Program / Course 17: Defending Scripture / Lesson 1.3
What you will learn
- Define inerrancy and infallibility and explain why the two terms are used differently by different writers.
- Describe the main positions Christians hold on whether and how Scripture is without error.
- Summarize the Chicago Statement and the Catholic teaching on the truth of Scripture.
- State the strongest objection to a strict inerrancy position and the strongest objection to a limited one.
The big idea
Inerrancy and infallibility are two words used to describe how far Scripture can be trusted. There is no single agreed meaning for either word, and writers sometimes reverse them. Broadly, infallibility is used for the claim that Scripture does not fail to accomplish its purpose of teaching saving truth, while inerrancy is used for the stronger claim that it contains no error in anything it affirms. The disagreement among Christians is less about whether to trust the Bible than about what exactly the Bible affirms, and how its genre and purposes should be counted.
Key terms
- Inerrancy
- The belief that Scripture, rightly interpreted, is free from error in all that it affirms. Definitions vary on what counts as an affirmation.
- Infallibility
- The belief that Scripture cannot lead the faithful astray in matters of faith and life. Some writers use it as a milder term; others use it as a synonym for inerrancy.
- Autographs
- The original manuscripts written by the biblical authors. None survive. Many inerrantists say the doctrine applies to them.
- Limited inerrancy
- The view that Scripture is without error in matters of faith, morals and salvation, but may reflect the limits of its time on other matters.
- Chicago Statement
- A statement on biblical inerrancy issued in 1978 by a gathering of evangelical scholars in Chicago. It sets out nineteen articles of affirmation and denial.
- Dei Verbum
- The Second Vatican Council’s constitution on divine revelation (1965), a major Catholic text on Scripture.
- Genre
- The kind of writing a text is, such as history, poetry, law, parable or letter. What a text affirms depends partly on its genre.
Background
For most of church history, Christians took the trustworthiness of Scripture for granted and did not feel the need for a technical term. Augustine wrote that if he found something in the canonical books that seemed contrary to truth, he would conclude that the manuscript was faulty, the translator had erred, or he himself had not understood. The word inerrancy in its modern use became prominent in the nineteenth century, as Protestants responded to historical criticism, and again in the twentieth century in American evangelical debates.
Because of this history, the words carry different loads in different traditions. In some evangelical circles, inerrancy is a mark of orthodoxy. In Catholic and Orthodox writing, the word is less common, and teaching is often put in terms of truth and the purposes of Scripture. A student must therefore ask each writer how the words are defined before comparing positions. Many arguments about this subject are really arguments about definitions.
Step-by-step explanation
Step 1: The core claim
The core claim is that because God is truthful and Scripture is inspired by God, Scripture does not teach falsehood. The supporting texts include John 10:35, where Jesus says that the scripture cannot be broken, and Psalm 12:6, which says the words of the Lord are pure words. Titus 1:2 speaks of God who cannot lie. The argument is that a God who cannot lie would not inspire a book that teaches falsehood.
Those who accept this argument still must decide what the text affirms. A parable asserts a lesson, not that the story literally happened. A poem may speak of the sun rising without teaching astronomy. The claim of inerrancy applies to what the author intends to assert, not to every phrase read in the most literal way possible.
Step 2: The Chicago Statement
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978) is the best-known formal definition. It says that Scripture, in the original manuscripts, is free from error or fault in all its teaching, including what it states about history and the natural world. It also denies that inerrancy is negated by the use of ordinary language, round numbers, loose quotation or the reporting of events from different perspectives.
Supporters say this is both careful and honest, since it explains what inerrancy does not mean. Critics say that the qualifications can make the claim hard to test, and that the autographs, which no one has, are a poor basis for any practical claim about the Bibles in use today. Defenders answer that the manuscripts are so well preserved that the difference between a copy and the original rarely affects the meaning.
Step 3: The Catholic and Orthodox approach
Dei Verbum teaches that the books of Scripture teach firmly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wished to put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation. Debate continues among Catholics on how to read the phrase for the sake of our salvation. Some read it as restricting the scope of inerrancy to saving truth. Others, including popes who wrote before the Council, held that it applies to everything the sacred authors assert, and say the Council did not intend to narrow it.
The Orthodox tradition rarely defines the matter by this vocabulary. Orthodox writers generally affirm that Scripture is true and Spirit-given, and they emphasize reading it within the church and with the Fathers. They tend to avoid modern debates over precision on historical and scientific details, which they regard as arising from a particular Western concern.
Step 4: Limited inerrancy and other positions
Some Protestants hold that Scripture is infallible in what it teaches about salvation and Christian life, but that it may contain historical or scientific details that reflect the limits of ancient authors. They argue that this does justice to the evidence of the text and to the incarnational idea that God spoke through human limits.
Others go further and say that the Bible contains human error even in religious matters, though it remains the witness through which God speaks. Critics from the inerrantist side say that once a line is drawn between saving truth and everything else, there is no stable way to decide where it falls. Defenders of limited views reply that inerrantists also draw lines, between what a text affirms and what it merely reports, so that the difference is one of degree.
Step 5: Testing the positions
A fair way to compare the views is to ask three questions of each. What does the position count as an error? What does it count as an affirmation of the author? And what would it take to persuade a holder of the view that a text is mistaken? A position that cannot say what would count against it is hard to evaluate. A position that is eager to find error in the text should be asked the same question. Honest holders of every view can answer.
- How would you define inerrancy in one sentence that both a supporter and a critic would accept as accurate?
- Why does it matter whether the doctrine applies to the original manuscripts or to the copies we have?
- What difference does genre make to the question of whether a text affirms something?
- How could a person tell the difference between a text that errs and a text that simply uses ordinary speech?
- What do you think is the best argument for limited inerrancy, and what is the best argument against it?
- How should a Christian respond to a text that appears to contradict established history or science?
Examples
Round numbers
A reader sees that one passage gives a figure rounded to the nearest thousand and another gives a more exact figure. The Chicago Statement says that round numbers and other ordinary ways of speaking are not errors. A critic asks how one can tell the difference between rounding and a mistake. The honest answer is by comparing the practices of ancient writers.
Sunrise language
Scripture speaks of the sun rising. Nearly everyone, believer or not, regards this as ordinary description of what is seen, not as a claim about astronomy. The example shows that all readers already distinguish what a text asserts from how it speaks.
Quoting the Old Testament
The New Testament often quotes the Old from the Greek translation, with slight changes. A strict view says that these changes are acceptable because ancient quotation practice allowed paraphrase. A critic says that sometimes the New Testament author builds an argument on the exact wording. The matter is discussed by scholars on all sides.
Different perspectives
Evangelical Protestant (inerrancy)
Many evangelicals hold that Scripture is without error in the original manuscripts in everything it affirms, including history and science where it speaks to them. The Chicago Statement is the usual reference. They argue that a limited view undermines the authority of Jesus, who treated the Old Testament as true, and the trustworthiness of the whole message.
Evangelical Protestant (infallibility or limited inerrancy)
Other evangelicals and many mainline Protestants prefer infallibility, meaning that Scripture is entirely reliable for its purposes of teaching salvation and Christian life. They say that the inerrancy debates impose a modern standard of precision on ancient writing, and that the focus should be on what the text is trying to do.
Catholic
Dei Verbum affirms that Scripture teaches truth without error for the sake of salvation. Catholic scholars differ on whether this limits the scope of inerrancy, with some taking a restricted reading and others holding a broad one. All agree that Scripture must be read by attending to the literary forms the authors used.
Orthodox
Scripture is true because it is the Spirit’s gift to the church. Orthodox theologians usually do not frame their teaching in the vocabulary of inerrancy and are wary of settling scientific or historical questions by doctrinal definition.
Skeptical or secular
A skeptic holds that the Bible contains clear errors of fact and conflicts between its books, and that it is better read as ancient literature. The more careful skeptics add that the inerrantist’s qualifications make the claim difficult to refute, and that this is a weakness. Believers reply that the qualifications reflect how all ancient texts must be read.
Why it matters
The way you define these words affects how you handle every difficult passage later in the course. If inerrancy is taken to require an unusually literal reading, then each apparent conflict becomes a threat to the whole Bible. If it is taken as a claim about what authors intend to assert, then the work of discovering that intention becomes central. The definitions also decide what counts as a refutation. A student who understands the range of meanings can speak with believers and skeptics without talking past them.
Common misunderstandings
Misunderstanding: Inerrantists read every verse as literal history.
Correction: Careful inerrantists, including the Chicago Statement, insist on attention to genre, figures of speech and the intention of the author. Poetry, parable and apocalyptic are not read as plain reporting.
Misunderstanding: Infallibility and inerrancy mean the same thing everywhere.
Correction: They are used interchangeably by some and as distinct terms by others. Always check the author’s own definition before comparing positions.
Misunderstanding: Catholics do not believe the Bible is without error.
Correction: Catholic teaching affirms that Scripture teaches truth without error. What Catholics debate is the scope of this claim and how it relates to the phrase for the sake of our salvation.
Misunderstanding: The doctrine of inerrancy is a recent invention with no roots before the 1800s.
Correction: The word is modern in its present use, but the conviction that Scripture does not teach falsehood appears in the Fathers, such as Augustine. Historians disagree about how close the modern doctrine is to earlier teaching.
Knowledge check
How are inerrancy and infallibility often distinguished?
Infallibility is often used for the claim that Scripture does not fail in its purpose of teaching saving truth and cannot lead the faithful astray. Inerrancy is often used for the stronger claim that Scripture is without error in all that it affirms. The usage is not uniform, and some writers treat the words as synonyms, so each author’s definition must be checked.
What does the Chicago Statement say about the original manuscripts?
It affirms that Scripture, in the original manuscripts, is free from error or fault in all its teaching, including what it says about history and nature. It also states that the doctrine does not require modern precision, and that ordinary speech, round numbers and different perspectives are not errors. It is a statement by a group of evangelical scholars, not a council of a church.
What does Dei Verbum say about the truth of Scripture?
It teaches that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully and without error teach the truth God wished to put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation. Catholics debate whether the final phrase limits the scope of inerrancy. All agree that interpreters must consider the literary forms the authors used.
Why can the same text be inerrant on one reading and mistaken on another?
What counts as an error depends on what the text affirms. If a passage uses a figure of speech or a round number, reading it as a precise statement could make it look wrong. Reading it as the author intended may remove the problem. This is why genre and context matter, and why critics and defenders must first agree on what is being claimed.
Think it through
- Which of the five positions in this lesson would you find hardest to explain fairly to someone who holds it? Why?
- What would you consider good evidence that a text of Scripture was mistaken, and what would you consider insufficient?
- Does your confidence in the Bible depend more on a doctrine about it, or on your experience of reading it?
Independent assignment
Define the terms and test them
In your own notebook, write 350 to 450 words. First, write a definition of inerrancy and a definition of infallibility as you would explain them to a friend. Then choose one of the three questions in Step 5 and apply it to two of the positions in this lesson. Conclude with one question you still have. Do not send this to anyone or post it anywhere.
Further study
- Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology Read the section on inspiration for a classic Reformed statement of inerrancy.
- Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church Read the section on the interpretation of Scripture for the Catholic statement on truth.
- Augustine of Hippo, The City of God Read selectively for Augustine’s way of handling passages that seem hard.
- Westminster Assembly, The Westminster Confession of Faith Read chapter 1, sections on the authority of Scripture.
- John 10:35 Jesus says that the scripture cannot be broken.
- Titus 1:2 God, who cannot lie, promised eternal life.
- Psalm 12:6 The words of the Lord are pure words.