Justin Taylor has been listening to the panel discussion at T4G on the topic of inerrancy. The panel passed along these book recommendations:
Simon Gathercole recommends Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposalby John D. Woodbridge, for a historical study of what the church has held through the centuries.
Mark Dever recommends Christ and the Bible by John Wenham, on Jesus’ view of Scripture.
John Piper recommends “Fundamentalism” and the Word of God by J. I. Packer.
These are good options. However, I would add a few others:
- N.B. Stonehouse and P. Woolley, eds., The Infallible Word (Philadelphia: P&R, 1946).
- J.M. Frame, Doctrine of the Word of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 2010).
- N. Geisler, ed., Inerrancy (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1980).
- J.W. Montgomery, ed., God’s Inerrant Word (Minneapolis: Bethany Fellowship, 1974)
- G.K. Beale, The Erosion of Inerrancy in Evangelicalism (Crossway, 2008)
Another one to look out for in May: Vern Poythress, Inerrancy and Worldview.
Also from Poythress is Inerrancy and the Gospels</em.
Thanks, James. Great to know of this forthcoming book. Coming from Poythress, I am sure it will be good.
Good additional recommendations, Dr. Kruger. Beale’s book greatly assisted me in dealing with Pete Enns’ work. I regard Frame’s relatively new Doctrine of the Word of God to be the best book on the doctrine of Scripture today. But the two books that really assisted me were Carson and Woodbridge’s Scripture and Truth and Hermeneutics, Authority, and Canon.
Thanks, Daniel. Yes, the two edited volumes by Carson and Woodbridge should be mentioned here. Thanks for bringing them up.
No love for Inerrancy and Hermeneutic? Granted, I no longer hold to inerrancy. But when I was an inerrantist I found many of the essays in that volume and then also V. Philips Long’s The Art of Biblical History to be the best discussions of inerrancy and interpretive issues.
Never cared for Geisler’s edited volume. Contains some very disappointing essays that exemplify evangelical misrepresenting of broader scholarship and obscurantism on “tough” issues (e.g., constantly reducing things down to “antisupernaturalistic presuppositions”). I also don’t get the fascination with Beale’s book. Aside from its symbolic value to many inerrantists as a book that critiques Enns, it doesn’t really do much but republish his angry criticisms of Enns (touches on a few other things).
Thanks, Stephen. This list was not meant to be exhaustive. So, I appreciate you mentioning Inerrancy and Hermeneutic–a fine book. Yes, Geisler’s edited volume is not perfect. But, I do think a number of the essays are helpful.
Sorry, didn’t mean to imply deficiency in your list. FWIW, though probably considered by many to stray beyond acceptable bounds, I also found Ridderbos’ essay “The Inspiration and Authority of Holy Scripture” (republished in his collection of essays, Studies in Scripture and its Authority) quite stimulating reading as an inerrantist.
Do you know anything about the plans to reconstitute the ICBI? They planning to produce a replacement or supplement to the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy? Also, if you don’t mind me pestering about something else, do you know much about The Scripture Project volumes? Have heard noise about them here and there.
Thanks, Stephen. Yes, Ridderbos’ essay is very helpful (I lean on his Redemptive History and the NT Scriptures a good bit in my new book). Yes, they are redoing the ICBI (I am serving on one of the committees). My understanding is that it will be an entirely fresh statement. As for the Scripture Project, I assume you mean the one at TEDS? I know very little about it. I think Carson plans to publish the essays/presentations in a new volume, sort of like a redo of Hermeneutics, Authority and Canon.