Augustine of Hippo: “If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood.”

I read with interest the recent column by Richard Burnett of Erskine Theological Seminary suggesting that the current conflict over Erskine is “about a new litmus test” requiring faculty to affirm that the Bible is “inerrant in the original manuscripts.”

Regrettably, Burnett’s piece obscures rather than clarifies the issues at stake for the ARP Church and Erskine. Missing is any recognition that the recent decisive action by the General Synod is but the latest chapter in almost four decades of effort by the Synod to bring Erskine, the educational ministry of the ARP Church, into line with the Church’s philosophy of Christian higher education.

That being said, Burnett’s article exhibits two persistent misunderstandings about inerrancy. First, he contends that the doctrine of “inerrancy” in the “original manuscripts” is a novelty of recent vintage. Such arguments were all the rage in the 1970s, but careful historians now recognize that inerrancy language can be traced back to the early and medieval church periods.

In other words, what may be called the “doctrine of inerrancy” is simply what Christians have historically believed. Until the secularizing influences of the Enlightenment infiltrated the churches, Scripture was viewed as fully authoritative in all that it teaches, and the consensus was that Christians should not speak of Scripture as fallible or erroneous.

William B. Evans is the Younts Professor of Bible and Religion at Erskine College, where he has taught since 1993. He is a former moderator of the General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church. He can be reached at [email protected]