Fundamentals: Inerrancy and Infallibility of Scripture
– Part 3
There is an emphasis in Jude
3 that we are to contend earnestly, vigorously, for the faith, i.e. the body
of doctrine that was revealed by God to man that is contained within the
Scriptures.
In the Enlightenment period
in the 17 & 1800s was the rise of what became known as historical criticism
or sometimes Biblical criticism. There was a couple of positive elements in
this movement but mostly it was bad because by criticism they really meant that
they were not going to take the Word of God to be what it claims it is, they
were going to assume it was just purely a human work just like any other work.
Part of that is true. The Bible should be interpreted as literature because it
was written by human beings, ultimately God working through them, using normal
literary styles. So it should be translated like any other kind of literature.
And that stands in contrast to something that had affected both rabbinic
interpretation as well as early Christian interpretation that occurred in the
second, third and fourth centuries AD with the influence of Greek philosophy upon the whole
idea of interpretation. So a text that was a divine text by definition wouldn’t
be treated like any other human literature. There is nothing in the Bible that
says that.
That is an artificially
developed principle that was then incorporated which shaped interpretation of
Scripture. So they saw that God is going top be different and He was going to
speak not like men speak but He is going to speak cryptically. So you look not
for the literal meaning of the text but beneath the text. You have to probe
deeply into the text and find layers of meaning to get to the real spiritual
meaning, which may not have anything to do with this surface literal meaning
based on the historical, grammatical interpretation. This came into
Christianity through men like Origen, later
Augustine, and it was known as allegory.
The same intellectual
influences occurred in Judaism and affected early rabbinic thought, so that
their approach to the Bible was that God gave it as almost all dictation, and
that it is cryptic, so that we have to look for some secondary meaning. Since
that doesn’t really work it does produce a flawed theology. There is an
overreaction that comes from the Enlightenment that says now we are going to
treat it like it is human literature. But they also brought in artificial ideas
that weren’t part of that and so they assumed that there would be
contradictions: if there are forty scholars in a room they are going to
disagree with each other, so why expect that the forty writers of Scripture
would agree with each other? So they assumed that there was going to be
disagreements and that is what they bring to the text. They are not going to
let the text itself speak for itself.
One classic example of this
occurs in Genesis and it has to do with creation. Creation is one of those
foundational doctrines to the faith. It is foundational to understanding what
is going on both in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament. And the way
this worked as a result of the application of these artificial principles of
biblical criticism (also known as higher criticism) was that they saw Genesis
chapter two as having two different accounts of creation. The first account
uses the name Elohim because that is the name
that is used throughout Genesis chapter one down through the first part of
Genesis 2:4. Then in the second part of 2:4 is the statement they would split
the sentence at “heavens and the earth when they were
created,” and then in the second part, “in
the day that the LORD God made earth and heaven,” at which point they would say, ‘Ah see,
now we have a new name for God. It is “Lord” so we probably have a different
author here. So they developed this theory of multiple authors (redactors) of
the Scripture. As a result they had one creation account in Genesis 1:1 to 2:4a
and another creation account in 2:4b, rather than looking at this and saying
the sixth day in the first chapter is merely presenting a summary of the
creation of the human race (1:27), and Genesis 2 gives the specifics.
We have to be careful to base
what we are saying on the text. We look at examples that are given (e.g. Jude
3) on how the Holy Spirit works in and through the writers without completely
taking over their personality or without letting them just run free and
incorporate error or mistakes in what they are writing.
Another problem people have
is that this doesn’t necessarily man that they are going to have perfect
grammar or a perfect understanding of Greek, because of the writers of the New
Testament, like Peter, an untrained fisherman for whom Greek was not a first
language.
Another phrase that is used
to describe inspiration is the terminology of verbal, plenary inspiration. We
believe that the Scripture in the original languages of Hebrew, Greek and
Aramaic was inspired verbally and in a plenary manner. The word “verbal” means
that the specific words of Scripture are inspired. It doesn’t mean dictated,
but it means that there is a sovereign oversight from God the Holy Spirit so
that a writer was in a sense controlled so that certain words were chosen
because other words or synonyms conveyed meanings that were not quite what the
Holy Spirit wanted to communicate. So this extends even down to the level of
grammar. This shows us that it is not just the ideas that are in the text that
are inspired by God but also the specific words themselves.
The word “plenary” has to do
with that which is full. It means the fullness of totality of the Scripture is
equally inspired. This is a problem with the red letter editions of that are
popular in many Bibles where the words of Jesus are in red. What that is
implying is that those words in red are somehow more significant than the words
in black. If the entirety of the Bible is the mind of Christ (1 Cor.
Other words that are used
when talking about the nature of the Bible are the words “infallible” and
“inerrant.” Infallible has the idea that every word is equally authoritative
and equally correct. Early on in the church history, in the 1600 and 1700s, if
you said that you believed the Bible was the Word of God that meant you
believed in what today is referred to as verbal, plenary, infallible, inerrant
Word of God. As man has become more sophisticated in
his thinking he finds ways to get around these definitions. So he can say the
Bible is the Word of God but what they mean is the Bible contains the Word of
God, so not every word is the Word of God. Another way people get around an
orthodox view of inerrancy and inspiration is to say that the Bible is inspired
in all matters of faith and practice. That is a great statement; it in not what
it says that is wrong, it is what it doesn’t say. It doesn’t say that the Bible
is inerrant and infallible when it speaks of historical events, events related
to creation, or events related to government; only that in matters of faith and
practice is the Bible inerrant. So theologians come up with sophisticated ways
of sliding around these doctrines because they are uncomfortable with the complete
authority of Scripture.
A word that has been added in
recent years has been “inerrancy,” i.e. without error. This only applies to the
original autographs, the original writings. We don’t have those, but it is a
lot easier to reconstruct an original that is without error than it is to
reconstruct an original that was filled with errors, because then you never
know what is erroneous and what is not. So inerrancy means that no error
existed in the original autographs or the original writings of Scripture, and
some today have decided that we need to insert the word “unlimited inerrancy.”
That seems to be redundant but unfortunately we have those today who have come
up with this doctrine of limited inerrancy. That is just another way of saying
that you believe the Bible is inerrant in all matters of faith and practice. It
is a limited inerrancy; it is not that you believe in the verbal, plenary
inspiration of Scripture.
The mechanics of inspiration:
a few high points. We believe that as 2 Timothy
What we see is that the
writers of Scripture do give us specific clues and ideas of how inerrancy
worked, their understanding of inerrancy and what books were authoritative and
what books are not. For example, in 1 Timothy
This is an important verse for a couple of
reasons. One is that it tells us that the Gospel of Luke was written by the
time Paul wrote 1 Timothy. So if He wrote 1 Timothy during his first imprisonment, which is what most
scholars believe, sometime around 60-63 AD, then the
Gospel of Luke was written by then. This is an important fact because when you
read certain higher critical writers, or books that are based on higher
criticism, this is the type of conclusions you will see. They will say, well
the writers of Scripture wrote somewhere between 60 and 100 years after the
events of Jesus’ life. That statement is really saying a) the people we think
wrote it didn’t write it because they would have been dead, especially if it
was 100 years after Jesus’ crucifixion, and b) they are also challenging the
accuracy of what is written by those writers. They base it pretty much on
conjecture on their part related to a number of different factors that are pure
speculation. They are not based on any hard evidence. The contention of the
writers in the early church, going back to the early second century, is that
Matthew, Mark and John were the writers of the four Gospels and that they were
written before the temple at
There is contention. If people choose to
date the Gospels to the late 60s or into the 70s or 80s of the first century
even that has implications for how they are going to interpret Scripture. For
one thing, in Luke 21 and Matthew 24 when Jesus is predicting the destruction
of the temple in Jerusalem, the underlying contention is that Matthew and Luke
were really written after the destruction of the temple so that is not
predicted prophecy, they are just writing that as history, they are putting those
words into Jesus’ mouth to make it look like He could predict prophecy; so all
these are just subtle attack on the authority and inerrancy of Scripture. But
Paul writes to Timothy during his first imprisonment, and if he is connecting
Deuteronomy and Luke together as Scripture then even by 62 or 63 AD
the Christian community is coming to understand that at least they had one Gospel
(Luke) and probably had three Gospels by that point (Matthew, Mark and Luke),
and they are viewed as having equal authority to the Hebrew Scriptures, the Old
Testament.
Peter, who also writes before the
destruction of the temple in
We know when we look at 2 Timothy
Then next point has to do with
understanding inspiration and inerrancy based on a syllogism, based on using
the Scripture as our foundation of logic where we are putting together a couple
of different premises from the Scripture. Our first premise is that God is
absolute veracity/truth. As Paul states in Romans 3:14 NASB “…let
God be found true, though every man {be found} a liar, as it is written, “THAT YOU MAY BE
JUSTIFIED IN YOUR WORDS, AND PREVAIL WHEN YOU ARE JUDGED.”
God is absolute truth and cannot lie. Then we put that together with our second
principle, that God is the source of the Scriptures (2 Timothy
A rule of logic is that if your premises
are correct and the conclusion is stated accurately from the premises, then
your conclusion must be correct. Since both of our premises are true—God is
absolute truth; God is the source of Scripture—then the conclusion must be true
that the Scriptures are without error and are absolutely true.
At this point, just to address the issue
of human involvement, this is a similar issue to the incarnation of the living
Word. Jesus is called the logos,
the Word, in John 1:1-4. So we have the living Word that enters into human history
through a human means and is preserved free from sin. If God is able to do that
then God is able to take His written Word, His spoken Word, and preserve it
through a human means and preserve it from error. The writers of Scripture as
moved by the Holy Spirit are prevented from writing error. It doesn’t mean that
they are sinless, it just means that in what they
wrote at that time under the inspiration of Scripture is without error. The
word that is translated “moved”—men were moved by the Holy
Spirit of God—is a word that is used of the movement of a sailing vessel
across the water. Cf. Acts 27:15, 17 – a ship that is blown by the wind and the
wind controls the action of the ship, and the ship can only go where the wind
blows it. The Holy Spirit is the ultimate agent of revelation, 2 Peter 1:20,
21, and the content originates basically from Him. The
content does not originate with the human authors of Scripture and God prevents
their sin nature from diverting, misdirecting, confusing or erroneously
recording His message.
Next, what Jesus said about Scripture. One of the things He said was that inspiration,
the authority, the infallibility of Scripture extends down to every detail of
Scripture. Matthew
There are several corollaries that we
should make to the doctrine of inspiration and infallibility.
1.
Though every
word is equally infallible and authoritative, not every word is applicable to every
believer. There are clearly statements in the Mosaic Law that have no
applicability to present day believers other than a very general sense of
providing us with a framework for understanding
Scripture. They are equally authoritative but are in a document connected to a
specific people at a specific time in history.
2.
If every word is
breathed out by God then it is the responsibility of the pastor-teacher to
investigate and exegete every word. The entire counsel of God from Genesis to
Revelation, every book in the Scripture, should be taught to the believer
because they are all profitable (2 Timothy
3.
If every word is
breathed out by God then the Bible is absolutely and totally sufficient for
salvation, for spiritual growth and problem-solving. That means that every
problem can be solved from the Word of God. 2 Peter 1:3, 4 NASB “seeing
that His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and
godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and
excellence. For by these He has granted to us His precious and magnificent
promises, so that by them you may become partakers of {the} divine nature,
having escaped the corruption that is in the world by lust.” How do we get
this? “Through the true knowledge of Him who called us.” So it is based on
knowledge of Him. The only way to know Him is through His Word.
4.
If every word is
from God to us, nothing should be more important in our life than learning and
applying His Word. Nothing is more important than the complete mastery of the
Bible.