More recently, the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI) affirmed that God is the author of all truth, and that there is harmony between general and special revelation.
Recently, however, some prominent theologians are rejecting this historic view. In fact they claim that God made accommodations for the human authors of scripture by allowing errors in science and worldviews to be included in their writing. They claim that the extent of inerrancy is strictly spiritual, like how to serve others or relating to God and his redemptive plan, but not much else. Some have even denied supernatural miracles in the Bible, claiming they are mere theological stories or have natural explanations. One formerly conservative professor, Bruce Walke, even goes so far as to say that to deny the reality of biological evolution is "spiritual death" for Christianity.
In other words, they believe that Christians have been mistaken for 2000 years about the truthfulness and reliability of the Bible. Now we get to pick and choose what parts of the Bible to believe, based on what is plausible or what fits our current understanding of science. This book strongly opposes that point of view and presents sound reasons why Christians should not abandon the historic doctrine of inerrancy.
ANE Worldview Similarities and Differences
Rescuing Inerrancy addresses the controversy over the content and genre of the creation accounts in the Bible. It discusses whether or not it is myth, legend, religious stories, mytho-history, or historical narrative. The claim is that it was never intended to be actual history, and had no concern about material origins, but rather just theological or political. The scriptural author's writings were firmly grounded in the worldview and cosmogony of the time and look just like other Ancient Near East (ANE) myths. As a result, even a historical Adam and Eve are considered to be "an anachronism", and just serve as literary devices. They say that even NT people, such as Jesus and Paul, embraced and taught using these incorrect worldviews.
Hugh Ross, on the other hand, points out that these have long been considered to be in the genre of historical narrative, with poetic or figurative language included. He makes the case that the differences between ANE and biblical creation accounts are greater than their similarities. They are radically different given that the Hebrews believed in One God who
created everything and transcends his creation
is morally perfect
began a purposeful progression of history
uniquely created humans in his image
This book thoroughly documents that ANE science generally thought study of nature was important. They made observatories and supported astronomers/astrologers, discovered the spherical shape of sun, moon, earth, and even calculated the relative size and distances to sun, moon, and stars. They were far from ignorant of the natural world and they cared deeply about it, and neither was the author of the creation account.
Concordance
The Church has long held the doctrine of harmony between Scripture and facts of nature. Only recently has there been significant redefinition, disregard, or denial of concordance. It appears that this is mainly an overreaction to scientific discoveries and a wish to avoid any possible conflict with naturalistic models. Because they claim that science is in constant flux, it is wrong to find concordance with scripture that could be embarrassing later on. This book disagrees with this perspective, and points out that science is better viewed as a series of refinements, as opposed to complete overthrows of knowledge.
Ross takes a different approach, stating that we can view faith and science as either enemies, strangers, or partners. He believes that partnership is a better way forward, since that enables discovery and keeps dialogue open between men of science and men of strong religious conviction. We should anticipate that science can inform theology, and theology to inform science. We can be free to discern between what is debatable and what is firmly established, without being hostile. In fact, extreme concordance favoring either the scripture or science can be divisive, and a complete disconnect between the two is damaging.
Moderate concordism recognizes that no one can claim to have a perfect, unbiased interpretation of what the Bible and nature teaches. It allows respectful dialogue, prevents over- under-interpretation of various passages with respect to science, and makes allowance for the revision of interpretations on both sides.
As an example, the Day Age View, is presented as one compatible view of concordance. This model has been extensively studied and promoted by the organization Hugh Ross founded, Reasons to Believe (RTB). He acknowledges that this is not the only view, and that like any model has strengths and weaknesses. But this model does allow a historical reading of scripture and concordance with natural science, especially when the critical frame of reference in Genesis 1 is realized. Their testable model approach allows debate and consideration by both religious and scientific audiences.
A Historical Adam and Eve
In this book, the author claims that the historical Adam and Eve are too important to Christian theology to simply discard based on the objections to concordism. It is really impossible to cast the claims of Moses, Jesus, and Paul as just reflections of their worldview, and still hold to any reasonable view of the Bible as being the inspired, authoritative Word of God.
He lists some of the arguments against the historical Adam and Eve, and for a literary version, that is not historically true. They claim genomics and population dynamics make it implausible under evolutionary models for mankind to have come from a single pair. Rather than an original pair, there were thousands of individuals and God just chose representatives, and so were not specially created by God. Some may believe that God miraculously gave them spiritual awareness, while others even deny that, holding to a strictly evolutionary process that God drove behind the scenes. But if we are not descended from one man and one woman, it is hard to reconcile this with Bible genealogies and other teachings.
Ross argues that it raises too many problems with existing Christian theology. What does it even mean that God created man "In his image"? Does this mean that God gave this likeness and spiritual nature to a non-human hominid that later evolved? How was it transmitted to the rest of the population? Are humans truly exceptional or unique in contrast to other hominids? What implications does this have for salvation, the atonement, original sin, and more?
In Conclusion
This is an important book for the modern church which has already lost believers, compromised doctrines, and appears irrelevant to many. It is thought provoking and a great "modest defense" of Biblical Inerrancy. Christianity does not need to discard long-held doctrines in the face of recent theological accommodations of modern scientific interpretations. Taking a modest concordist approach will lead to better integration between God's two books of revelation, while reducing the heat and conflict. Christians don't have to fear that they will suddenly find that science conclusively has shown their faith to be disproved, nor does the scientist need to deny his faith while pursuing his studies of nature.
