Talk:Inerrancy of the Bible

From Theopedia

I would question whether we can really know whether the Bible is inerrant or not. I don't think it can be proven. I don't think this belief should in any way be a 'litmus test' on whether someone is truly Christian. Why would it matter if it can be 'proved' from the Bible that it is inerrant? Isn't that circular reasoning; namely, to say the Bible is inerrant because the Bible *says* so? First, you have to operate from the assumption the Bible is inerrant in the first place to give any merit to what the Bible says about its own inerrancy. Is the inerrancy of the Bible anything less than an assumption, and is it really an important part of one's faith?

How do you know if any historical document is trustworthy? -Aaronshaf 12:02, 10 Jun 2005 (EDT)

You ask a good question. I think all too often we make assumptions that can't be proven. -meuu

It may not be a 'litmus test' to whether or not someone is Christian, but I wonder what a Christian's feelings toward their Bible would be if they knew it could not be trusted. If one claims agnostic on their view of the inerrancy of Scripture it seems it must follow that the truthfulness of Scripture seems to goe out the window as well. In other words, some say the bible is not inerrant, however it is still inspired and reliable. It seems hard to distinguish what is reliable and inspired and what isn't. Some say that revelatory things are inspired and non-revelatory things are not. I'm not sure if I would want to be in that place (again), and I find that there is great evidence to believe with confidence in the Inerrancy of our Bibles. -JordanBarrett 19:35, 29 July 2005 (EDT)

Also, I was wondering if we could change the quote at the beginning which says "Inerrancy, or infallibility..." This gives the a picture to the reader that they are one and the same. However, there is a huge debate over whether the two can be distinguished. If this quote remains at the beginning it gives the reader the assumption that they in fact are the same. I personally am not so sure they are the same. Anyways, what do you guys think?

If they are distinguished in some circles we should definitely find a quote (or write up something) that is more accurate, less open to debate, and more in comformity with Theopedia's writing guidelines. -Aaronshaf

I edited the page because I felt it needed a tune up in it's organization. It also needed more to it rather than quotes from the same page. It's no where near where I'd like it to be, but hopefully it is a start. I mean no offense to whoever put this page together. By all means, please edit and add to what I have written. -JordanBarrett 01:44, 2 Aug 2005 (EDT)

As to the above statements about not being able to prove the inerrancy of the Bible, that is true. It can never be proven in the scientific sense. It is, in fact, a matter of faith. The best argument I can give besides my own faith is the personal testimony of Jesus. He refered to Scripture on numerous occasions as coming directly from God (Matt 19:4-5 for example). If we indeed hold Christ to be our Lord, then should we not also follow His example? His teachings show us that Scripture is from God, so why would we choose to believe anything else? Once we begin to decide that some parts of the Bible may not be true, where does it end? Who says what is true and what is not? Not God anymore, but each person gets to pick and choose what he or she likes or dislikes. That's the danger of rejecting the full truthfulness of Scripture. As to the "assumptions that can't be proven" that we all make "all too often," everyones beliefs are grounded in basic assumtions. There is a bedrock level of argument that can go no lower for everyone. You can tell me why you believe in something, then why you believe in that, and so on only so long until you come to the point when you must say, "well that is just what I believe." And that's okay. Those are presuppositions and everyone has them. No one is totally objective. -Tintedview

Contents 1 "There are some who also believe that God has perfectly preserved the autographs in the apographs (copies)." 2 This section seems dubious 3 Up for peer review 4 cite extension ?

"There are some who also believe that God has perfectly preserved the autographs in the apographs (copies)."

Are there any major Reformed folks who ascribe to this? -Aaronshaf 18:53, 16 November 2005 (EST)

I changed it to say "there are some from the past...". The major reformed folk that i listed is Francis Turretin. I suppose we could add John Owen who said, "the purity of the present original copies of the Scripture, or rather copies (apographa) in the original languages, which the Church of God doth now and hath for many ages enjoyed as her treasure."

It does seem that reformed folks from the past held the apographs in higher esteem than scholars of today.

Larryjf

This section seems dubious

The followin seems not worth including, and I personally recommend a review of it:

There are some from the past who believed that God perfectly preserved the autographs in the apographs (copies). Francis Turretin wrote in his Systematic Theology, "By "original texts" we do not mean the very autographs from the hands of Moses, the prophets, and the apostles, which are known to be nonexistent. We mean copies (apographa), which have come in their name, because they record for us that word of God in the same words into which the sacred writers committed it under the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit." (A Puritan's Mind)

-Aaronshaf 21:18, 28 February 2006 (EST)

I think it just needs clarification. If I'm reading it right, it is simply stating that some believe the actual copies are inerrant as opposed to simply the first (i.e., original) written text. I find this relevant to the discussion, although, like I said, I think more needs to be said at the end of that section. JordanBarrett (talk) 02:44, 1 March 2006 (EST)

In the referenced source, Turretin went on to say the following:

"There is no question of the sources being pure in the sense that no error has crept into many sacred codices, either from the ravages of time, or the carelessness of copyists, or the malice of Jews and heretics. This is recognized on both sides, and the variant readings, which Beza and Robert Stephanus have noted in Greek, and the Jews in Hebrew, witness sufficiently to this. But the question is whether the original text, in Hebrew or in Greek, has been so corrupted, either by the carelessness of copyists or by the malice of Jews and heretics, that it can no longer be held as the judge of controversies and the norm by which all versions without exception are to be judged. The Roman Catholics affirm this; we deny it."

This quote provides context which belies the claim that Turretin viewed the Copies as completely inerrant. John Owen (in discussion section above) is not referenced or quoted in context either, So I say delete the article paragraph or provide a better reference. :-) Gomarus 08:08, 1 March 2006 (EST)

Thanks for the context. Good call. JordanBarrett (talk) 11:44, 1 March 2006 (EST)

Up for peer review

Parableman, I don't recommend trying to downplay or discredit a previous paragraph within the article. If you want to do that, bring it here to the TALK page. I would like to offer up the following for peer review:

Some scholars have used these terms interchangeably. However, infallibility is a broader term. Those who hold to inerrancy will by default hold to infallibility. The other side of this is not necessarily true. Some scholars argue that the Bible can be infallible without having to be free of error (The Origin of the Bible, p. 39). Infallibility, briefly defined, means that the Bible is reliable and trustworthy to those who turn to it in search of God's truth. That is, infallibility generally implies that the text is infallible in the truth it proclaims despite the possibility of there being textual errors. Infallibility concerns itself with one's personal knowledge of God and assurance of salvation, while inerrancy concerns itself more specifically with the accurate transmission of the details of revelation (ibid.).

There is an alternative usage of these terms, one that several dictionaries confirm. (Dictionary.com; Merriam-Webster) Historically, the terms have been used in discussions of divine foreknowledge by philosophers in the exact reverse way. Inerrancy is the mere absence of errors with no indication of why there are no errors. As far as inerrancy is concerned, it might be right by accident. But God's foreknowledge has usually been taken to be infallible and not just coincidentally getting it right. Infallibility is thus stronger than inerrancy. Infallibility is the impossibility of being wrong. The usage of these terms in the above paragraph may be confusing to those who are more familiar with the classical use of the terms, where infallibility implies inerrancy rather than the reverse. This usage is not completely separate from the debate over the inerrancy of scripture, however. The Chicago Statement of Inerrancy does not explicitly use them in this way, but it denies the previous paragraph's usage.

JordanBarrett (talk) 08:56, 25 April 2006 (PDT)

Parableman, my problem with your defintion of infallibility is that you're automatically applying it to the text. Theologians, as far as I've seen, simply apply it to the truth of Scripture, and not the text. The claim says that Scripture can have textual errors but still remain true despite them. Rather than using a secular dictionary to define a theological stance, I would recommend finding other biblical and theological sources. I am all ears and am willing to be wrong on this, but I would rather you write such things as "it denies the previous paragraph's usage" or "The usage of these terms in the above paragraph may be confusing". If you think this, make them "not confusing", or bring it here to the TALK page. Hope that makes sense. JordanBarrett (talk) 08:59, 25 April 2006 (PDT)

Parableman may have a point in the potential confusion of the terms, but his argument is not well constructed and the dictionary references are not particularly helpful as they include the sense of infallibility mentioned in the first (existing) paragraph which he is arguing against. And there are no citations for his claims. On the other hand, Davis (a professor of philosophy) suggests the following distinction: "The Bible is inerrant if and only if it makes no false or misleading statements on any topic whatsoever. The Bible is infallible if and only if it makes no false or misleading statements on any matter of faith and practice." Stephen T Davis, The Debate about the Bible: Inerrancy versus Infallibility (Westminster Press, 1977). ISBN 0664241190, p. 23. Davis argues that infallibility does not necessitate a doctrine of inerrancy, consistent with the statements that were in the article. Gomarus 09:25, 25 April 2006 (PDT)

Thanks for that quote - that helps. I do want to say that I understand what Parableman is saying, and I think both can make sense. However, I don't think one has to trump the other. They can simply be defined, clarified, and even contrasted without conflicting. JordanBarrett (talk) 10:07, 25 April 2006 (PDT)

I'm trying to figure out what the hullabaloo is. I never tried to downplay or criticize anything. If you read what I said carefully, you'll see that all I was doing was flagging a different usage of these terms in the philosophical literature and the history of the discussion that the theological tradition has not been in step with. I gave sources from dictionaries that show that the terms have traditionally meant exactly what I was saying, and there is cause for confusion. I pointed out that the Chicago statement seems to be using the terms differently so that infallibility is not weaker than inerrancy, as the usage by many theologians takes them to be. Since this is just an extremely mild point about how different people are using the terms differently, I can't see how it's justified to pull it out of the article.

It seems to me that Jordan is drastically misunderstanding my intent by claiming that I was trying to use a secular dictionary to define a theological stance. I was doing nothing of the sort. The theological stance had already been defined, and I wasn't disagreeing with the claim that those who use the term 'infallibility' mean what the article said it means. I was simply pointing out that there's a longstanding philosophical use of these terms that the dictionaries capture, which means that there's cause for confusion if this article doesn't mention the confusion in terminology in order to clear it up. It seems to me to be unconscionable to delete this information given that there's nothing controversial about it and that it's especially relevant for clearing up how someone might misunderstand these terms if they're more familiar with the standard philosophical usage of them.

It also seems to me to be missing the point to ask me to support a linguistic conclusion by appealing to the Bible or to theology sources. The point is about language. Dictionaries are usually good sources on such things. I did cite the Chicago statement anyway, which is clearly a theological source. I don't follow at all the last part of your first paragraph above, Jordan. You're saying you rather I would write certain things that I did write. How would you rather I write those when that is what I did write?

Now I can give some sources that you might consider theological, not that I think I should need to on a linguistic point. But there are some. One is the Chicago statement, which very clearly says that that "Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated." Another is Walter Elwell's Evangelical Dictionary of Theology's entry "Infallibility", which defines the term as "The state of being incapable of error". The entry "Bible, Inerrancy and Infallibility of" considers the B.B. Warfield/Stephen Davis usage of infallibility as weaker than inerrancy to be revisionist but also to have now taken hold in the debate enough that it must be acknowledged. It then goes on to take the terms to be synonymous for the sake of the article, which seems to me to be yet another usage, a third sense of infallible to mean inerrant. Grudem's Systematic Theology (p.93) has a footnote about this third sense: "Until about 1960 or 1965 the word infallible was used interchangeably with the word inerrant. But in recent years, at least in the United States, the word infallible has been used in a weaker sense to mean that the Bible will not lead us astray in matters of faith and practice. Kevin Vanhoozer speaks of the history of the term similarly in "The Semantics of Biblical Literature" from Heremeneutics, Authority, and Canon, ed. D.A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge (pp.101-102). He says that the terms once signaled "exempt from the liability to err" and "not liable to fail" and then says that the more recent term inerrancy amounts to roughly the same thing. The point of his chapter is to rehabilitate the traditional sense of infallibility as carrying the inability to have errors. The faculty of Westminister Seminary in California have a statement on this issue that says "the infallibility of Scripture necessarily implies the inerrancy of Scripture".

I suppose I might as well provide some links to foreknowledge literature where infallibility is taken to be stronger than merely being correct but means unable to be wrong. This occurs in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Foreknowledge and Free Will. William Lane Craig makes the distinction in the same way: "If we hold that the predictor is not merely inerrant, but infallible, then in fact no appeal to a special resolution need be made. For most theists hold that God's foreknowledge is not merely inerrant but essentially infallible." Inerrancy is thus weaker than infallibility. Jonathan Edwards also argues that infallibility of foreknowledge means God couldn't be wrong, using it as an argument that God's foreknowledge makes everything in some sense necessary. Linda Zagzebski, in her The Dilemma of Freedom and Foreknowledge, interprets infallibility in God's knowledge as implying that "it is impossible that God's beliefs turn out to be false".

That's all just one area of philosophy. In epistemology, a debate rages over whether knowledge entails infallibility. Fallibilists say that you can know something in a way that you could have been wrong but happen not to be. Infallibilists say it's not knowledge unless you couldn't have been wrong and are thus infallible. Both views admit that you can have all true beliefs and not be infallible. This means that infallibility is stronger than just not being wrong. It means you couldn't be wrong. It's impossible that you be wrong. See the Stanford Encyclopedia discussion of that issue. Many other areas of philosophy could be used, but I don't want to belabor the point.

It's clear that the usage I'm talking about exists, and thus I think it's our moral obligation to clarify the different usages to avoid confusion over terms. Simply defining the terms while ignoring the other usage doesn't seem to me to do that. Flagging the fact that there is another usage, one that is indeed used in this debate (e.g. the Chicago statement) is much better than simply pretending no one could ever mean anything else by it, which is what you convey if you just state that this is what the terms mean. Parableman 07:42, 6 May 2006 (PDT)

There is no hullabaloo. We were simply kicking some things around in view of your post. I didn't enter the discussion until I saw the paragraphs already moved here on the discussion page. Quite frankly I found it a little difficult to understand what you were driving at. But that may just be me in my first reading of it. However, the additional information you have provided is helpful and informative. I'm sure we don't have a problem addressing the variations of meaning as you have explained. Another shot at a proposed edit is certainly worth the effort. So, feel free to do so either here or in the article. Thanks for your interest. Gomarus 08:01, 6 May 2006 (PDT)

I had no idea this was such a big deal. I understand a lot more now that I know you're a PhD candidate in philosophy. That is, I see why language is playing a large role here. I removed some of your material because one of your sentences started somewhere along these lines, "The term infallibility is actually used quite differently than in the paragraph above..." That's what I mean when I say I simply want them defined and clarified without conflicting. The author of an encyclopedic article (in our case, "authors") should never say something negative about his previous paragraph - his own work - and it felt awkward referencing the previous paragraph like that. I originally took that to mean you thought our article was wrong, but now I know that you're wanting to clarify terms and define things properly. If you don't know what I'm talking about I'll find time to search the History and find the sentences. Lastly, and I think I've said this before, you seem to know more about this topic than I do and so I encourage you to add more information (I think Gomarus has already started to do so). I never mind to undermine your work, only to try and present it in what I saw was a better format that complimented the entirety of the article. I'm sorry if I offended you in the process. That does tend to happen on wikis. JordanBarrett (talk) 11:49, 6 May 2006 (PDT)

cite extension ?

What are these ↑ JordanBarrett 14:38, 23 May 2006 (PDT)

Tom is apparently trying a "cite extension" format used at Wikipedia. It would be easier to use (I think), if we can get it to work correctly. You are currently seeing a glitch. I assume Tom will check it out. Gomarus 04:55, 24 May 2006 (PDT)