some to limit infallibility and inerrancy to specific segments of the biblical message, such as spiritual, religious or redemptive themes, excluding assertions from the fields of history or science” (Sproul, 36). which is exactly what Bloesch believes. Bloesch even says that it is “suicidal” to place inerrancy and infallibility on the ever-changing modern history and science (Bloesch, 67). Both of them bring valid points to the table, but they each take extreme positions. Bloesch is the minimalist, believes that just the core is inerrant and infallible and Sproul taking the other extreme, believing that the entire original text is inerrant and infallible. According to Bloesch you can uphold “biblical infallibility and inerrancy without falling into the delusion that this means that everything that the Bible must be taken at face value” (Bloesch, 66).  Then Sproul says that the Bible is historically accurate and can be taken “at face value.” The problem with Sproul believing that the entire original text is infallible and inerrant  is that if one detail is wrong, his belief would be disproved. If one historical detail could be wrong, then others could be wrong as well. Then, on the other hand, by not believing that the entire Bible is inerrant and infallible, Bloesch is doubting the inspiration of God. God did inspire the authors, so it would seem to follow that what He inspired them to write would be infallible and inerrant. 

Sproul and Bloesch trust the inerrancy and infallibility of the Scripture to different degrees, each taking an opposing extreme. Sproul put confidence in the entire original manuscripts being completely inerrant and infallible. Bloesch concluded that only the central message was infallible and inerrant. Each belief has their stumbling blocks. Relying on the entire Bible being infallible and inerrant is trusting that the every detail is correct. But only trusting the central message is inerrant and infallible is doubting the inspiration of God. Each of the authors defend different positions on inerrancy and infallibility.