What do you think?
Rate this book
The Importance of Inerrancy
The erosion of scriptural authority and the importance of inerrancy.
88 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2013
2 people are currently reading
12 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
October 29, 2014
I saw the book "The Importance of Inerrancy" on the dining room table of a pastor friend of mine. I asked him if he had read it yet, and he said he hadn't, and lent to me, saying he wouldn't get to it by the time we met again.
The book is not long at all, a mere 80 pages. The chapters are broken up in an odd fashion, but that didn't really affect my read of it one way or the other. What I got from it though was a bit of a mixed bag of feelings.
I myself am a pastor in the Free Methodist Church, but spent much of my life in the Church of the Nazarene, a church which gets specific attention in these 80 pages.
I can wholeheartedly agree with Vic Reasoner that inerrancy of scripture is a vital element to our faith and our understanding of scripture. But I wonder if he hasn't gone a bit far with some of his assertions.
What I mean by that is, he speaks of John Wesley as being fundamentally a believer in inerrancy (though Wesley himself used the term infallibility, though this may be just semantics), and that issues of errors in scripture have risen largely due to modern higher criticisms of scripture. He ignores the affects of the Enlightenment, that people in Wesley's day certainly would have been aware of, though this objection of mine is far from the most grievous I have. I only point that out to say I believe it would have made his point stronger, that Biblical criticism is not a new phenomenon.
But where I believe this booklet is weakest is it doesn't do an adequate job of differentiating between how historical and scientific study was/is done between Eastern and Western cultures, as well as the differences that have existed among people of different times.
I'm not bothered by the fact that the Bible does not conform to our way of viewing history or science. Inspiration came upon the Biblical writers over the course of several centuries, in various places, and the writing reflects that while simultaneously telling us God's story. The Bible is not primarily a history or a science text, but when it speaks of science and history, it reflects the understanding of the writers, and there's nothing wrong with or inaccurate about that. I am not comfortable in saying that we have history or science completely figured out given our modern understanding.
But I do agree with Reasoner that we should see the Bible as more than just being adequate for conveying what we must know of salvation. So for that I can commend him. I just think he gives too much credit to modern methods.
The book is not long at all, a mere 80 pages. The chapters are broken up in an odd fashion, but that didn't really affect my read of it one way or the other. What I got from it though was a bit of a mixed bag of feelings.
I myself am a pastor in the Free Methodist Church, but spent much of my life in the Church of the Nazarene, a church which gets specific attention in these 80 pages.
I can wholeheartedly agree with Vic Reasoner that inerrancy of scripture is a vital element to our faith and our understanding of scripture. But I wonder if he hasn't gone a bit far with some of his assertions.
What I mean by that is, he speaks of John Wesley as being fundamentally a believer in inerrancy (though Wesley himself used the term infallibility, though this may be just semantics), and that issues of errors in scripture have risen largely due to modern higher criticisms of scripture. He ignores the affects of the Enlightenment, that people in Wesley's day certainly would have been aware of, though this objection of mine is far from the most grievous I have. I only point that out to say I believe it would have made his point stronger, that Biblical criticism is not a new phenomenon.
But where I believe this booklet is weakest is it doesn't do an adequate job of differentiating between how historical and scientific study was/is done between Eastern and Western cultures, as well as the differences that have existed among people of different times.
I'm not bothered by the fact that the Bible does not conform to our way of viewing history or science. Inspiration came upon the Biblical writers over the course of several centuries, in various places, and the writing reflects that while simultaneously telling us God's story. The Bible is not primarily a history or a science text, but when it speaks of science and history, it reflects the understanding of the writers, and there's nothing wrong with or inaccurate about that. I am not comfortable in saying that we have history or science completely figured out given our modern understanding.
But I do agree with Reasoner that we should see the Bible as more than just being adequate for conveying what we must know of salvation. So for that I can commend him. I just think he gives too much credit to modern methods.
July 26, 2018
The doctrine of biblical inerrancy has been under attack for many years but should the Church abandon the teaching? Dr Reasoner shows why we must hold firmly to inerrancy and why it matters. He shows that the early Methodists held to inerrancy including John Wesley.
This is an easy to read book worthy for all true disciples who do love Christ and His Word.
This is an easy to read book worthy for all true disciples who do love Christ and His Word.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews