http://uga.ruf.org/site_content/attachments/0000/0640/Inerrancy_of_Scripture_Vanhoozer.pdf

But back to Lindsell…he argues in that book (given his unbelievably specific and narrow view of inerrancy) that Peter denied Jesus either 6 or 9 times on the final night, since the details of the parallel passages differ a bit in the various gospels (and thus must be referring to different events, given his strict view of inerrancy). This is certainly not how the best evangelicals have understood the inspiration of Scripture!

BTW, I think the more standard argument for inerrancy within these camps runs more like this:

1.) God cannot lie/always speaks truth in His words or communication
2.) The Bible is God’s Word/communication
3.) Therefore, the Bible cannot lie and must always speak the truth (i.e. be inerrant)

I think there are holes even in this (for instance, “inerrancy” still needs to be defined, and it completely leaves out the human element of Scripture), but it does get a little closer to the truth, I think, and actually reflects how the biblical writers themselves think about the matter (i.e. the nature of God’s written word is consistently attached to the nature of His character in many passages).

I don’t know. The argument I presented is reproduced exactly from Harold Lindsell’s widely circulated and revered evangelical book The Battle for the Bible, and he understands it (as far as I can tell) as THE main argument for his position. I’m sure there are many arguments for the infallibility of /at least some/ of Scripture, but I can’t think of any other arguments for the infallibility of /all/ of Scripture except for the dubious “slippery slope” argument.

And yes, whatever in Scripture is revealed by God in order to accomplish His redemptive plan (that it, whatever can be seen to be the heart of the message of the scriptures) is going to be inerrant.

Assuming you agree, my question would be: would you see the “inspiredness” of what God reveals “in order to accomplish his redemptive plan” as inerrant, perfect, infallible? I think that would be the historically mainstream and orthodox view of most of the church; where modern day conservative inerrantists often go wrong is in trying to expand this to scientific and philosophical areas the biblical writers were completely uninterested in and had no intention of speaking to.

BTW,along these lines, I’ve been very helped by this essay by the Dutch theologian Herman Ridderbos on the nature of Scripture’s authority & inspiration:

http://www.the-highway.com/scripture_Ridderbos.html