Biblical Inerrancy vs. Biblical Infallibility

[Humble_Disciple]

But the one angel is outside. The two were inside.

That's an attempt to harmonize the accounts. That harmonization isn't inherent to the texts themselves. The important matter is that Jesus' physical resurrection really happened.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Those who insist upon unlimited inerrancy miss the point as to why the scriptures were written in the first place, "to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus," to instruct in righteousness, to equip for every good work, and to correct false doctrine, none of which requires that the Bible be word-for-word inerrant on every possible historical and scientific detail.

2 Timothy 3:15-17
and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

The distinction between Biblical infallibility and Biblical inerrancy, or limited and unlimited inerrancy, matters because many people, when first confronted with the apparent contradictions in the Gospels, stop believing in central doctrines like the virgin birth and physical resurrection of Jesus. This is exactly what happened to Bart Ehrman, because he had a wrong view of inerrancy.

If unlimited inerrancy were true, then the mustard seed would be the smallest of all seeds, which it obviously isn't. Jesus' point was to illustrate the power of faith, even if the size of a mustard seed, rather than teach botany. Matthew 13:31-32

 

[DamianWarS]

Jesus most likely cleansed the temple near the end of His ministry, like in the synoptic Gospels, rather than in the beginning, like in John. This would explain why the Jewish authorities were provoked to execute Him.

John, on the other hand, placed it in the beginning, in order to establish Jesus' authority over the temple as the Son of God, since the primary emphasis of John's Gospel is the deity of Christ.

This is only a problem if one insists that the Bible is inerrant word-for-word, rather than in doctrine and practice.

you've already established the account is goal-driven not chronologically driven so you've answered your own question. it is inerrant for the points it's making.

 

[Hazelelponi]

It's simply an unprovable assumption that the Gospel authors intended for the events described to be placed in a strictly chronological, rather than thematic, orde

Inerrancy/Infallibility of Scripture doesn't infer we who read and interpret scripture will do so infallibly, just that the Scriptures themselves contain no error.

 

[Hmm]

Inerrancy/Infallibility of Scripture doesn't infer we who read and interpret scripture will do so infallibly, just that the Scriptures themselves contain no error.

That's an interesting question. Can a book contain an objective meaning that is somehow independent of the understanding and the cultural mores that person reading it brings to bear. I don't think it can. The Bible doesn't contain meaning in the same way an apple contains Vitamin C - everyone views it from their own unique perspective although we can learn from one another.

 

[Hazelelponi]

That's an interesting question. Can a book contain an objective meaning that is somehow independent of the understanding and the cultural mores that person reading it brings to bear. I don't think it can. The Bible doesn't contain meaning in the same way an apple contains Vitamin C - everyone views it from their own unique perspective although we can learn from one another.

God Himself is objective truth that stands independent of those understandings and cultural mores of the people's who encounter Him, so why would His Word (written) be any different.

The entire claim of Christianity is based in objective truth come to mankind, not subjective.

As Christians we stand apart from the world and enter into Gods Kingdom. That citizenship creates a "counter-cultural" people, who hold to an objective truth that is from God.

 

[Hmm]

God Himself is objective truth that stands independent of those understandings...

I agree that God is truth but we are limited beings and can't apprehend objective truth directly. So the best we can do develop our understanding of the Bible the best we can even though it's not going to be perfect and it's going to be unique even though we grow as part of a community.

 

[RDKirk]

That's an attempt to harmonize the accounts. That harmonization isn't inherent to the texts themselves. The important matter is that Jesus' physical resurrection really happened.

A couple of things here:

1. So many modern Christians don't understand how ancient histories were written or how professional historians use them to formulate a "history."

2. Directly relating to "how ancient histories were written" is the fact that different cultures and times have different epistemologies. That is, different ways of determining and relating "truth."

We are taught history as blocks of "facts," such as discrete dates and names and places and items. We are taught that way because we follow a Greek-based epistemology that posits "truth" as residing in such things as discrete dates and names and places and items, and places a high value on absolute consistency of such from one reporter or context to another reporter or context.

That is our idea of what constitutes "truth," and it has not been a universal idea nor even is it necessarily the best idea. For a 1st century ancient Jew, "truth" was firmly established by the testimonies of two or three witnesses. Based on the testimonies of witnesses, the truth of Christ's resurrection was established firmly enough for early believers...that's why they didn't attempt to verify it by, say, deliberately preserving the location of Jesus' tomb or persevering the spikes and such. They had the witnesses, and in their epistemological system, the testimonies of witnesses fully established "truth."

I think most Christians and others who cast doubt on biblical truth based on inconsistencies of literal "facts" of the biblical texts would be surprised to learn that biblical texts are some of the best supported ancient records in all the science of history. Most of what we consider "ancient history" rests on much scantier, much less supported information.

Going back to the OP, what is further important for Christians is, indeed, to make the distinction of what scripture actually claims its purpose is: The full guide to righteousness. That's all it claims.

It's fallacious to claim that it's either valid for other purposes (such as astronomy, archology, geography), or that it's invalid because it does not suit other purposes. It's valid for the purpose it claims to be valid for.

 

[pescador]

Jesus most likely cleansed the temple near the end of His ministry, like in the synoptic Gospels, rather than in the beginning, like in John. This would explain why the Jewish authorities were provoked to execute Him.

John, on the other hand, placed it in the beginning, in order to establish Jesus' authority over the temple as the Son of God, since the primary emphasis of John's Gospel is the deity of Christ.

This is only a problem if one insists that the Bible is inerrant word-for-word, rather than in doctrine and practice.

The Bible is inerrant word-for-word if you understand the way it was written and by whom it was written. "Most likely" shows that you don't understand the basic principles of ancient writings, especially Scripture. Scripture teaches spiritual truths without error.

 

[pescador]

A couple of things here:

1. So many modern Christians don't understand how ancient histories were written or how professional historians use them to formulate a "history."

2. Directly relating to "how ancient histories were written" is the fact that different cultures and times have different epistemologies. That is, different ways of determining and relating "truth."

We are taught history as blocks of "facts," such as discrete dates and names and places and items. We are taught that way because we follow a Greek-based epistemology that posits "truth" as residing in such things as discrete dates and names and places and items, and places a high value on absolute consistency of such from one reporter or context to another reporter or context.

That is our idea of what constitutes "truth," and it has not been a universal idea nor even is it necessarily the best idea. For a 1st century ancient Jew, "truth" was firmly established by the testimonies of two or three witnesses. Based on the testimonies of witnesses, the truth of Christ's resurrection was established firmly enough for early believers...that's why they didn't attempt to verify it by, say, deliberately preserving the location of Jesus' tomb or persevering the spikes and such. They had the witnesses, and in their epistemological system, the testimonies of witnesses fully established "truth."

I think most Christians and others who cast doubt on biblical truth based on inconsistencies of literal "facts" of the biblical texts would be surprised to learn that biblical texts are some of the best supported ancient records in all the science of history. Most of what we consider "ancient history" rests on much scantier, much less supported information.

Going back to the OP, what is further important for Christians is, indeed, to make the distinction of what scripture actually claims its purpose is: The full guide to righteousness. That's all it claims.

It's fallacious to claim that it's either valid for other purposes (such as astronomy, archology, geography), or that it's invalid because it does not suit other purposes. It's valid for the purpose it claims to be valid for.

Great post!!

 

[pescador]

That's an interesting question. Can a book contain an objective meaning that is somehow independent of the understanding and the cultural mores that person reading it brings to bear. I don't think it can. The Bible doesn't contain meaning in the same way an apple contains Vitamin C - everyone views it from their own unique perspective although we can learn from one another.

Yes, a book can most definitely contain an objective meaning that is somehow independent of the understanding and the cultural mores that person reading it brings to bear.

It is important to read the Bible with an understanding of the culture and thought processes of those who wrote the various "books". They cover thousands of years of history and include many different cultures.

 

[Humble_Disciple]

Do the Resurrection Narratives Hinge Upon Biblical Inerrancy?
On March 22, 2001 Dr William Lane Craig debated Dr Massimo Pigliucci on the topic, "Does the Christian God Exist?" at University of Georgia in the U.G.A. Chapel. The conclusion of the debate provided a lengthy Q&A session. Questions were asked of each debater allowing the other time to respond.

 

[fhansen]

While biblical infallibility claims that the Bible is without error in every matter required for salvation, Biblical inerrancy claims that the Bible is without error in every detail possible, including scientific and historical details.

The distinction between Biblical infallibility and Biblical inerrancy matters because many people, when first confronted with the apparent contradictions in the Gospels, stop believing in central doctrines like the virgin birth and physical resurrection of Jesus.

Another way of describing this distinction is that the Bible is inerrant in a limited sense, on matters of doctrine and practice, rather than in an unlimited sense, on every possible historical and scientific detail. The Bible, like Jesus, is fully divine and fully human.

To insist upon unlimited inerrancy seems like docetism, ignoring the element of human authorship. We have four Gospels specifically to give us four uniquely human, though divinely inspired, perspectives.

When assessing ancient documents by normal historical standards, their reliability isn't determined by exactness in every possible detail. For example, Jesus most likely cleansed the temple near the end of His ministry, like in the synoptic Gospels, rather than in the beginning, like in John.

This would explain why the Jewish authorities were provoked to execute Him. John, on the other hand, placed it in the beginning, in order to establish Jesus' authority over the temple as the Son of God, since the primary emphasis of John's Gospel is the deity of Christ.

This is only a problem if one insists that the Bible is inerrant word-for-word, rather than in doctrine and practice:




Those who hold to unlimited inerrancy insist that the Bible is inerrant in every possible detail, while those who hold to limited inerrancy, also known as Biblical infallibility, regard the Bible as inerrant in matters of doctrine and practice.

It's simply an unprovable assumption that the Gospel authors intended for the events described to be placed in a strictly chronological, rather than thematic, order.



While every historian agrees that Hannibal crossed the alps to Rome, the ancient accounts contradict each other on which road led him there:



While every historian agrees that Hannibal crossed the alps to Rome, the ancient accounts contradict each other on which road led him there, just as the Gospels contradict each other on minor details like how many angels were at the tomb, while agreeing on Jesus' physical resurrection.

This same point is made in Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ, one of the best-selling evangelical titles in the last twenty years. There is a historical difference between evangelicalism and fundamentalism, and the scholars interviewed in Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ, including William Lane Craig, would be considered evangelical, but not fundamentalist.

In traditional Jewish commentaries, the Book of Job might be entirely allegorical, rather than a historical account. This is only a problem if the Bible is seen as inerrant word-for-word, rather than in doctrine and practice:



That the Book of Job might be an allegorical theodicy doesn't give us license to interpret Jesus' virgin birth and physical resurrection allegorically, because these truths are essential to historic Christian faith, just as the giving of the Commandments on Sinai is central to Judaism.

Those who believe in limited inerrancy have a higher view of scripture than Martin Luther did:



Those who insist upon unlimited inerrancy miss the point as to why the scriptures were written in the first place, "to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus," to instruct in righteousness, to equip for every good work, and to correct false doctrine, none of which requires that the Bible be word-for-word inerrant on every possible historical and scientific detail.

2 Timothy 3:15-17
and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.

If unlimited inerrancy were true, then the mustard seed would be the smallest of all seeds, which it obviously isn't. Jesus' point was to illustrate the power of faith, even if the size of a mustard seed, rather than teach botany. Matthew 13:31-32

This is well stated-and makes sense. The Catholic church for its part teaches this way:

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while He employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though He acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever He wanted written, and no more."

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."

 

[pescador]

This is well stated-and makes sense. The Catholic church for its part teaches this way:

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while He employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though He acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever He wanted written, and no more."

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."

Sola scriptura!

 

[Hawkins]

History is a testimony about what best humans can do. History itself is not verifiable so you have to take it with a grain of salt when someone said that a history is not accurate as history is a one time event which can hardly be verifiable as a science which can repeat infinitively.

The Bible is inerraneous and infallible because it is a valid account of testimony up to a standard of best human efforts and capability. Humans consider some part of the Bible contradictory simply because they don't know what they are talking about most of times, as humans speak in different perspectives when they speak.

Who built the Statue of Liberty? Some said the French, some said the Americans, some said the workers, some said a famous architect. They can all be correct as a matter of different perspectives when humans speak. They are not in contradiction as it appears.

Similarly, a witness may say that there is an angel in the tomb who spoke something, this is a perspective when a witness focus his testimony on an angel (one of them) on sight who had spoken something. Another witnesss may say that there are 2 angels as his focus is on how many angels present instead of what is spoken. It is a similar "contradiction" on whether the Statue of Liberty was built by the workers or by the architect.

Inerrancy in this case means both are valid account of testimonies in terms of Law and in court. The Bible is conveying accurate information by means of valid accounts of human testimonies. Any adjustment or alternation of its meaning may actually invalidate the verses either making it an invalid account of human testimony or altered the original message which is intended to be conveyed.

A Final Judgment is only valid when information is accurately conveyed for humans to have an actual choice on whether to abide by the Covenant applied to them or not!

 

[RDKirk]

How did Judas die? His death was conveyed by the terms significant to God, not by the details significant to the epistemology of the Greeks. He died in ignominy, in unforgiveness, and not by the hand of Peter or any other disciples.

 

[Fervent]

One thing about the question of inerrancy is a matter of perspective. Does the Bible have to be free from the types of inconsistencies common among first hand reports to remain inerrant? No, in fact those inconsistencies lend credibility to the reports so there is a definite interest in maintaining them. Does the Bible have to convey absolute discrete "facts" without variance? No, if the authors purpose is theological or apologetic or something other than teaching the literal history then there is license especially if such altering of histories is expected of the genre. These things are not errors, except from our modern persuasion. To declare the Bible inerrant is simply affirming that God has a purpose for every jot and tittle of the Word and has made no unintentional blunders in its transmission.

 

[BobRyan]

While biblical infallibility claims that the Bible is without error in every matter required for salvation, Biblical inerrancy claims that the Bible is without error in every detail possible, including scientific and historical details.

The Bible claims that God is the Author of the Bible - are there aspects of science or history that God "Did not know" when authoring that text?

2 Pet 1:
20 But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture becomes a matter of someone’s own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

To declare the Bible inerrant is simply affirming that God has a purpose for every jot and tittle of the Word and has made no unintentional blunders in its transmission.

In fact at the end of Daniel 8 we find this --
27 Then I, Daniel, was exhausted and sick for days. Then I got up and carried on the king’s business; but I was astounded at the vision, and there was no one to explain it.

Daniel is claiming to "give the message" as God gave it to him - and yet to also state he is clueless about a lot of what is being said in it. He is not claiming that it is "his best idea" - in fact "not his idea at all" but rather he is forwarding the message given to him and hoping/praying that someone will explain it to him.

 

[BobRyan]

In traditional Jewish commentaries, the Book of Job might be entirely allegorical, rather than a historical account. This is only a problem if the Bible is seen as inerrant word-for-word, rather than in doctrine and practice:

It is only a problem if every single "might be" conjecture of man is always given higher credibility than the Word of God.

As Christians we already learned the lesson that Christ taught in Mark 7:6-13
6 But He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 And in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’
8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”
9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘The one who speaks evil of father or mother, is certainly to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a person says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is, given to God),’ 12 you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thereby invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”