Inerrancy

-return to blog- • -return to wiki-

“Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” - Genesis 3:1

Also see Infallibility. Honestly, some people use inerrancy and infallibility interchangeably, so it can be confusing.

It defines the Scripture as containing no errors of fact (material errors) nor internal contradictions (formal errors). Inerrancy is more concerned with the accurate transmission of the details of revelation. It is more of a matter of theology and epistemology than biblical interpretation.

Those who believe in an inerrant Bible and a God-breathed Bible also believe in an infallible Bible, as otherwise, they believe God is an author of error.

(The Origin of the Bible: Newly Updated by F. F. Bruce, J. I. Packer, Philip W. Comfort, and Carl F. H. Henry, 2020. THe Inerrancy and Infallibility of the Bible by Harold O. J. Brown. Pages 38-39,42-43.)

Inerrancy is only attributed to the autographs. Scholars generally accept that existing manuscripts contain copyists' errors, detectable by comparing later with earlier manuscripts and by applying textual criticism.

Errors

Inerrancy must choose whether to find any potential discrepancies or errors in the Bible as tolerated "unanswered questions" or even "demonstrated errors," including logical and scientific difficulties. Are they errors, contradictions, faults of a copyist or translator, or a problem of the cultural, historical, or rhetorical gap between writer and reader?

Apparent errors in the Bible that scholars have pointed out include the genealogies of Jesus (Matthew 1 & Luke 3), the accounts of Paul's conversion (Acts 9, 22, 26), errors of fact (rabbit chewing cud in Leviticus 11:6), and the sun standing still (Joshua 10:12-14).

Jesus's temptation timeline varies in Matthew 4:1-11 and Luke 4:1-13, though Papias wrote that Gospels are not intended to be chronological.

Numbers pose frequent problems, but traditionally, approximate or rounded values were accepted, such as the trigonometric constant calculated from Solomon's basin, which is accurate only to one significant figure (1 Kings 7:23). The duration of Israel's captivity in Egypt is ~400 years (Genesis 15:13) or 430 (Exodus 12:40-41).

A belief in errors usually follows a rejection of the Bible's authority, not the other way around. Competent exegesis resolves them. Others are resolved over time as new archaeological, textual, or scientific data comes to light. But no theory, either in theology or science, is ever devoid of difficulties. Evangelical bishop of Liverpool J. C. Ryle said, "The difficulties which beset any other theory of inspiration are tenfold greater than any which beset our own."

(The Origin of the Bible: Newly Updated by F. F. Bruce, J. I. Packer, Philip W. Comfort, and Carl F. H. Henry, 2020. THe Inerrancy and Infallibility of the Bible by Harold O. J. Brown. Pages 45-46.)

Beliefs by Groups

Inerrant is a 19th century term, which did not receive explicit formulation until the seventeenth century. ('Fundamentalism' and the Word of God: Some Evangelical Principles by J. I. Packer, 1958, Page 95-96; Biblical Authority by Jack Rogers, 1977)

Jacob A. O. Preus of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod identified and repudiated the historical-critical method with its assumptions, as the root from which contemporary inerrancy controversies spring. They reject any "research" with the presuppositions that preclude the Bible as anything more than a human book.

The Roman Catholic Church officially supported inerrancy until the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) under liberal Protestant influence. Reformed statements like the Belgic Confession (1561) and the Westminister Confession affirm the perfection of Scripture. Similarly does the Augsburg Confession (1530) of Lutheranism and in the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England (1563). The Baptist New Hampshire Confession of 1832 refers to the Bible as containing "truth without any mixture of error for its matter."

Neoorthodox scholar Karl Barth maintained "to err is human" so a human book (even if also divine) must contain errors, though he was cautious to attribute any specific error.

Evangelicals acknowledge the Bible is human as well as divine. A substantial group (many British and German evangelicals) are disinterested in inerrancy or outright reject it, preferring "infallibility" or "absolute trustworthiness." Liberals reject the supernatural element of the Bible, finding both inerrancy and infallibilty alien to the secular spirit of the age. Liberals affirm Jesus Christ, not the doctrine of Scripture or biblical infallibility, is the central reality of the Christian faith. Mediating views are somewhere in-between. "Separatist" evangelical leaders have expressed suspicion that evangelicals like Clark S. Pinnock took a mediating position to gain or maintain acceptance in liberal theological circles.

The Battle for the Bible by Harold Lindsell, 1976, charges that prominent evangelical leaders have begun to depart from an orthodox view of the Bible. Evangelicals are split on whether inerrancy is a significant theological issue or merely a threat to evangelical unity.

The International Congress on Biblical Inerrancy considers inerrancy to be a watershed issue. A second claims inerrancy is true but not a test of fellowship. A third, represented by Jack Rogers of Fuller Theological Seminary, doesn't explicitly deny inerrancy is true but contends that it is a late, historically conditioned formulation of the Christian position. He sees it as derived from Aristotelian-Thomistic roots and conflicts with more normative position based on Plato and Augustine and held by Luther and Calvin. The doctrine of inerrancy did not receive explicit formulation until the 17th century. Critics correct him, finding that Luther and Calvin accepted the human element of Scripture but neither assumed nor admitted errors in it, so inerrancy was taken for granted.

Biblical Authority by Jack Rogers, 1977, sees inerrancy as derived from Aristotelian-Thomistic roots, which conflicted with a more normative position based on Plato and Augustine and held by Luther and Calvin. Though Rogers's critics were unconvinced the human element of Scripture spoken of by Luther and Calvin meant they also accepted human error in it. They find it more plausible Luther and Calvin took inerrancy for granted, and it was not a test of orthodoxy because the question had not yet been formulated in those terms.

(The Origin of the Bible: Newly Updated by F. F. Bruce, J. I. Packer, Philip W. Comfort, and Carl F. H. Henry, 2020. THe Inerrancy and Infallibility of the Bible by Harold O. J. Brown. Pages 39-47.)

J. Gresham Machen believes that true Christian men can accept the central message of the Bible and yet believe that it contains many errors. They believe the message has come to us merely on the authority of trustworthy witnesses unaided in their literary work by a supernatural guidance of the Spirit of God. If a Christian is to make full use of his Christian privileges, though, he finds the seat of authority in the whole Bible, which he regards as no mere word of man but the very Word of God.

(Christianity and Liberalism by J. Gresham Machen, Page 75 @ https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/machen/Christianity%20and%20Liberalism%20-%20J.%20Gresham%20Machen.pdf, Page 62-63)

Verses

Benjamin B. Warfield and Clark Pinnock claim an "avalanche of texts" support inerrancy. This avalache is just Matthew 5:18, John 10:35, 2 Timothy 3:16, and 2 Peter 1:21, though. (The Origin of the Bible: Newly Updated by F. F. Bruce, J. I. Packer, Philip W. Comfort, and Carl F. H. Henry, 2020. Pages 39-40.)