Expert: Dr. Ronald E. Shultz - 4/21/2005

Question
Can a Christian reconcile the Doctrine of Inerrancy with the different Gospel stories?
I understand that a Gospel gives more details than another.  For example, two blind men are in one Gospel, but only one is mentioned in another.  However, some details seem to contradict.  Three examples follow:
1. The calling of Peter and others.  Matthew 4:18-22 and Mark 1:16-20, or Luke 5:1-11, or John 1:35-51.
2. The response to walking on water.  Matthew 14:33 or Mark 6:52.
3.  The identity of the second person during Peter's three denials.  Mark 14:69 (the same girl), or Matthew 26:71 (another girl), or Luke 22:58 (a man).

Answer
  The server must have been down last night or I would have replied sooner.
  This is actually more under the purview of an apologist versus a polemicist, but I will “do the work” of an apologist.   
   We poor mortals have trouble understanding some things about God and His works due to our fallen nature and our finite minds.  That is why God uses anthromorphisms, parables and the like to try and convey things to us.   Inspiration of the Scriptures is one of those mind bogglers.  I believe that Word is verbal-plenary (every word in the fullness of its meaning) inspired (God breathed) and is without error.  Some qualify that by adding “in the original texts.”  I also believe that what God ordains and writes He can preserve.  
   In the process of inspiration God so moves on a man so that none of the man's personality is erased but he in essence thinks the thoughts of God.  This is not the typewriter method that many speak of but rather a merging of the “souls” of man and God so that both are expressed but God is saying what He desires to be written through the soul of the man.  This may be a poor definition, but there are no perfect ones due to our frailty and looking though a glass darkly.  
  I don't know how old you are but imagine “The Odd Couple” lads becoming detectives.  They walk into a crime scene and the first thing Felix the “neatnik” notices is that the room is in disarray and there is blood on the North wall.  Oscar the slob sees the blood on the North wall.   In their reports Oscar says that nothing in the room except the blood on the North wall was abnormal.  Felix describes the scene with his estimation of the room being in disarray and blood on the North wall.  Both are absolutely correct from the perspective of the two personalities though the descriptions differ thus making it appear that the facts differed though they did not.   They both noticed the primary and important evidence, the blood on the wall and both said it was the North wall.  Their reports and testimonies in court would probably not be questioned and the evidence accepted.  If it was questioned once they heard from Felix that Oscar is such a slob he probably wouldn't have noticed the mess the questions would stop,
  When you look at the personalities of the Gospel writers and understand that they would have different perspectives there is not much of an issue.  God used their perspective and though some “facts” appear to differ they are really the same incident from each person's eyes.  You forgot the angels at the tomb.  One or two?   One writer was what we call precise and mentioned both while one only focused on the angel that spoke and the other became background to him and nothing to mention.  They both saw and wrote about the one who spoke.  Their testimony is true and both are accurate.  As you said, one gave more detail than the other.  Also, if they were exact word for word the critics would say that they just copied each other or the three other Gospels were plagiarized from the first.  
  I might be getting old, but I see no conflict between Matthew and Mark.  Luke is not a record of their call.  That is a different scene and time.   John is telling of when they first met Christ.   Their call to service came later which is what Matthew and Mark are describing.  Matthew and Mark say that He saw them.  They don't say that it was the first time He ever saw them.  Indeed, that may well explain the drop the net and go being so immediate.
  The walking on the water could easily be one describing their mouths and the other describing what was going on in their hearts.  That they had mixed or conflicting emotions and actions is not surprising and that one writer focused on one and the other writer on the other aspect is not a conflict.  They were hardened of heart and had the conflict.  The miracle of the bread should have brought them to the conclusion that He was God.  If it had, this incident would not have been confusing and frightening.  It would have been just a “normal” act of God though a miracle to men.   In their confusion, some or all confessed that He was God and yet were “vexed” in their hearts.   James speaks of the double minded man and the disciples manifested that concept many times until after Pentecost.  Therefore I believe the conflict is in the men not between the writers.  
  Peter's denial.   Read it again slowly.  The maid the second time spoke to others around him.   She may have done it in earshot of Peter or not. She saw him again, but it does not say he saw her.  The point is she did not direct it to him, but to others.   This may be where the other woman and man got the idea to approach Peter and speak directly to him.  
  I believe that since the whole thrust of the history between God and man is trust that God wrote the Word with a few “apparent” quirks in it so that we would dig and study and also that when our understanding is foggy or just not there to see if will we trust our understanding or Him.  Will we judge righteous judgment or go by appearance?
All the “errors” that have been supposed in the Bible have been discussed by men smarter than you or I for centuries.  In the end those who don't want to believe are never satisfied with any answer and those who believe don't need the answer though they have found it.  See, trust is the issue.  Those who trust find answers because God rewards those who trust Him.  The other lads never get anything because they never trust.  
  As I said, I am not much of an apologist.  I believe it from cover to cover and to be honest never saw the conflicts you raised until your question or if I had heard them before forgot about them.  I am more into doctrinal purity and life issues so my “eyes” never saw what would have been in bold print for an apologist.  
  I am not at my office with any resources so this is from my looking at the passages. An apologist might be able to give you a more in depth answer.  I hope this has been of some help to you.  May God richly bless you as you seek Him and His Word!!

[url]www.mavmin.org[/url]