Let me approach this from a slightly different angle, since I think this significant, and please let me know if this makes any sense…
I re-read the section in the “five views” book again to make sure I wasn’t mistaken in my impression of Mohler’s argument. Again, it does certainly seem to me that he is essentially arguing for inerrancy on the basis of it being necessary in order to establish or maintain belief in various Christian doctrines.
This I do find erroneous, as an argument for inerrancy.
But there is a related observation (not argument so much) that I think very vital and important and valid in this regard, and Mohler’s observation is getting at that. I don’t think it can logically be used to argue (not directly, at least) for inerrancy, but I think it nonetheless a very fair and accurate observation, one which clarifies the logical options.
That being, either God has communicated some truths about him from the “teacher’s manual” (to borrow Dr. Enns’ language), or we simply know very little about him and his doings. If everything in Scripture is essentially and solely human impressions, experiences, feelings, and thoughts about God, thus open to our sifting and selection based on human criteria - And if Scripture is not also God’s communication about himself in some inerrant form or fashion, then we simply can’t know many things about him.
Is God a trinity? Was he incarnate in Christ? is God loving? Does he forgive sin? Is sin even a thing? I recall Dr. Enns saying somewhere that he can in good conscience recite the Apostle’s creed in good faith. This I also think erroneous. There are certain doctrines contained therein that require some kind of inerrant revelation. Jesus Christ is the only son of God? Does he believe that because, (“ahem”), “The Bible Tells Him So”? Because that is a truth that was communicated from beyond the veil, from an inerrant source?
Or the fact that “…he is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from whence he shall come to judge the living and the dead.” This is not something we can know by empirical evidence, scientific examination, forensic or historical study, religious experiences, or anything else. If this “fact” is true, that Christ will actually, in fact, come again and will pass some kind of judgment on both living and dead, this is a fact that had to come from the “teacher’s edition” if it has any meaning at all.
Same I could outline regarding “the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.” These are things we can’t know apart from divine and true revelation of these facts.
Either these are truths that God revealed, thus they are true, absolutely true, non-erroneous, correct, factual, and “inerrantly” true… or they are a complete fabrication of human imagination. I see no logical alternative, it is either one or the other.
Those are two horns of a logical dilemma, and you can’t embrace both: Either Dr. Enns needs to acknowledge that at least some truths have “dropped out of the sky” from a proverbial teacher’s manual and been communicated to us (including the incarnation of God himself in the person of Christ, the final judgment, resurrection of the dead, etc., etc.), or he needs to reject significant parts of the Apostle’s creed as the fanciful imaginings of ancient religious adherents that are simply not based on reality in any sense.
Now, I still maintain and reject Dr. Mohler’s approach, which as I read it, seems to argue for inerrancy on this basis. It sure sounds to me like he is saying, in effect, “We need to continue to believe in the incarnation and final judgment, etc… therefore, inerrancy must be true.” This direct argument I would maintain and continue to maintain is completely logically backwards, and question begging, thus erroneous and fallacious.
But I still think it a very important observation to clarify the options involved. One simply can’t reject the basic concept of inerrant revelation in some form or fashion, and then continue to embrace traditional doctrines of the faith that do in fact require inerrant revelation for us to hold them. This is equally erroneous and fallacious.
So all that to say, I would use the observation that once inerrant revelation falls, many, many, many traditional doctrines of the faith fall, to make sure people understand the issues involved and clearly understand the choice they are making. In my many discussions with people, both live and electronic, I think many people think they can embrace the basic position of Dr. Enns as it comes to Scripture, and yet maintain belief in a loving God, one who will resurrect them to eternal life, eternal life in heaven, forgiveness of sin, the deity of Christ, etc. But it simply doesn’t work that way. You have to choose one package or the other.
I recall my absolutely favorite episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation, when a Romulan Defector was somewhat hedging the consequences of his defection, saying, “I cannot betray my people.” and Captain Picard told him flat out: “You’ve already betrayed your people, Admiral. You’re made your choices, sir. You’re a traitor. Now, if the bitter taste of that is unpalatable to you, I am truly sorry. But I am not going to risk my ship and crew because you think you can dance on the edge of the neutral zone. You’ve crossed over, Admiral. You make yourself comfortable with that.”
That is the same sentiment I would want to (kindly) express to Dr. Enns and others of that approach - it seems to me they want to reject any inerrant revelation, and maintain Scripture is solely the result of human invention - yet then maintain belief in various doctrines that absolutely require inerrant revelation from God. But once you choose to “cross over” to reject any inerrant revelation, then you have to embrace all the logical consequences of that belief, and thus reject many, many traditional Christian doctrines.
Now, that dilemma being laid out, being clear that it can only be one or the other, is the foundation for part of my philosophical reasons for believing in inerrancy. But that I’ll save for another post. But it basically follows the Sherlockian maxim of, “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”