Apologetics and theology should be the closest of disciplines. One might even argue, given that theology is the “queen of the sciences,” apologetics should rightly serve under that theological rule. For this reason, scholarship has given much attention to the relationship between these two disciplines. A plethora of books have been written on apologetic methodology, which often gives specific attention to theological influences. For example, evidentialist/classical apologists and presuppositionalists often disagree on the common epistemic grounding that may exist between believers and non-believers, which stems from their theological views concerning the noetic effects of sin.
As Christians we should agree that our theological beliefs have an immediate effect on our lives. Therefore, apologetics is clearly a theological enterprise. One cannot fully practice apologetics without theology. Consequently, we should all give more attention to how our theological beliefs inform our apologetics.
Even so, not all apologists agree on importance and primacy of theology—at least in practice. Some seem to relegate “theological issues” to the periphery when they engage in apologetics. This approach, or what we might call “apologetic theology,” comes in both liberal and conservative forms.[1] A liberal approach argues that one’s theology is determined by his or her apologetic case. Here, the apologetic tail wags the theological dog. Myron Penner notes that this approach, which he refers to as “liberal apologetic positivism,” “tends toward a reductionism that shrinks the tenets of Christian faith in accordance with that which is apologetically verifiable. . . . It is as if Christians have a moral duty to believe only those aspects of Christian doctrine that have a sufficient apologetic basis.”[2] A conservative approach is exemplified by apologists who, though they hold to historically orthodox beliefs, betray their theological beliefs by their practice. “Conservative” apologists make their theological beliefs about the Bible ancillary when they state they can “prove Jesus of Christianity without using the Bible.”[3] In my opinion, this approach is often nothing more than apologetic showmanship but also betrays the very foundation upon which evangelicals seek to do apologetics.
Because of the variety of approaches on this topic, we will examine the doctrine of inerrancy to illustrate the right relationship between theology and apologetics. By doing so we may ask two questions. First, “Is inerrancy important to apologetics?” Second, related and more broadly, “Is theology important to apologetics?”
Inerrancy Defined
My concern about inerrancy within the apologetic-theology relationship stems from the practice of “apologetic theology” mentioned above. I am concerned that we betray our most foundational epistemic beliefs as apologists when we are not clear about inerrancy. For liberal apologetic theologians, one wonders what they are actually defending. They might throw inerrancy in the theological dustpan because they find it hard to defend. Even for “conservative” apologists, the unbeliever may accuse them of deception if they are not transparent about their most fundamental theological beliefs. For this reason, I think evaluating the apologetic and theological relationship regarding inerrancy can provide a helpful test case.
Inerrancy can be confusing because of many misconceptions concerning the doctrine. Thankfully, Paul Feinberg offered a succinct definition of inerrancy: “Inerrancy means that when all facts are known, the Scriptures in their original autographs and properly interpreted will be shown to be wholly true in everything that they affirm, whether that has to do with doctrine or morality or with social, physical, or life sciences.”[4] Feinberg rightly noted that the evangelical position is that the original autographs are inerrant. Evangelical Christians do not argue that English translations are inerrant in and of themselves—though they are often faithful renderings of available manuscripts.
Although the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy is sometimes criticized, it is clear on many of these issues. For example, regarding inerrancy, inspiration, and the original autographs, and consistent with Feinberg’s definition, the Chicago Statement, in Article X, reads,
We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original. We deny that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.[5]
Evangelical Christians argue that our translations and manuscripts are inerrant only inasmuch as they “faithfully represent the original.” This position does not cause us concern. Instead, we trust faithful scribal practices and robust Biblical interpretation to help us discover God’s truth. Inerrancy is a crucial doctrine for the Christian life. Rightly defined, inerrancy tells us that we can know God’s truth. Thus, inerrancy is foundational for Christian apologists.
The Apologetic Importance of Inerrancy
The doctrine of inerrancy is important apologetically for at least two reasons. First, it is important as an epistemic foundation for apologists. Apologists who are seeking to defend the truth need a sure foundation on which to build and from which to reason. Our own reason or sense perception is not enough. For those apologists who are seeking to practice apologetics without any reference to the inerrant Word of God, they are building their apologetic houses upon the sand.
In 1982, Francis Schaeffer gave a lecture at the Congress for the Bible in San Diego, California, in which he admonished those in attendance towards the work of the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy. The lecture is now an appendix in The Church at the End of the Twentieth Century, entitled “What Difference Does Inerrancy Make?” He stated his own clear convictions about Biblical inerrancy in that lecture. Notably, he argued about the importance of a sure foundation by which apologists can offer real answers to non-believers.
Unless the Bible is without error, not only when it speaks of salvation matters, but also when it speaks of history and the cosmos, we have no foundation for answering questions concerning the existence of the universe and its form and the uniqueness of man. Nor do we have any moral absolutes, or certainty of salvation, and the next generation of Christians will have nothing on which to stand.[6]
Schaeffer argued, rightly, that without inerrancy, not only does the foundation crumble, but also any hope of ascertaining moral absolutes or the way to salvation is lost.
Second, the doctrine of inerrancy is important in relation to our doctrine of God. What we believe about God’s special revelation in the Christian Scripture says something about God Himself. If we believe God Himself is without error, and we believe that the Bible is God’s Word, then we must believe that it too is without error. Thus, working backwards, to deny inerrancy is to say something about the nature of God and the nature of how He reveals truth. If the Bible contains errors, then neither the theologian nor the apologist can be sure we have real truth about the God within those pages.[7]
Conclusion
Is inerrancy important to apologetics? Absolutely. It not only provides the necessary foundation by which to do evangelical apologetics but also rightly reflects the truths we believe about God Himself. More broadly, is theology important to apologetics? Though we have looked only at one doctrine in this article, the answer again is, “Yes.” One cannot do adequate apologetics without reflecting on the truth of God. Thus, for the budding apologist out there wondering whether to invest more time into theological education, I heartily recommend giving ample attention to the “deep things of God” (1 Corinthians, 2:10, ESV). By doing so, you will become more theologically aware, and you will become a more competent and better apologist.
[1] Penner, writes, “This [approach] is true for both sides of the so-called liberal/conservative divide in Christian theology, though it is manifested differently for each. . . . [T]he only substantial difference between the two sides concerns how much orthodox doctrine they think is rationally supportable.” Myron Bradley Penner, The End of Apologetics: Christian Witness in a Postmodern Context (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2013), 45.
[2] Penner, The End of Apologetics, 45.
[3] For example, see J. Warner Wallace and Frank Turek, “Proving Jesus Without the Bible,” YouTube, August 13, 2021, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJZdAmxZH30.
[4] Paul D. Feinberg, “The Meaning of Inerrancy,” in Inerrancy, ed. Norman L. Geisler (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 1980), 295.
[5] International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy,” 5, https://library.dts.edu/Pages/TL/Special/ICBI_1.pdf.
[6] Francis A. Schaeffer, The Church at the End of the Twentieth Century,in The Complete Works of Francis A. Schaeffer, 5 vols. (Westchester, IL: Crossway, 1985), 4:103.
[7] Some may point to C. S. Lewis as one who did not hold to inerrancy. Lewis was a phenomenal apologist, by whom I have been personally influenced. Yet, within his own framework, I think it is fair to argue that Lewis was inconsistent or that his view was insufficient. He did not believe in an inerrant Scripture, and thus his claims about God do not have a sure foundation to build upon. This observation does not make his claims about God wrong, per se, but it does mean he did so without a sufficient basis.
Recent Comments