Mark Thompson Inerrancy Analysis

2354 Words5 Pages

Introduction
This paper is a reflective discussion of Mark Thompson’s view of inerrancy. What is inerrancy? It is the belief that the Bible in its original or current state is free from any error or untruths. This doctrine is highly foundational in Evangelical Christianity. Mark Thompson is one of the many defenders of this position on inerrancy. Thompson (2012:72) makes this clear when he writes “[some Christians] abandoned the faith as they choose between a perfect text and a indisputable evidence of error in Scripture”. This dogma is undergirded by the assumption that the Bible is authoritative because it is undeniably God’s true Word, and therefore, it is authoritative for Christian life. Sadly, however, this is not held by many Christians …show more content…

Barth’s view on autographs can be summarized as follows: the prophets and the apostles were capable of errors in spoken and written word. Barth maintained this quite strongly, so much so, that if one was to push this to its logical conclusion; in effect Barth heavily emphasizes man’s imperfections to the point that it almost outweighs God’s infallibility. This is to make it appear that Scripture almost is placed within the realm of man’s efforts or failures, rather than placing the final product of Scripture squarely in the economy of the Lord. To this end Thompson quotes R.C. Sproul when Sproul posits that “The infallibility of Scripture does not rest on the infallibility of human writers but on the integrity of God” (Thompson, 2012:84). Biblical data to support this is not hard to find, one could only turn to a passage such as 2 Peter 1: 20-21 (as seen in the above point), which proves that both human authors as fallen as they might be, and God as the ultimate author are both irrefutably involved in the final product of Scripture, to bring about God’s good purposes (Thompson, 2012: 88-89). This is also in-line with William Lane Graig’s treatment of 2 Peter 1:21 as the foundational text for …show more content…

They did not consider that the whole bible in all its parts was inspired. Rather they believed in partial inspiration. This is to say that some parts of the bible are inspired and others are erroneous. Thompson (2012:74) strongly disagrees with this kind of thinking when he cites Warfield to affirm that the whole bible in all its parts is inspired; Warfield makes it clear that the reason for this is the fact that his confidence for believing this can be summed up in the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ and his Apostles, that gave us a truthful and trustworthy compilation of the Scriptures. For both Christ and His apostle had a high regard for the Scriptures, and thought it to be good for teaching righteousness (2 Tim. 3:16-17)

Open Document