I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (62 page)

John, who obviously knew all of the apostles, had a disciple named Polycarp (A.D. 69–155), and Polycarp had a disciple named Irenaeus (130–202). Polycarp and Irenaeus collectively quote 23 of the 27 New Testament books as if they are authentic—and in some cases they specifically say they are authentic.
¹¹
Irenaeus explicitly affirms the authorship of all four Gospels.
¹²
Furthermore, through the historian Eusebius, we know that Papias (60–120) affirmed the authorship of Matthew and Mark. And no one doubts the authorship of the major works of Paul.

While the major works of the New Testament were immediately seen as authentic by these early church fathers, most of the New Testament was accepted before A.D. 200, and all of it was officially and finally recognized as authentic by the Council of Hippo in 393. See table 14.2.
¹³

“Why did the recognition of these books take so long?” the skeptic may ask. Perhaps because Christianity was generally illegal in the Roman Empire until 313. It wasn’t as if the early church fathers could go down to the local Hilton and convene a Bible conference to examine the evidence together and come to a conclusion. They often feared for their lives in their own homes! The important point is that once all the evidence was on the table, all 27 New Testament books, and only those 27 books, were recognized as authentic.

Those 27 books comprise the only authentic record of apostolic teaching we have. As we have seen, all of those were written in the first century by eyewitnesses or by those who interviewed eyewitnesses. In other words, they meet the criteria of Jesus—they are books that are either written by the apostles or confirmed by the apostles.
¹⁴
Since there are no other authentic apostolic works known to exist—and since it’s unlikely that God would allow an authentic work to go undiscovered for so long—we can rest assured that the New Testament canon is complete.

H
OW
C
AN THE
B
IBLE
B
E
I
NERRANT
?

If Jesus confirmed that the Old Testament was the inerrant Word of God, then his promised New Testament must be part of the inerrant Word of God too. Of course. But how can this be? Aren’t there scores if not hundreds of errors in the Bible?

No. The Bible does not have errors, but it certainly has
alleged
errors or difficulties. In fact, I (Norm) and another professor at Southern Evangelical Seminary, Thomas Howe, have written a book titled
When Critics Ask,
which addresses more than 800 difficulties critics have identified in the Bible (there is also more on inerrancy in
Systematic Theology, Volume One
)
.
¹⁵
While we certainly can’t include the contents of those books in this one, here are a few points worth mentioning.

First, let’s spell out logically why the Bible can’t have errors:

1. God cannot err.

2. The Bible is the word of God.

3. Therefore, the Bible cannot err.

Since this is a valid syllogism (form of reasoning), if the premises are true, then the conclusion is true. The Bible clearly declares itself to be the Word of God, and we’ve seen the strong evidence that it is. The Bible also informs us several times that God cannot err, and we know this from general revelation as well. So the conclusion is inevitable. The Bible cannot err. If the Bible erred in anything it affirms, then God would be mistaken. But God cannot make mistakes.

So what happens when we think we’ve found an error in the Bible? Augustine had the answer. “If we are perplexed by any apparent contradiction in Scripture,” he wisely noted, “it is not allowable to say, ‘The author of this book is mistaken’; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood.”
¹⁶
In other words, it’s more likely that
we’ve
made an error than the Bible. In
When Critics
Ask,
we identify seventeen errors typically made by critics. Here is a summary of just four of them:

Assuming That Divergent Accounts Are Contradictory—
As we have seen, it’s not a contradiction if one Gospel writer says he saw one angel at the tomb and another says he saw two. Matthew doesn’t say there was
only
one. And if there were two, there certainly was (at least) one! So divergence doesn’t always mean contradiction. Instead, it often suggests genuine eyewitness testimony.

Failing to Understand the Context of the Passage—
Sometimes we may think we’ve found a contradiction in the Bible, but instead we’ve simply taken a passage out of context. An obvious example would be Psalm 14:1b, which says, “there is no God.” However, the proper context is revealed when the full verse is read:
“The fool has said in his heart,
‘There is no God.’”

Presuming That the Bible Approves of All That It Records—
Critics may site the polygamy of Solomon (1 Kings 11:3) as an example of a contradiction. Doesn’t the Bible teach monogamy, not polygamy? Of course. But God certainly does not approve of every act recorded in the Bible. It records Satan’s lies as well, but God doesn’t approve of them either. God’s standards are found in what the Bible
reveals,
not in everything it
records.
(As we have seen, instead of this being an argument that the Bible has errors, it’s actually an argument for the Bible’s historicity. The fact that the Bible records all of the sins and faults of its people suggests that it is true—no one would make up such a self-condemning story.)

Forgetting That the Bible Is a Human Book with Human
Characteristics—
Critics have been known to falsely impugn the integrity of the Bible by expecting a level of expression higher than that which is customary for a human document. However, this is illegitimate because most of the Bible was not verbally dictated but written by human authors (an exception is the Ten Commandments, which were “written with the finger of God” [Ex. 31:18]). The writers were human composers who employed their own literary styles and idiosyncrasies. They wrote historical narratives (e.g., Acts), poetry (e.g., Song of Solomon), prayers (e.g., many Psalms), prophecy (e.g., Isaiah), personal letters (e.g., 1 Timothy), theological treatises (e.g., Romans), and other types of literature. These writers speak from a
human standpoint
when they write of the sun rising or setting (Josh. 1:15). They also reveal
human thought patterns,
including memory lapses (1 Cor. 1:14-16), as well as
human emotions
(Gal. 4:14). In short, since God used the styles of about 40 authors over nearly 1,500 years to get his message across, it’s wrong to expect the level of expression to be greater than that of other human documents. However, as with Christ’s human nature, the Bible’s distinct human nature is without error.

O
BJECTIONS TO
I
NERRANCY

Critics may say, “Humans err, so the Bible must err.” But again it’s the critic who is in error. True, humans err, but humans don’t
always
err. Fallible people write books all the time that have no errors. So fallible people who are guided by the Holy Spirit certainly can write a book without any errors.

“But aren’t you just arguing in a circle,” the critic might ask, “by using the Bible to prove the Bible?” No, we’re not arguing in a circle, because we’re not starting with the assumption that the Bible is an inspired book. We’re starting with several separate documents that have proven beyond a reasonable doubt to be historically reliable. Since those documents reveal that Jesus is God, then we know his teaching on the Old Testament must be true. On several occasions, Jesus said that not only is the Old Testament the Word of God—it is also inerrant. He also promised that the rest of God’s truth (“all truth”) would come to the apostles from the Holy Spirit. The apostles then wrote the New Testament and proved their authority through miracles. Therefore, on the authority of Jesus, who is God, the New Testament is inerrant as well. That’s not arguing in a circle; it is arguing inductively, collecting evidence and following that evidence where it leads.

Critics may also charge, “But your position on inerrancy is not fal-sifiable. You will not accept an error in the Bible because you’ve decided in advance that there can’t be any!” Actually, our position
is
falsifiable, but the critics’ position is not. Let us explain.

First, because Jesus’ authority is well established by the evidence, we reasonably give the benefit of the doubt to the Bible when we come across a difficulty or question in the text. In other words, when we run across something inexplicable, we assume that we, not the infinite God, are making an error. It’s more likely that Geisler and Turek are ignorant than that the Bible is wrong.

However, that doesn’t mean we believe there’s absolutely no possibility for Bible errors. After all, there’s always a chance that our conclusions about inerrancy are wrong—for
we
are certainly not inerrant. In fact, our conclusion on inerrancy would be falsified if someone could trace a real error back to an original scroll.
¹⁷
But to this day, after nearly 2,000 years of looking, no one has found such an irreconcilable problem. (This is truly amazing when you consider that the Bible is really a collection of documents written by about 40 authors over a 1,500-year period. Where could you find such agreement on a variety of issues from 40 authors who all live today, much less over a 1,500-year period?)