If the Manichees were willing to discuss the hidden meaning of these words in a spirit of reverent inquiry rather than of captious fault-finding, then they would of course not be Manichees, but as they asked it would be given them, and as they sought they would find, as they knocked it would be opened up to them. The fact is, you see, people who have a genuine religious interest in learning put far more questions about this text than the3se irreligious wretches; but the difference between them is that the former seek in order to find, while the latter are at no pains at all to do anything except not to find what they are seeking.

Augustine, On Genesis: A Refutation of the Manichees, 2.2.3.

“The great blessing of Google is its uncanny skill in finding what you’re looking for; the curse is that it so rarely finds any of those lovely odd things you’re not looking for. For that pleasure, it seems, we need books.”

Alan Jacobs, “Bran Flakes and Harmless Drudges,” in Wayfaring: Essays Pleasant and Unpleasant (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 38.

Second, there are not “a thousand” qualifications; there are only two: (1) only the original text is inerrant, and (2) only what is affirmed as true in the text is true and not anything else. The rest of the so-called “qualifications” simply address misunderstandings by noninerrantists.

 

It should have been sufficient to say simply, (1) the Bible is the Word of God. However, because some have denied the obvious, it is necessary to add another sentence, (2) the Bible is the inspired Word of God. However, when some use “inspired” in a human sense, it becomes necessary to say, (3) the Bible is the divinely inspired Word of God. But since some deny that such a book is infallibly true, it is necessary to add, (4) the Bible is the divinely inspired infallible Word of God. Then when some claim that the Bible is infallible only in intent but not in fact, it is necessary to clarify that, (5) the Bible is the divinely inspired infallible and inerrant Word of God. Even here some have argued that it is only inerrant in redemptive matters; hence it is necessary to add, (6) the Bible is the divinely inspired infallible and inerrant Word of God in all that it affirms on any topic. When someone denies the obvious, it is necessary to affirm the redundant.

Geisler, Norman L. “An Evaluation of McGowen’s View on the Inspiration of Scripture.” Bibliotheca Sacra 167, no. 665 (Jan-Mar 2010): 34-35.

In Germany, and in some parts of Great Britain and America, it requires great independence of mind and carefully maintained devoutness, in order to stand firm against—not the arguments, but—the cool assumptions, that all ‘traditional’ views of the Bible are antiquated, and that the orthodox are weak and ignorant.

J. A. B. cited in Archibald Thomas Robertson, Life and Letters of John Albert Broadus (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1910), 383.

It is true that according to Warfield and the other Princetonians the doctrine of inerrancy has to be nuanced and finessed in various ways. But then why does this, in I. Howard Marshall’s phrase, quoted by McGowan, present the danger of the death of the doctrine ‘‘by a thousand qualifications’’? If it does, then why  may  not  finely  nuanced  accounts  of,  for  example,  the  Incarnation,
designed to avoid various heretical alternatives, Nestorianism, Apollinarianism, and so forth, result in the death of the doctrine of the Incarnation? The clarification of a doctrine does not result in its death so long as a substantial doctrinal thesis remains.

Paul Helm, “B. B. Warfield’s Path to Inerrancy: An Attempt to Correct Some Serious Misunderstandings.” Westminster Theological Journal 72 (2010): 39.

Reformation Heritage books is offering a sale on Whitaker’s A Disputation on Holy Scripture. An old, but very useful book on bibliology. Highly recommended.

It’s also available for free from Google Books.

Recent years have seen a resurgence of interest in evangelical quarters regarding patristic theology. In the hands of Thomas C. Oden, this has led to a resurgence of interest both in patristic biblical commentary and devotion, placed, one might add, in the service of an evangelicalism with a simple, ecumenical aesthetic which bears comparison, say, with the mere Christianity that has been such a part of the evangelical heritage.  Oden’s work is a treasure trove of theology; but the tendency of the project overall to relativize that which comes later, not least the great Protestant truths of justification by grace through faith, and personal assurance of God’s favor, render the overall project, in my opinion, less than Protestant. In the hands of others—most notably the recent work of Craig Allert—the patristic testimony has been placed in the service of contemporary critiques of established evangelical positions, such (in the case of Allert) as that on the inspiration and authority of scripture.  Of the two movements, that symbolized by the life and work of Oden is arguably constructive and helpful even to those, like myself, who wish to maintain a more elaborate doctrinal confession; the latter is rather an iconoclastic phenomenon, less easy to assimilate to orthodox, creedal Protestantism.
I would suggest that sound orthodox theology of today, however, can find a third way to do theology which both respects the insights of patristic theology while yet avoiding both the tendency to downplay later confessional developments and the desire to set the ancient church against the modern. It is that represented by the approach of such as Owen in the seventeenth century. Owen had an acute sense of the fact that there are a limitations to patristic theology, yet his Protestantism, far from making him dismissive of patristic theology, requires that he take patristic writers seriously. A commitment to scriptural perspicuity means that he examines in detail the history of exegesis relative to any passage of scripture he addresses. A commitment to the church as God’s means of transmitting the gospel from age to age means that he takes very seriously what the church has said about scripture and about God throughout the ages. A realization that there are a set of archetypal heresies, particularly focused on God, Christology, and grace, means that the early church provides him with much fuel for contemporary debate. A commitment to the fact that the church’s theological traditions, especially as expressed in her creeds, provides both resources, parameters and, at times, unavoidable conceptual problems for doctrinal formulations in the present drives him again and again to look at traditions of theological discussion from the early church onwards. Further, a belief that theology is talk about God, and not just communal reflection upon the psychology of the church in particular context, means that Owen regards it as having universal, referential significance; and thus he sees those who have worked in formulating doctrine over the years as having a significance which transcends their own time and geographical locale. In this context, he also understands that each solution to a doctrinal problem generates new problems of its own, and thus to understand why the church thinks as she does, one needs to understand how the church has come to think as she does (e.g., the anhypostatic nature of Christ’s humanity, a point likely to be incomprehensible to biblical theologians and/or no-creed-but-the-Bible types, but surely central to a sound understanding of incarnation in the post-Chalcedonian era). Each of these makes interaction with patristic authors necessary as Owen and others in his tradition work to ensure that the gospel is not reinvented anew every Sunday but, rather, is faithfully communicated from generation to generation.

Trueman, Carl. “Patristics and Reformed Orthodoxy: Some Brief Notes and Proposals.” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 12, no. 2 (Summer 2008): 58-59.

Give your whole mind to whatever work you are doing.  If
it  is merely adding rows of figures, or copying reports, try every
time to get it exactly right, without a single mistake.  And never
turn over your work till you have carefully examined it, to see if
there is the slightest mistake.  Make it  a matter of ambition, of
official fidelity and honor, to do your work well.

Advice of JAB to nephew in A. T. Robertson, Life and Letters of John A. Broadus (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society, 1901), 318.