bible

The Bible is Infallible NOT Inerrant

While the cruciform understanding (explained here) of the “God-breathed” nature of Scripture is in tension with the way most talk about inerrancy (See previous post on inerrancy), I do not believe it is at all incompatible with what the Church has always sought to express by affirming the “infallibility” the Scripture. The core conviction is that Scripture will not fail you when you rely on it for the purpose for which it was intended. Even ancient thinkers such as Origen and Augustine understood that one can find mistakes in Scripture if you hold it to the wrong criteria. While “infallible” must be more precisely defined, it does not require us to use modern scientific and historical criteria to evaluate Scripture as does the word “inerrancy.”

I believe the word “infallible” succinctly captures the attitude of Jesus and the earliest disciples regarding Scripture. Moreover, while the concept of inerrancy is inapplicable to certain genres within Scripture (e.g. how does one affirm a poem or a song to be inerrant?), the concept of infallibility is broad enough to be applied to any genre of literature. Whatever purpose an author had for composing whatever kind of canonical literature we might consider, we may affirm that, because it is “God-breathed,” this writing will not fail to achieve its purpose, assuming, once again, that we are relying on it for that purpose instead of for the purpose of satisfying our epistemic angst or some other imported agenda.

Most fundamentally, if we affirm that everything about Scripture, including its “God-breathed” nature, should be understood in light of the cross, then we are led to accept that Scripture’s infallibility should be understood in terms of the cross. While I can imagine a way of coherently reconceiving inerrancy in a cruciform fashion, I confess it sounds awkward to me, almost suggesting that not committing an error was central to what the Incarnation and Crucifixion was all about. While the historic-orthodox faith has always confessed Jesus’ sinlessness, the suggestion that the boy Jesus didn’t have to learn by making mistakes as he grew up is Docetism at its worst. “Son though he was,” the author of Hebrews tells us, “he learned obedience from what he suffered (Heb 5:8). Yet, while he made mistakes, suffered from them and learned obedience, Jesus never failed to faithfully bear witness to his Father. And for the same reason, when we approach Scripture with the purpose of discerning the crucified Christ in it, it seems perfectly natural to speak of Scripture never failing to bear witness to the crucified Christ, even when it is by certain standards mistaken.

From my perspective, the reason why the language of “infallibility” sounds much more appropriate in capturing the trustworthiness of Scripture is that it is much more at home in the language of covenant relationships (i.e., covenant-making and covenant-keeping). The concept of inerrancy seems more at home in fields of discourse in which getting things exactly right is a highest priority. It feels natural for scientists engaging in a laboratory experiment, or for scholars compiling a lexicon, or for sociologists compiling statistical reports to speak about committing no errors. But while I can imagine a covenant that includes as part of its terms the promise to never make an error, this is quite out of place in the real world of covenant-making and especially in the discourse surrounding biblical covenants. In the language of biblical covenants, one promises to place their trust in the trustworthy character of their covenant partner, and one promises to cultivate a trustworthy character in relation to their covenant partner. This, in fact, is what the biblical concept of “faith” is all about.

Image by Freaktography via Flickr.

Related Reading

Satan or God: Who Tempted David to Sin?

The author of 2 Samuel says that Yahweh caused David to sin by taking a census of his military personnel (2 Sam 24:1) while the author of 1 Chronicles attributes this temptation to Satan (1 Chr 21:1). It is clear that the author of 2 Samuel had no problem accepting that Yahweh was capable of…

Is the New Testament Ambiguous About Non-Violence?

One could argue, with some legitimacy, that the portrait of God in the NT is not unambiguously non-violent, the revelation of God on Calvary notwithstanding. It can’t be denied that there are violent-appearing images of God in certain teachings of Jesus and certain NT authors, especially when it comes to their eschatological teachings. In addition,…

The Heresy of “Just War”

Since the time when the Jesus-looking kingdom movement was transformed into the Caesar-looking “militant and triumphant” Church, there has been a tradition of Christians by-passing the enemy-loving, non-violent teachings of the NT and instead appealing to the precedent of divinely-sanctioned nationalism and violence in the OT whenever they felt the need to justify engaging in…

The End and Beginning of Faith

Eduardo Amorim via Compfight Micah J. Murray shared the story of how his doubts and loss of faith led him to a truer, deeper faith. While we fear the doubts that sometimes sneak in, sometimes those doubts lead us to a place of goodness. Be not afraid. From Micah’s story: Eventually I gave up on…

When God Wears Masks

At various times throughout the OT we find Yahweh assuming the role of a tester, refiner, punisher and even an enemy of Israel (e.g. Jer. 9:7; Lam. 2:5; Isa 63:10). Yet, when we examine these roles, or masks, in the light of the crucified Christ and the broader canonical witness, it becomes clear that these…

Podcast: How Do We Understand the Flood Through the Lens of the Cross?

Greg dives deep into the flood, to make sense of it through the lens of Christ on the cross. http://traffic.libsyn.com/askgregboyd/Episode_0087.mp3