May
19
The Doctrines of Biblical Inerrancy and Dual Revelation Are Nothing New
“Look carefully into the Scriptures, which are the true utterances of the Holy Spirit. Observe that nothing of an unjust or counterfeit character is written in them.” — Clement of Rome (ca. AD 35-99)
Not long ago, I finished reading Rescuing Inerrancy: A Scientific Defense by Dr. Hugh Ross. I generally try to read books by the RTB scholars in order of publication — those that I own, at least — even if I’m a few years behind. In fact, at the moment I have six or seven more RTB books sitting on my shelf unread (not counting a couple that I have yet to buy), but I had to read Rescuing Inerrancy ahead of schedule, as it were, because it addressed certain concerns I have right now.
So, I read it out of order, and I’m definitely glad I did. It should be no surprise, then, that I have decided to publish excerpts from the book in a number of posts over the next several weeks, ‘cuz I know that a lot of you enjoy this sort of thing, too. You may even have the same concerns on this subject that I do. Thus, my first such post, which I have pieced together from chapters 5 and 6 of Ross’s book….
— — —
Some late twentieth- and twenty-first-century Christian scholars claim that belief in dual revelation and biblical inerrancy represent merely recent doctrinal developments. Their point is that interest in such subjects rarely shows up in writings from the first fifteen to eighteen centuries of church history. In The Authority and Interpretation of the Bible, theologians Jack Rogers and Donald McKim argue that the early church fathers, the medieval scholars, and the Reformation leaders cannot be cited as a source of the twentieth-century belief in biblical inerrancy.
Ironically, the absence of historical references to such terms as “dual revelation,” “biblical inerrancy,” and “concordance” may have a more reasonable and nearly opposite explanation. Their absence in early writings more likely results from the largely unquestioned acceptance of the beliefs these terms represent — previously known by different words than those we use today. After all, the challenges to these beliefs arose relatively recently, toward the beginning of the nineteenth century, and almost exclusively in Europe.
One measure of how seriously the earliest church leaders took the subjects of creation, dual revelation, and biblical inspiration and inerrancy is the quantity of their writings on these subjects. The leaders who published works prior to the crafting and dissemination of the Nicene Creed (AD 325) produced nearly a thousand still surviving pages on the meaning of Genesis 1 alone. Although they expressed a wide range of interpretations of the creation events described, they were unanimous in asserting that Genesis 1 was a factual account of the historical creation of the universe, Earth, and life on Earth…. [Ross goes on to give relevant quotes from Tertullian, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, et al.]
Christian scholars who wrote on theology from the time of the Council of Nicaea (AD 325) until AD 600 wrote even more on Genesis 1 than did their predecessors…. In his Homilies on the Hexaemeron (six days of creation), Basil (ca. AD 330-379) displayed a strong commitment to dual revelation in that he applied everything he knew from the natural realm, much of it from biology and Greek cosmology, in his defense of Genesis 1. In his 280-page homily on Genesis 1-4, Ambrose (ca. AD 339-397) commented extensively on the integration of the first chapter with observed facts about plants, trees, insects, birds, meteorology, and human physiology and anatomy….
Augustine (AD 354-430) applied a careful integration of Genesis 1 with natural philosophy (science) to discern that Earth is spherical, not flat, and that the Sun illuminates the Moon’s surface…. Writing on biblical inerrancy, Augustine affirmed and expanded upon an earlier statement by Athanasius (ca. AD 293-373), who declared that the entirety of all the books of the Bible is “divinely inspired Scripture.” In a lengthy letter to Jerome (ca. AD 345 – ca. 420), Augustine wrote, “I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture. Of these alone do I most firmly believe that their authors were completely free from error.” …
Arguably the best-known and most prolific medieval proponent of dual revelation and biblical inerrancy would be Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274). His life’s work, including his 765,000-word Summa Theologica and many other writings, focused heavily on evidential apologetics (the systematic, evidence-based defense of one’s beliefs). He strongly encouraged the scientific study of the natural realm, confident that it would increasingly demonstrate complete harmony between the Bible and the record of nature.
Aquinas saw the Bible as authoritative and truthful in everything it communicated. He wrote, “It is plain that nothing false can ever underlie the literal sense of Holy Writ.” He added, “It is unlawful to hold that any false assertion is contained either in the Gospel or in any canonical Scripture, or that the writers thereof have told untruths.” In his commentary on John, he stated, “Those who wrote the canonical scriptures, such as the evangelists and apostles and the like, so constantly and firmly affirm this truth that it cannot be doubted.” …
The Christian doctrine that the Creator God is revealed in the pages of Scripture and in the realm of nature would provide rich soil for the flourishing of science during the Reformation era (sixteenth and seventeenth centuries). One of the great motivators behind in-depth investigation of nature was the Christian belief that ongoing scientific study would increasingly reveal the beauty, wisdom, and wonder of God as Creator of all….
Martin Luther (1483-1546) argued for the ultimate authority of God’s written Word, the Bible, above any contrary church teachings, traditions, and practices. Concerning biblical truthfulness, he wrote, “The Scriptures cannot err,” … “I believe that in the Scriptures the God of truth speaks.” …
John Calvin (1509-1564) argued more emphatically than anyone of his era for the total reliability of the Bible. In his words, “We owe to the Scripture the same reverence as we owe to God; since it has its only source in Him alone, and has nothing of human origin mixed with it.”… Calvin leaves no doubt that he considered inerrancy as a requisite of biblical authority. He also implied that it would be slothful for a Christian not to study both theology and science and integrate God’s truth revealed in both….
Robert Boyle (1627-1691), widely regarded as the founder of modern chemistry and a pioneer in the modern experimental scientific method, also wrote on Christian theology — seven books, in fact. In The Excellence of Theology, Compared with Natural Philosophy, he affirmed that because “the two great books — of nature and of Scripture — have the same author, the study of the latter does not at all hinder an inquisitive man’s delight in the study of the former.” …
The claim by some of today’s prominent theologians that the doctrines of dual revelation and biblical inerrancy are recent developments contradicts a comprehensive survey of church history. Neither can it be said that only certain fringe elements of the Christian church held these views in past centuries or that these beliefs have been subject to changing definitions throughout the church age. As Norman Geisler wrote in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, “Inerrancy was indeed believed by Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Luther, and virtually all the great theologians in the history of the Church till modern times.”
[In chapter 6, Ross quotes or references many biblical references — including but not limited to several Psalms, Job, Romans 1, Titus 1 — that attest to an understanding of dual revelation and inerrancy of God’s Word.]
The apostle Peter makes statements recorded in the New Testament that confirm the truthfulness of Old Testament writings. He says that “no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20-21). This passage alone seems sufficient to rule out various modern-day theologians’ claims of “accommodation.”
Peter Enns and Kenton Sparks dismiss defenses of dual revelation and biblical inerrancy that rely on the citing of biblical proof texts. What they and their theologian allies overlook is that the biblical case for dual revelation and biblical inerrancy is not merely founded on a few isolated, out-of-context passages. The Bible repeatedly asserts both doctrines in a variety of contexts, and none of its passages contravenes them.
[Ross then examines a few historical creeds and confessions, in particular the Belgic Confession and the Westminster Confession of Faith. For a brief primer on “dual revelation”, check out my article: “The ‘Two-Books Doctrine’ and the Belgic Confession”.]
— — —
I’m not sure what I can add to that. Ross seems to have put paid to the claims made by Rogers & McKim, Enns & Sparks, et al., regarding the supposedly recent doctrinal developments about dual revelation and biblical inerrancy. (I’m sure they have responses, though.) My follow-up posts will address related issues and claims, so be sure to keep an eye out for those posts.
