Rescuing Inerrancy: A Scientific Defense

By Hugh Ross

Theologians, pastors, and churchgoers face a growing crisis. A mounting number of evangelical scholars claim new scientific findings force us to consider an overhaul of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy.

In Rescuing Inerrancy, astrophysicist Hugh Ross counters these challenges with a well-reasoned defense. Ross's survey of the latest scientific evidence will equip you to defend the historical view of biblical inerrancy and bolster confidence that the testimonies of Scripture and nature will always agree.

 

"Hugh Ross always causes me to think new thoughts, consider new models, and walk roads I haven't walked before. This book is no exception. If you affirm biblical inerrancy properly understood (and I do), you will find this book a powerful tool in the defense of that position. It's different, brilliant, and profound. Rescuing Inerrancy is a reminder of the greatness of the God we worship and the clarity and trustworthiness of the truth he has so carefully revealed to his people. Read it and give it to everyone you know who is uncertain on the inerrant nature of Scripture."

—Steve Brown

Seminary professor, broadcaster, and author of

Laughter and Lament: The Radical Freedom of Joy and Sorrow

 

Approximate Length: 272 pages

• Language: English
• Publisher: RTB Press
• Release date: Feb 3, 2025
• ISBN: 9798227089472

Hugh Ross

Hugh Ross (PhD, University of Toronto) is founder and president of international and interdenominational Reasons To Believe ( www.reasons.org). He is the author of many books, including The Creator and the Cosmos, More Than a Theory, and Why the Universe Is the Way It Is. An astronomer, Ross has addressed students and faculty on over 300 campuses in the United States and abroad on a wide variety of science-faith topics. From science conferences to churches to government labs, Ross presents powerful evidence for a purpose-filled universe. He lives in the Los Angeles area.

Book preview

Chapter 1 – Surprising Theological Developments

This book responds to a growing crisis among conservative evangelical theologians and pastors—the abandonment or radical revision of the doctrines of dual revelation and biblical inerrancy. The push to abandon or radically revise the biblical doctrine of revelation has gained momentum in recent years. The long-standing conviction that the facts of nature, including human and natural history, do now and always will align with biblical revelation has been pushed aside as antiquated and no longer significant—or even possible. This seismic doctrinal shift among theologians and pastors has already impacted a large segment of the Christian community. According to a survey conducted in 2020 by George Barna, director of research at the Cultural Research Center at Arizona Christian University, American Christians are undergoing a post-Christian Reformation. ​¹ A majority of adults aligned with evangelical churches are rejecting once-foundational teachings. More than a quarter deny that the Bible is the Word of God, that it is trustworthy and reliable. ​² More than half reject the notion that there are absolute moral truths that apply to everyone, all the time. ​³ Three quarters reject the belief that people are not basically good, that we all are sinners in need of redemption. ​⁴

While one might expect the erosion of these foundational doctrines to come from outside the faith community, it has come—with stunning effect— from inside, from theologians widely considered conservative in their view of the Bible. So why would a scientist take on the challenge of responding to this theological tsunami? Let me offer a few reasons.

The first is that these theologians view scientific advance as necessitating a change in perspective on foundational doctrines. They have become convinced by bold proclamations that natural processes alone can and do explain the origin and entire history of Earth and Earth’s life, including humanity. What rational choice is left, they say, but to reinterpret the Bible’s creation texts and the apostle Paul’s teachings on them in his letters to the churches he founded? Second, although I’m a scientist, my primary calling in life is that of an evangelist. In my experience, evidence for the scientific and historical accuracy of the Bible serves as an essential aid in capturing the attention and interest of people who have had little, if any, exposure to Christianity and the Bible. It helps people see that the Bible and the Christian faith are worth their investigation. Jesus expressly commissioned his followers to make disciples among all the world’s people groups (Matthew 28:19). One of the most significant resources for fulfilling this commission is stripped away if the Bible—the special revelation on which our faith stands—is stripped of scientific and historical accuracy.

My own experience illustrates the point: The Holy Spirit worked through the Bible alone, apart from any human witness, to establish my faith and seal my adoption as a child of God. The Bible came into my hands through the generosity of the Gideons, who deposited a box on my school teacher’s desk and left the room without saying a word, other than to let my teacher know the Bibles inside were free for the taking. As a poor kid who loved books, I took one, of course. However, it sat on a shelf for several years because I was too busy studying the required curriculum along with my extracurricular focus on astronomy and physics to pick it up.

Ultimately, the heavens had been speaking to me so loudly about a transcendent entity of some kind as the source of the cosmos, I decided to investigate whether this source could be identified with any specificity or certainty. If you have read or heard my story, you already know where this two-year-long investigation led. As I journeyed through philosophy to mythology, and to the many texts held sacred by the world’s religions, the imaginative and often nonrational scenery held some interest and beauty and glimpses of truth, but the Bible stood apart. It proved unexpectedly unique in multiple ways.

Although written by many authors in diverse genres over several centuries, this one Holy Book held together as one unified and consistent story. What struck me as a virtual impossibility, at least in terms of the probability theory I was studying at university, was the accuracy of its claims about natural history, not to mention sociopolitical history. I asked myself how these people in the ancient Near East could have guessed with such precision what scientists only recently began to discern with the aid of advanced instruments and technology. This is not to say I understood every passage and did not encounter any mysteries or difficult-to-grasp concepts, but the same was (and is) true of my studies in astrophysics and other science disciplines. Our gaps in comprehension are the drivers of virtually all ongoing study in theology, science, technology, history, and every other subject yet identified by humans. However, what I did find appeared more than sufficient to warrant the transfer of my trust to the Being whose written revelation matched what the heavens and Earth declared. Please do not assume that I consider my approach—and response—to Scripture as the only one or even the best one. What disturbs me most deeply in the current discussion and debate is the tendency toward either-or thinking. The idea that readers must choose either the Bible’s scientific-historical veracity or its poetic beauty, mythical scope, and spiritual revelation lies at the very core of unnecessary disunity. Such an idea represents to me the acceptance of a diminished view of our transcendent God. I wish I could adequately describe the power and precision required to create even one quantum particle, one living cell, or one tiny tendril of the cosmic web. If I could, perhaps more people would understand why it seems entirely plausible that God revealed Truth (with a capital T) in the words of a unique book that wholly aligns with the unfolding facts of the physical realm in which we reside.

For me to sit on the sidelines of this either-or controversy over concordance, the belief that the Bible is reliable in all it reveals (also referred to as dual revelation and biblical inerrancy) would be tantamount to a betrayal of the God whose glory is my aim, the God who is worthy of worship. By assuring my fellow Christians—including scholars who lead seminaries, train pastors, and influence congregations around the world—that science is an ally and not an enemy where the accuracy and authority of the Bible are concerned, I hope to embolden others to join me in presenting an effective exegetical and theological defense of our faith.

Indeed, others have joined me and added their rich insights to make an even stronger case for biblical inerrancy. Many participated in a workshop with me in June of 2022 and contributed significantly to the book you now read. However, what I have written is not just for theologians and scientists. The questions, confusion, and erosion of confidence regarding inerrancy emerge in churches, Bible study groups, book clubs, coffee shop dialogues, and personal contemplation, as well as in interactions with seekers and skeptics. My hope and prayer is that this book ignites in each reader a new (or renewed) passion to plumb the depths of God’s self-disclosure in all its magnificent forms.

Chapter 2 – Dual or Dueling Divine Revelation?

Anyone who has served on a jury as part of a courtroom trial or watched a legal drama unfold on the big (or small) screen understands the value of both eyewitness and expert testimony in deciding a case. When the testimonies of eyewitnesses and qualified experts agree, the verdict becomes clear. When they do not, tensions arise and a struggle ensues. Today, the truthfulness of the Bible is once again on trial, and in this case the disturbance has arisen among a group who once considered the case firmly settled: biblically conservative Christian theologians.

In this case, certain experts have stepped forward with claims of new evidence so convincing that it demands a retrial, or at the very least a revision or redefinition of the former verdict, which affirmed biblical inerrancy and concordism. These terms appear repeatedly in the pages ahead, and, in short, they refer to the factual accuracy of the biblical text in all matters it addresses—history, geography, astronomy, biology, and more, including God’s character and the plan for humanity’s redemption.

My purpose in writing is to sort through the current controversy from the perspective of someone who has for decades researched and written as an expert witness, so to speak, in the subject area from which this disruptive evidence has emerged: the physical and life sciences. What complicates this task, however, is that pure objectivity is all but impossible to come by. Many reputations seem to be at stake, including my own. For this reason, among others, I have invited multiple voices to join me in addressing the jury—that is, you, the reader. These voices, from today and the past, offer insight that can help us all move closer to settling this case with confidence.

Let us start by agreeing on some foundational issues. First, we consider the veracity of the 66 books of the Bible to be significant, both to our Christian worldview and to personal relationship with God—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Unless the truthfulness of Scripture matters to you, this book will be of little or no interest to you. Second, we affirm that God has intentionally disclosed himself to humanity in person through the incarnate Christ, as well as by two other means: through the created realm, the world of nature, and through the words of God’s chosen spokespersons—prophets, historians, poets, biographers, teachers, and more. These two means are what I refer to as dual revelation.

Christianity’s Two Expert Witnesses

As the source of all reason, logos, God has graciously provided humanity with these corroborating testimonies—the two books referred to in the Belgic Confession. Dual revelation in a Christian context is the doctrine that God has revealed himself and his personal attributes through two wholly reliable and trustworthy expressions: the book of Scripture (the Bible) and the book of nature. The Bible affirms in multiple passages that God is the personification of truth. Deception is counter to his being (see chapter 6). From a biblical perspective, given that both of these revelations come to us from God, each must be trustworthy and reliable in every way.

This observation in no way challenges the Protestant doctrine of sola Scriptura. In stating that the Bible is the only authoritative revelation from God, the framers of this doctrine understood that for God’s Word to be clearly authoritative, direct (verbal, propositional) rather than indirect communication is required. Those of us who already believe in the God of the Bible are not the only ones who benefit from seeing that both the book of Scripture and the book of nature are trustworthy and reliable. As we will examine in later chapters, each book presents an internally consistent message, further affirmation of its freedom from error or contradiction. Given that the whole of Scripture proves internally as well as externally consistent, those who do not already believe in the God of the Bible can become convinced, as I did, that this communication originated from a source beyond mere human imagination. It is worthy, even demanding, of careful study and consideration.

Pathway to Relationship

On the basis of dual revelation, God’s revelation of himself and his attributes is made available to all, including those with only limited or (as yet) no direct access to the written Word. As the apostle Paul writes in his letter to Christ’s followers in Rome, For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse (Romans 1:20). As theologian C. John Collins has explained, the original Greek text translated since the creation of the world implies that the history, extent, and other features of the physical realm serve to reveal God’s invisible qualities.​¹ Every human exposed to the book of nature is offered a pathway toward knowing and entering into a relationship with the Creator.

At this point I have opened the door to a theological debate that may distract readers from continuing to turn pages. So, allow me to offer a brief comment here. According to John 1:9, God gives light to every person. (In his first epistle, John defines this light as a combination of God’s life, love, and truth.) Anyone who embraces God’s light, with a yearning for more, will receive more, according to God’s promise.

The Current Challenge

From the birth of the church (the body of those adopted as children of God through grace, by faith) until the latter years of the twentieth century, the cornerstone tenets of at least major segments of Christianity (the conservative branches of Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox Christianity) included belief that God reveals himself to humanity in a wholly trustworthy, reliable way through nature and the written Word and that nothing humanity can discover about the world, when rightly understood, will contradict what is written in the pages of the Bible. Today, however, this belief that the two books faithfully corroborate one another is being vigorously assailed—by leaders within the church. The next two chapters briefly describe and document the main sources of controversy.

Chapter 3 – A New Challenge Arises

Throughout church history , Christ’s followers have revered the Scriptures as the true and trustworthy revelation from God. The rich history of the preservation and protection of its texts has been well documented. While for many centuries most members of the Christian community of faith had only indirect or limited access to its written message, Christianity grew to become one of the world’s great religions. Many historians attribute the rise of Western culture and the scientific age to growing familiarity with and reverence for the Bible. Until the eighteenth century, much of the Western world considered the Bible as a reliable, in some cases the final, arbiter of truth. Whenever some new discovery about the world appeared to contradict what church leaders interpreted it to say, the church leaders prevailed. Galileo and the Copernican revolution come immediately to mind. So does the spiritual impact of such stories. Since the so-called Enlightenment, inquiring minds have been prone to read and interpret the book of nature without reference to the supernatural, treating nature as the primary source of what is true and trustworthy about the physical realm, regardless of what the Bible might have to say.

By the mid-nineteenth century, the Protestant Christian community had more or less split into two segments: a liberal camp that denied both the importance and plausibility of dual revelation and biblical inerrancy and a conservative camp that firmly defended both. Further splintering occurred in both of these camps throughout the twentieth century, with the rise of innumerable denominations and sects, as well as independent congregations. (See chapter 4 for a more detailed historical background).

The twenty-first century has seen the growth of a further divide within the so-called conservative sector of Christianity. A significant number of theologians who identify as biblically conservative Christians, often referred to as evangelicals, has begun to call for a redefinition of biblical inerrancy as well as a revision of the long-established principles of biblical interpretation. What has fueled this dissension? Many among the most influential Christian leaders, from seminary professors to cultural icons, have become convinced that nothing less than a radical change in the doctrines of biblical inerrancy and dual revelation, as well as in hermeneutical (interpretive) methodology, can successfully accommodate what they view as unassailable scientific and historical findings that contradict the words of Scripture.​¹

This challenge has arisen and gained momentum a mere quarter century after the most highly regarded biblically conservative scholars from around the world came together to define and defend these core doctrines and principles. They were responding to the publication of Harold Lindsell’s book The Battle for the Bible in 1977. Lindsell’s book sounded an alarm,​² and the response to it took on unprecedented proportions. Christian leaders rallied to form the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy (ICBI), reminiscent of the Jerusalem Council described in Acts 15.

Scholars Convene

The ICBI convened three major summits: October 26–28, 1978; November 10– 13, 1982; and December 10–13, 1986, all held in Chicago. More than 300 theologians, pastors, and ministry leaders devoted hundreds of hours to dialogue, discuss, ponder, and pray over how to document clear and consistent guidelines for faithfully and rationally understanding the Word of God, all 66 books of the Bible. One of the ICBI organizers, Jay Grimstead, described the outcome of this monumental endeavor, The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, as probably the first systematically comprehensive, broadly based, scholarly, creed-like statement on the inspiration and authority of Scripture in the history of the church.​³

Each summit focused on a specific issue of controversy: the first, on clearly defining biblical inerrancy; the second, on delineating sound principles of biblical interpretation; and the third, on responding to challenges raised by the documents from the first two summits. The inerrancy statement was published on November 7, 1978. Although no longer available in print, it remains, with the entire set of ICBI documents, publicly and permanently accessible in the online archives of Dallas Theological Seminary. It presents nineteen numbered articles, each comprised of affirmation(s) and denial(s).​⁴

Five of the nineteen articles in The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy have direct relevance to the current theological clash among expert witnesses in the case for dual revelation:

Article IX

We affirm that inspiration, though not conferring omniscience, guaranteed true and trustworthy utterance on all matters of which the Biblical authors were moved to speak and write.

We deny that the finitude or fallenness of these writers, by necessity or otherwise, introduced distortion or falsehood into God’s Word.

Article XI

We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.

We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.

Article XII

We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.

We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.

Article XIII

We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.

We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.

Article XVIII

We affirm that the text of Scripture is to be interpreted by grammatico-historical exegesis, taking account of its literary forms and devices, and that Scripture is to interpret Scripture.

We deny the legitimacy of any treatment of the text or quest for sources lying behind it that leads to relativizing, dehistoricizing, or discounting its teaching, or rejecting its claims to authorship.

The current controversy over dual revelation seems especially evident in the twenty-five articles that comprise The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, published on November 13, 1982.​⁵ Nine articles relevant to dual revelation particularly stand out:

Article VIII

We affirm that the Bible contains teachings and mandates which apply to all cultural and situational contexts and other mandates which the Bible itself shows apply only to particular situations.

We deny that the distinction between the universal and particular mandates of Scripture can be determined by cultural and situational factors. We further deny that universal mandates may ever be treated as culturally or situationally relative.

Article XI

We affirm that translations of the text of Scripture can communicate knowledge of God across all temporal and cultural boundaries.

We deny that the meaning of biblical texts is so tied to the culture out of which they came that understanding of the same meaning in other cultures is impossible.

Article XIII

We affirm that awareness of the literary categories, formal and stylistic, of the various parts of Scripture is essential for proper exegesis, and hence we value genre criticism as one of the many disciplines of biblical study.

We deny that generic categories which negate historicity may rightly be imposed on biblical narratives which present themselves as factual.

Article XIV

We affirm that the biblical record of events, discourses and sayings, though presented in a variety of appropriate literary forms, corresponds to historical fact.

We deny that any event, discourse or saying reported in Scripture was invented by the biblical writers or by the traditions they incorporated.

Article XVII

We affirm the unity, harmony and consistency of Scripture and declare that it is its own best interpreter.

We deny that Scripture may be interpreted in such a way as to suggest that one passage corrects or militates against another. We deny that later writers of Scripture misinterpreted earlier passages of Scripture when quoting from or referring to them.

Article XIX

We affirm that any preunderstandings which the interpreter brings to Scripture should be in harmony with scriptural teaching and subject to correction by it.

We deny that Scripture should be required to fit alien preunderstandings, inconsistent with itself, such as naturalism, evolutionism, scientism, secular humanism, and relativism.

Article XX

We affirm that since God is the author of all truth, all truths, biblical and extrabiblical, are consistent and cohere, and that the Bible speaks truth when it touches on matters pertaining to nature, history, or anything else. We further affirm that in some cases extrabiblical data have value for clarifying what Scripture teaches, and for prompting correction of faulty interpretations.

We deny that extrabiblical views ever disprove the teaching of Scripture or hold priority over it.

Article XXI

We affirm the harmony of special with general revelation and therefore of biblical teaching with the facts of nature.

We deny that any genuine scientific facts are inconsistent with the true meaning of any passage of Scripture.

Article XXII

We affirm that Genesis 1–11 is factual, as is the rest of the book.

We deny that the teachings of Genesis 1–11 are mythical and that scientific hypotheses about earth history or the origin of humanity may be invoked to overthrow what Scripture teaches about creation.

None of these articles represent a denial of the scientific method, nor do they diminish the value and plausibility of scientific experiments and observations. The ICBI framers simply acknowledge that the content of Genesis 1–11 represents something more than myth and that the interpretive methods employed by scientists may be as subject to misuse as interpretive approaches to the biblical text are. The potential for misapplication exists both in science and in biblical hermeneutics. A contradiction between what the biblical text apparently declares and what the science apparently states represents a misunderstanding or misapplication of one or both sets of data.

A new generation of theological scholars has become convinced, however, that these articles—reflecting the historic teachings of the church, doctrines confirmed by the Reformers and embraced by the church for centuries—can no longer be defended and must be altered. Such was the message proclaimed by various presenters at the 73rd annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) in November 2021.

Belief in biblical inerrancy appears in the list of criteria for ETS membership. Nevertheless, a number of highly regarded speakers at the November 2021 ETS meeting either stated or implied the following message: twenty-first-century scientific knowledge now renders the work of the once-revered ICBI scholars naïve, anachronistic, and essentially out of touch with the emerging facts of nature.

During this same ETS meeting, theologian Wayne Grudem, author of the textbook Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine,​⁶ and a participant in the deliberations from which the Chicago Statements flowed, countered this message with a challenge of his own. He called those who filled an overflowing lecture hall to remember these words: Every generation of Christians must fight the battle for biblical inerrancy.​⁷ This book is but one response to Grudem’s call.

Atheists’ Challenges to Supernatural Revelation

The first atheist to explicitly reject the notion of dual revelation—at least in a surviving written treatise—is Titus Lucretius Carus, the Roman poet and philosopher more popularly known as Lucretius. In his 7,400-line poem, De Rerum Natura (On the Nature of Things), written circa 55 BC, Lucretius aimed to dispense with all the questions that trouble people’s minds, including the fear of death, by claiming that nature alone offers sufficient answers.​⁸ He argued, in verse, that there is no need for any gods or revelations from a supernatural source. His conclusion is echoed in the memorable words of famed astronomy and