I like this statement from the Horton article I linked earlier
Christianity is not true because it rests on an inspired and inerrant text, but vice versa. In fact, the redemption to which Scripture testifies and that it communicates would “be true and divine…even if God had not been pleased to give us, in addition to his revelation of saving truth, an infallible record of that revelation absolutely errorless, by means of inspiration.”
I think he is building up to his conclusion that “unerring”. And “inerrency” have become somewhat useless as descriptors due to appropriation by some to indicate specific tribal boundaries, though that may have not been developed as well in this piece as he speaks of it elsewhere.
By that same token so has infallibility. So why not just come out and say it?
Hint… tribal boundaries 
It is a mess, and probably worse than when he wrote it in 2011, but it does go somewhat to Christy’s point earlier as to how inerrancy today is not the same as used by Warfield in the article you kindly posted.
It is a total mess, and probably will get much worse before it gets better. This is one reason why I still hold to a high view of Scripture and apreciate people like Tremper Longman, Craig Keener, and Wendy Widder, who could be closer to Olson than Horton. Nevertheless, I still appreciate how she wrestles with the historicity of Daniel.
Speaking of Olson and Horton…
Like other titles in the Counterpoints collection, this volume gives those interested in theology the tools they need to draw informed conclusions on debated issues by showcasing the range of positions in a way that helps readers understand the perspectives–especially where and why they diverge.
Each essay in Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy considers:
Five Views on Biblical Inerrancy serves not only as a single-volume resource for surveying the current debate, but also as a catalyst both for understanding and advancing the conversation further. Contributors include Al Mohler, Kevin Vanhoozer, Michael Bird, Peter Enns, and John Franke.
Good book. It has been a while since I read it, but remember it as raising my awareness of different perspectives.
Um, Ok, Augustine and Luther were not discussing the specific definition of inerrancy formulated in Chicago in 1978.
Touché!
Now can we both simply agree that Augustine and Luther were indeed proponents of Biblical inerrancy?
I’m curious to see how a preference for the term “infallible” is handled in the book
Yes! I’m curious then how you see Christ and his apostles acting on thiis. What do you think Christ was teaching when he reacted to the Pharisees saying: “Mercy I desire, and not sacrifice.”? (Matt 9:13) Or on a related note, had you been at the council of Acts 15 would you have urged them to come to a different conclusion than they did regarding what should be required of new converts? Because their vastly reduced set of requirements (where they pared the law down to just a few remaining important things) is quite a contrast with what Jesus teaches (Matt 5:18-20) that not the smallest letter of the law shall disappear, and whoever breaks even the least bit of it will be called least in the kingdom of heaven. How do you square that with what Paul teaches (say, in Gal 3) where he doesn’t mince words in saying what he thinks of those who want the new faith to be centered on the Torah - where he speaks of Torah being our guardian to lead us to Messiah, so that we might be made right based on trusting instead. (Gal 3:24). Or later in verse 21: "Tell me, you who want to be under Torah, don’t you understand the Torah? He goes on to liken it to being the son of the slave woman. Are we to be sons of the slave woman or the free woman (representing the promise)? Or in 1 Corinthians 3:6: “He also made us servants of a new covenant - not of the letter, but of the Ruach (Spirit). For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.” It is this same Spirit that we’re told was operative when the council of Acts 15 reached the conclusions it did.
How do you put all that together, Adam?
There it is from the pen of Michael Bird,
What best represents the international view, in my opinion, is a commitment to the infallibility and authority of Scripture, but not necessarily a doctrine of Scripture conceived in the specific terms of the American inerrancy tradition as represented in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
No we can’t agree, because being a “proponent of biblical inerrancy” has a meaning in 2024 that goes beyond simply asserting the Bible is free from error. It’s a whole construct. A very modern one.
Goes beyond saying the Bible is free from error?
The issue is how we say it is free from error. Some of us are still trying to read the text as if it is entirely true.
Michael Bird again,
But do not think I have come therefore to preach an errant or erroneous Bible, megenoito (may it never be!). Let the record show that in other writings, I have defended the historicity of the virgin conception and Jesus’ bodily resurrection from the dead.
I don’t for a second think he is being disingenuous
Sorry, who is Michael Bird?
Richard
A person who contributed to the 5 Views on Biblical Inerrancy book
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.
