Someone recently asked me what is meant by the claim that the Bible is “inerrant” and “infallible”? These two words both refer to the degree of correctness of the Bible. The two words really surfaced during the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century under Church reformers like Martin Luther and John Calvin. However, long before the Reformation the idea that the writing of the Bible was somehow “superintended” by the Holy Spirit was widely believed by the Church universal. The idea originated with the belief that (1) the Bible had it’s origin or source in God, (2) that God is perfect, and (3) therefore that the Bible—as God’s Word—is perfect and without error.
Â
The claim made by the biblical authors is that the Bible is not “the word about God,” but “the Word of God.” Do you see the difference? There are as many words/claims about God as there are people, because a word about something is simply one person’s perspective. However, for something to be the Word of God means that it’s God’s perspective (infinitely better than yours or mine). As an example of how biblical authors clarify this, take a look at the Apostle Paul’s words in Romans 1:1. Paul identifies himself as “a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God.” Paul’s not talking here about a Gospel (announcement/declaration of good news) that is about God, but a gospel belonging to and given by God. The word “of” in this sentence is a genitive, signifying possession. It’s God’s possession and it comes from Him. This means that the message Paul is proclaiming is not of human invention, but is from divine revelation. It’s a God’s eye view of reality.
So, because of claims like the above, and many others within the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21), Christians have believed the Bible to be inspired by God. We have recognized that the authors and editors of the 39 books of the Old and New Testaments were somehow “carried along” as they wrote and compiled the Bible. Since the Protestant Reformation, we have used the words “inerrant” and “infallible” to describe the qualities of correctness that the Bible possesses. But what’s the difference between “inerrant” and “infallible”? Simply put:
Inerrant: the absence of error
Infallible: the impossibility of error
If I were to take a test and score a perfect 100%, my test would be inerrant, or without errors. However, I would have no reason to argue that I am—and therefore all my work is—infallible, or incapable of ever erring.
WHAT CHRISTIANS CLAIM ABOUT THE BIBLE:
What Christians claim about the OT & NT is that “the Bible in its original autographs and corrected interpreted is entirely true and never false in all it affirms” (Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, 142). However, Christians do not make this claim of inerrancy about either (1) copies of the original autographs, or (2) the various translations of these copies (e.g., King James Version, New International Version, etc.).
QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION:
1. How does the recognition of the inspiration of the Bible impact they way in which you read/study/interact with God’s Word?
2. Is believing in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible a fundamental/necessity of Christian faith?Â
6 Comments on “What does it mean for the Bible to be “inerrant” and “infallible?””
Every instance of the word “Christians” in this post is actually “some Christians.” For example, some Christians claim that the Bible in its original autographs is entirely true. Other Christians claim that the Bible is a collection of books about God and that these books are profound, but not inerrant. This is not to say that they are right, just that they are Christian and have a different view.
Gavin,
Yes, some Christians have not held to the inerrancy of the Bible. What I was trying to point out in the first paragraph—though maybe not as clearly as I intended—is that while “inerrant� and “infallible� are more Protestant terms, historically the Church has believed the Bible to be inspired by God. Nevertheless, I can’t imagine someone who would identify him or herself as a “Christian,� and yet would say that the Bible (at least the Gospel accounts) are not in some way authoritative. I’m pretty confident in saying that at least this is a universal belief of all Christians. It certainly is a universal belief of the historic Christian Church.
What is your assessment of the Bible—specifically the Gospels?
This is all very insightful. My question for you is, does inerrant and infallible relate to whether all of scripture is to be taken from a literal stand point, or can it be inerrant in infallible and also be symbolic or representative? For example, Methuselah was said to have lived 969 years. No matter how I rack my brain, I can’t see this as being an actual fact. However, the 969 could be God’s way of saying he lived for a significant matter of time. 969 is a palindrome, and also the 17th tetrahedral number — and the 17th triangular number is 153 — the number of fish caught in John 21. Is God making biblical connections and not actual accounts of time?
Numerology in general seems to be God’s way of being symbolic. 40 – THE NUMBER OF PROBATION OR TRIAL. The Israelites wandered for 40 years (Deut. 8:2-5). Moses was on the mount for 40 days (Exodus 24:18); 40 days of Jonah and Nineveh (Jonah 3:4). Jesus was tempted for 40 days (Matt. 4:2).
Are all of these 40s an actual span of time? Or do they represent the right amount of time for probation or trial? Am I making any sense here?
There appear to be so many instances where God was making a concrete point, without being literal. I think inerrant and infallible still apply, when concerned with meaning and not specifics. Sounds like a “rib issue” to me, not anything to get worked up over, but fascinating to think about.
What do you think?
Lisa,
Yes, I would agree that that the claim of biblical inerrancy and infallibility does not necessitate a wooden literal interpretation for everything in the Bible. I does however require an interpretation which seeks the author’s intended meaning within a particular text. So, when a passage is meant to be literal, metaphorical, hyperbolic, etc. we must both understand it and receive it in that way. To me, this seems quite reasonable just by the fact there are so many different genres of literature within the Bible itself (e.g., history, poetry, wisdom literature, prophetic, epistle, etc.).
Brent,
I think “authoritative” is a good description. The Gospels may not be historically accurate, but they are the best accounts of Jesus’ life and teaching that we have or are ever likely to have.
“Authoritative.” I like that. I think it sums everything up nicely.