Biblical inerrancy

Biblical inerrancy is the view that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and is in every detail infallible and without error in the original autographs. This view was ably expressed in 1978 in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, an interdenominational statement of evangelical scholars and leaders to defend Biblical inerrancy against the trend toward liberal and neo-orthodox conceptions of scripture. It proclaims: "The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church." Article XII states: "We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit."

Biblical inerrancy is one of the tenets of Fundamentalist Christianity, as well as of several conservative varieties of Evangelicalism. The doctrine arises in direct line from the Protestant Reformation principle of sola scriptura.

Compared to Papal Infallibility, the Protestant doctrine of Biblical inerrancy does not necessarily imply that any particular traditional interpretation of the Bible is without error. Instead, it seeks the intention of the author of the text, and commits itself to receive the statement as fact, depending on whether it can be determined or assumed that the author meant to communicate a statement of fact. Biblical inerrantists acknowledge that there are many kinds of literature in the Bible, besides statements of fact.

Some of the Evangelical traditions which adhere to the doctrine are reflected by the signers of the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Nearly 300 noted scholars put their names to the document, including James Boice, Norman Geisler, John Gerstner, Carl F. H. Henry (founder of Christianity Today), Kenneth Kantzer, Harold Lindsell, John Warwick Montgomery, Roger Nicole, J. I. Packer, Robert Preus, Earl Radmacher, Francis Schaeffer, R. C. Sproul, and John Wenham. Signers are from conservative Reformed and Presbyterian, Lutheran, and Baptist denominations, as well as representing conservative movements within liberal denominations.

Basis of belief

The doctrine underlying inerrancy is Biblical inspiration, which teaches that God superintended the writers and editors of the Bible without marginalizing their respective concerns or personalities. This divine involvement is said to have preserved the Biblical authors from error. Thus it is very much (a rather subtle) supernaturalist doctrine. The argument for it then attempts to demonstrate that the Bible claims divine inspiration for itself.

For example, advocates of inerrancy cite the authority of the New Testament's claims about Jesus himself's opinion in support of the Hebrew scriptures (Old Testament). They argue

• that Jesus apparently accepted the Bible as completely authoritative. He frequently settled a point with "It is written..." and cited scripture; and for him, what scripture said, God said. However, on many occasions, it appears that Jesus was referring to the Septuagint Greek translation rather than the Hebrew masoretic text, as some of the passages that Jesus used only exist in the Septuagint translation and not the Hebrew version that is the basis for modern Christian and Jewish Old Testament translations.
• Jesus even said, "scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35).
• that Jesus accepted many of the parts of scripture most frequently attacked by errantists — for instance, the creation of man and woman "from the beginning of creation" (Mark 10:5-9, citing Genesis 1:27 and 2:24); Noah's flood as a literal event, Noah as a real person and the ark as a real vessel (Luke 17:26-27); Moses as author of the Pentateuch (Luke 16:31; John 5:46-47); and Jonah and the great sea creature (Matthew 12:39-41).

The fact that many errantists believe that Jesus really did say these things is a strong point of this reasoning.

Inerrantists deny the charge that this is an example of circular reasoning, since it is not circular to use the Gospels to prove the Old Testament. In fact, some inerrantists regard the notion of a "Christian errancy" as logically contradictory. However, this argument does not itself serve to support the inerrancy of the New Testament.

Views Regarding Inerrancy

There is a spectrum of views regarding inerrancy, pro and con.

Views Affirming Inerrancy

Believers of inerrancy hold various views and subscribe to various arguments. Some are counters to specific criticisms, some apply to only part of the Bible, and yet others are more broadly applicable. Many of them seem to simply affirm the worthiness of the Bible, and may plausibly be interpreted as reinforcing the belief in its divine inspiration. These insights are extended to support inerrancy.

• Christ did affirm that not one jot or tittle of the law would pass from the law till all is fulfilled and that Jonah spent 3 days in the belly of the whale. (Matt 5: 18 and Matt 12: 40). Some Christians affirm that if the resurrection of Christ is true then by extension the whole Bible is true. [1] Various arguments having been put forth by legal scholars such as Simon Greenleaf and John Warwick Montgomery and others claiming that Western legal standards argue for the historicity of the resurrection of Christ. [2][3][4] In addition, the former Chief Justices of England Lord Darling and Lord Caldecote claimed there was overwhelming amount of evidence for the resurrection of Christ.[5] In addition historians such as Thomas Arnold [6], A. N. Sherwin-White [7][8], and Michael Grant [9][10][11] have been very favorable to the Christian claim of the resurrection and did not believe the Christ myth was plausible. (for details please see: resurrection of Christ). Thus, it is argued that there is excellent evidence for Bible inerrancy.

• Other supporting evidence is cited from archaeology (see: Biblical archaeology or archaeology ), fulfilled prophecies (see: Bible prophecy and prophecies), etc. History itself is viewed as being in accord with Biblical inerrancy. Conservative scholars who have written about the Bible and who have affirmed its historicity include FF Bruce, Dr. Gary Habermas, Dr. Bryant G. Wood, and Kenneth Kitchen. Bible scholars who are known for strongly affirming Bible inerrancy (writing works on it, etc) and the Bible's historicity include: Gleason Archer, John Warwick Montgomery, and Norman Geisler.

• It is argued that there are no contraditions in the Bible only misunderstandings due to insufficient exegesis. Bible scholarship is, after all, a complex and multidisciplinary endeavor, involving language, culture, history, etc.

• The description of scripture, from 2 Timothy 3:16, as "God-breathed" (in some translations, or "inspired by God" in others), and God is perfect, then any book breathed by God must also be perfect. The weaker position that the Bible is merely claimed by its authors to be inspired, rather than proved to be so, is rejected in favor of interpreting the situation in a positive way, as the absence of a potential negative, since it would be illogical to believe in inerrancy if the Bible itself disclaimed inerrancy.

• For a great many believers the inerrancy or entire trustworthiness of the Bible may simply be accepted on faith, complimented by individual and collective Christian experience, rather than on "objective" evidence.

• Acceptance of the notions of Biblical scientific foreknowledge lends credence to the Bible in general.

• Christianity and the Bible are seen as having a very positive and profound effect on the individuals and societies it has been introduced to and see this as a sign of Biblical inspiration and Biblical inerrancy.[12][13][14][15][16]

• Despite being written over a 1600-year span by more than 40 authors from various walks of life (including purported kings, peasants, philosophers, poets, statesmen, scholars, fisherman, etc.) the Bible is seen as showing unexpected harmony.

• Despite the intense criticism and thorough scrutiny of its detractors the Bible continues to attact scholarly and popular interest and increase in circulation.

• The Bible's unique influence on culture is thought to indicate divine inspiration rather than a large and historically powerful Roman Catholic church and papacy imposing it on history.

• The Bible is seen as being unique in the breadth of its geographical distribution and cross-cultural appeal. Lawrence Greenslade in Cambridge History of the Bible stated that "No other book has known anything approaching this constant circulation." [17]

• The Bible is said to have been remarkably preserved despite many attempts to destroy and ban it (although it is admitted argued that this is also true for the Gospel of Thomas that the historically powerful Christian church tried to destroy and ban).

• The Bible is seen as making promises, the fulfillment of which believers acknowledge in their own lives (answered prayers, divine healing, etc.).

See the Uniqueness of the Bible page for additional perspective on some of these points

Views Qualifying Inerrancy

• Some Christians note that being 'God-breathed' does not necessitate being 'without error.' Just as God breathed into Adam but Adam erred, so God may inspire an author, but the author may still err; a book may be imperfect and still be "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16). Thus, while denying strict inerrancy, these Christians acknowledge that the Bible is reliable and authoritative.

• Methodists and other followers of John Wesley believe strongly in the authority of scripture while rejecting the necessity of inerrancy. While Methodism, according to 20th century theologian Albert C. Outler, has always interpreted scripture through church tradition, reason, and personal experience, it has never demanded that belief in total inerrancy is necessary for one to be truly Christian. Recognizing that autographs (originals) of the scriptures will likely never be discovered, Methodists have instead emphasized the Biblical canon as it exists, believing that it "...containeth all things necessary to salvation..." (United Methodist Articles of Religion, Article 5). Regarding faith, doctrine, and practice matters, therefore, Methodists generally believe that the Bible is without error, but whether or not there are errors in geography or science is not a concern.

Views Denying Inerrancy

Those who hold opposing views usually point out several problems with using 2 Timothy 3:16 ("All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." KJV) as a "proof text". In many cases the debate is complicated by factors such as dissagreements in matters of Biblical criticism and lack of detailed historical knowledge.

• This passage is contained in one of the Epistles of Paul. At the time Paul wrote this, the word "scripture" would have referred to the Hebrew scriptures, not to the letters that Paul was then writing to the churches. Inerrantists counter by pointing out that 2 Timothy was written very late in the timeline of New Testament books (some hold that 2 Timothy was the last epistle that Paul wrote, prior to his martyrdom), so this would apply to the New Testament as well.

• Paul never explicitly claimed that everything he wrote was inspired of God, and in 1 Corinthians 7:12, he specifically disclaims that what he is writing is from the Lord, clearly labeling it as his own opinion. Inerrantists claim that Paul was instead pointing out that unlike v. 10, there is no recorded saying by the Lord on this, and was not denying his own apostolic authority to give a binding command.

• Unlike the case of using 2 Timothy 3:16 as a proof of Old Testament inerrancy, applying it to the New Testament (including itself) is clearly a circular argument. Any author could claim that his writings are without error, but the claim is not the proof.

• The statement can be interpreted as merely a definition of "scripture", as that which is "inspired". It does not identify which works meet this definition of scripture, and thus contains no information in the logical sense. Inerrantists claim that Paul really did intend to say that all the writings called "scriptures" were God-breathed without exception, but again we don't know exactly which books he would have included in that category.

• Scholars working with the ancient texts find numerous discrepancies between various copies, such as those between the mostly newer copies and the extremely ancient Dead Sea Scrolls. A few fundamentalists dismiss these as inconsequential or unimportant, and that no key Christian doctrine rests on these verses, but that raises the question of whether a truly inerrant writing should contain any errors, even insignificant ones. Either all scripture is without error, or it isn't. The existence of passages that seem to be mutually exclusive (that is to say, if one passage is true, the other cannot be) cast doubt on absolute inerrancy. Leading inerrantist scholars do not make this dismissal, but instead claim that what appear to be inconsistencies are merely misunderstandings on the part of the reader, or failures to understand the type of literature it is, or ignorance of the ancient Semitic context.

• Less sophisticated believers in Biblical inerrancy may fail to allow for the possibility of transcription errors or translation errors. Their view is that not only were the scriptures originally inspired by God, but that God has actively intervened through the centuries to make sure that only "pure" copies of His word have survived. This is easily refuted by the differences found in early manuscripts, let alone the many differences found in modern translations. However, leading inerrantists point out that from the different manuscripts, we can reconstruct the original to a very high accuracy, and that not a single doctrine rests on a disputed verse.

• The scriptural justification for Biblical inerrancy relies upon a relatively narrow view of the words variously translated as "inspired by God" or "God-breathed." There is nothing in these words to suggest that God dictated the Bible, word-for-word. Even in the Book of Revelation, the author (John) is shown visions and then instructed to write what he has seen. There is no suggestion that God gave John the actual words to write, but rather that He inspired John (in this case, using visions). Some who view the Bible as totally inerrant may view the authors of the various books of the Bible as mere stenographers.

• Strict inerrancy implies that those who decided which books would be in our modern Bibles chose correctly, keeping only the "inspired" books and setting aside only those that were not similarly "inspired." Since this selection of the Biblical canon occurred centuries after those books were written, the influences of those later ages must be taken into account. The questions were not entirely settled in late antiquity. The removal of the Apocrypha from the Protestant canon after its inclusion in the original edition of the King James Version occured in the 17th century. Even if those decisions are accepted as inspired in themselves, it remains to ask how the other (early Catholic/Orthodox, not Protestant) decisions and opinions of the very same people can then be safely disregarded. If God inspired them infallibly in their decisions about the Bible, would he withhold his Spirit when other matters were under discussion by the same people?

• This belief also relies on 2 Timothy actually being genuinely written by Paul. As one of the Pastoral Epistles, it is generally considered amongst textual critics, by a 2:1 majority, to have been fraudulent - see Authorship of the Pauline epistles. The "late date" argument cited above would make this case more likely. On the other hand even if the authorship is authentic, there are considerable doubts about whether Paul was aware of the existence of any of the canonical Gospels (not all of which were likely to have been written during his lifetime in any case), which he is here supposed to be certifying.

It is possible to apply a broader interpretation of 2 Timothy 3:16. A person may be "inspired" to write a poem by the sight of a beautiful sunset; that does not mean that the sunset wrote the poem. It's possible for historical events to inspire a book or a movie, but that does not mean that the work of art is a 100% accurate record of those events. Similarly, the belief that the authors of the books of the Bible were inspired by God does not necessarily mandate a corresponding belief that the Bible is a 100% accurate record of historical events, nor a belief that no inappropriate opinion or belief of any of the various authors ever found its way into the sacred texts.

Postmodern Christianity and Biblical Inerrancy

Scholars such as Jean-Luc Marion (see Postmodern Christianity) would argue that the concept of inerrancy is easily misunderstood. One example is the idea that the translations of the Bible or the surviving ancient texts are inerrant. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy says that the autographs of the Bible, that is, the actual parchment or papyrus on which the Biblical authors wrote, accurately reflects the authors intent. This allows the possibility of errors in the surviving manuscripts and translations. But even if the autographs are lost, surviving manuscripts are found in such large numbers that the autographs may be reconstructed with more than 99 percent accuracy.

Another possible misunderstanding of the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy is to think that merely because the author's intent reflected in the original autographs is inerrant, that the author's intent necessarily satisfies all possible meanings of every passage. A difficulty with this misunderstanding is that prophecy may have a double fulfillment. Isaiah 7:14, for example, would be limited by only referring to the first fulfillment, as the prophet may not have known of the second fulfillment: in this case, the pregnancy of the Virgin Mary.

Postmodern Christianity (as understood here) emphasizes that the author's intent does not fully exhaust the meaning of the texts of the Bible. It could be argued that postmodern Christianity is compatible with Biblical inerrancy, when the latter is understood to be referring to the complete fulfillment of the author's intent in the autographs, and allows for meanings not necessarily intended by the author but not incompatible with authorial intent.

See Also

• Biblical inspiration
• Sola Scriptura
• Pericope Adulterae
• Christian apologetics

References

• Charles Caldwell Ryrie (1981). What you should know about inerrancy. ISBN 0802487858
• Norman Geisler, ed. (1980). Inerrancy. ISBN 0310392810.
• Gleason Archer, 2001. New Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. ISBN 0310241464
• Sproul, R. C.. Hath God Said? (video series).
• John Walvoord (1990). What We Believe: Understanding and Applying the Basics of Christian Life. ISBN 0929239318
• Warfield, B. B. (1977 reprint). Inspiration and Authority of Bible, with a lengthy introductory essay by Cornelius Van Til. ISBN 0801095867.
• JP Holding Inerrancy, Inspiration, and Ma-Besayil
• JP Holding Why We Could Not and Can Not Have Inerrant Copies and Translations of the Bible

External links

Pro, general

• History of Inspiration of the Bible
• Bible quotes of Jesus on the infallibility of Scripture
• Biblical Inerrancy by John H. Gerstner
• Monergism.com links to articles on Scripture from a conservative protestant perspective
• The Christian and Authority - discussing the inerrancy and primacy of Scripture from the Christian Research Institute
• The Authority and Inspiration of the Scriptures by B. B. Warfield
• The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (wikisource)
• Theologians Reject Biblical Inerrancy
• The Authority of Scripture from Answers in Genesis
• Response to agnostic charge of use of circular reasoning
• Answers to a list of Biblical contradictions
• Defining Biblical Inerrancy by Vic Reasoner — a conservative Arminian/Wesleyan perspective
• Apologetics Press
• CreationWiki on Biblical inerrancy

Pro, Bible verse resources

• Christian Debater
• Tekton Apologetics Ministry
• A Christian Thinktank

Pro, specific issues

• Aramaic Peshitta is Inerrant which contends that the Greek is fallible but the Aramaic version is perfect (very few inerrantist scholars hold this view).

Con

• A Primer for Second Semester Divinity School Students
• INERRANCY: Is the Bible free of error? All points of view
• Wesleyanism & the Inerrancy Issue by J. Kenneth Grider