Inerrant and Infallible

[GraceSeeker]

"Inerrant" and "Infallible", these two words are considered the gold standard of orthodoxy by many. Others use them, claim they hold to them as doctrinal standards, and yet when I read the other beliefs that they might publish in their "statement of faith" documents, it seems to me that they must mean something different by it than I would understand those words to mean. And, of course, still others reject them out of hand.

So, these two not so simple words appear to not have just different levels of acceptance within the Christian community, but also different meanings. So, my questions are:

Do you use these terms?

What do you mean by them?

Do you believe that one must accept the Bible to be inerrant and infallible?

 

[circuitrider]

inerrancy is a newbie theological theory of inspiration that the founders of none of our denominational families would have ever heard of. It is a recent 19th century creation and is not at all in keeping with UMC doctrine on scripture as found in the Articles of Religion and the Confession of faith.

It isn't Biblical, wasn't known of by the Apostle's, is not supported by our creeds or faith statements, and is frankly a form of heresy that leads to Bibleolotary.

 

[bdavison]

"Inerrant" and "Infallible", these two words are considered the gold standard of orthodoxy by many. Others use them, claim they hold to them as doctrinal standards, and yet when I read the other beliefs that they might publish in their "statement of faith" documents, it seems to me that they must mean something different by it than I would understand those words to mean. And, of course, still others reject them out of hand.

So, these two not so simple words appear to not have just different levels of acceptance within the Christian community, but also different meanings. So, my questions are:

Do you use these terms?

What do you mean by them?

Do you believe that one must accept the Bible to be inerrant and infallible?

Yes, I use both when describing Scripture.

Inerrant = incapable of being wrong.
Infallible = incapable of making a mistake

And the proof for this is this verse,
2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us to do what is right.

If the bible can teach us what is true, than obviously, what it says is true. And if its true, than it cannot be wrong, hence inerrant.
If it corrects us and teaches us to do what is right, then it's advice can never be wrong...hence infallible

 

[bdavison]

There are two viewpoints to "sola scriptura"

1. God's word is the sole and sufficient authority over all matters
2. Other sources such as prophetic, verbal passdowns, tongues, etc are also authoritative over matters.

It is my personal viewpoint, that God's word is sufficient for all needs, and does not require any further outside addition to address anything not already given to us.

I base this belief on the fact that I have yet to see any new revelation or tradition by man that has not been previously addressed in the bible or cannot be readily deduced from it, and the fact that the bible says not to add to, or take anything away from what has already been written. In addition, I have found in every instance of a denomination or doctrine speaking against sola scriptura, there is also a clear evidence of teachings going directly against scripture. Which leads me to believe that their reasoning for going against sola scriptura is specifically to condone, support, or allow deviating from scripture in their churches.

Here are some of the biblical verses which I believe support this position.

1. 1 Cor 4:6 - in which Paul states that a common saying from christians at the time is "Do not go beyond what is written". This is so that people do not think themselves wiser than what is written already in scripture....which Paul also states in 1 Corinthians 4:10

2. Matthew 4:1-1 - in this verse Jesus is addressing the Satan during the time at which he is being tempted by Satan. In each of the three temptations he states "It is written". At no time did he break into tongues, prophecy, or add anything to what was already written. He re-stated what was already there. Also, he chose to defeat Satan with scripture, not any other means.

3. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 - at the end it states "for every good work". In every case, scripture is sufficient. In other words, there are no works that could be done by us that are not already addressed in scripture. You could go through your entire life living according to already supplied scripture, and never having taken place in any post-scripture prophetic utterance and still both fulfill your mission here on earth, as well as take part in eternity with God.

4.Luke 10:26 - In this verse, Jesus is asking "What is written?" and "How do you interpret it?" This indicates that no elaboration, or interpretation by prophetic utterance, etc., no clergy interpretation, no church scholar....just you, and the holy spirit.

5.Acts 17:11-12 - In this verse, it clearly states that the Berean Jews "examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." Why would they do that if there was any other way to determine truth. Simple answer...there isn't, so they went to the one and only authoritative source.

 

[GraceSeeker]

There are two viewpoints to "sola scriptura"

It is interesting that you should mention this. Many appear not to be aware that Methodism has never held to "sola scriptura". Wesley classified himself as "a man of one book", but even he never promoted "sola scriptura". It is more accurate to describe Wesleyan theology as "prima scriptura", meaning scripture first, but not scripture only. As Wesleyans we also hold to the validity of bringing tradition, reason, and experience alongside the scriptures to help us make sense of it in how one applies it to the living of the Christian life.

 

[RomansFiveEight]

So if I were to use the word 'infallible', maybe here's how!

I believe the Bible contains within in the word of God, and the stories of those who experienced the Word of God in the flesh in Jesus Christ. Both the word of God and the Word of God (Jesus) are without fault, and are sufficient for our salvation and sufficient to lead us towards a knowledge of God and a relationship with God. This infallible word was written down by sinful man and continues to be interpreted by errant people. It contains within it's pages all that is necessary for our salvation and is the most authoritative document in the universe for a Christian. It, however, is far too important, far too complicated, far too crucial to be taken literally and simply. The word is inerrant and infallible. The words on the page are not, and nor is our interpretation of those words. Our interpretation of the Bible is not God. Nor is our interpretation of the Bible infallible. In fact, quite the opposite!

So there's my defense of infallibility from the eyes of a Wesleyan Christian! The infallible word of God is in there! It just, isn't necessarily what people think it is. (spoiler alert: It's Jesus).

Paul used the image of a cloudy mirror to talk about our understanding of God. Back then they were made of metals (bronze I think?) polished to be reflective. Very rare, and very expensive. But some cities would buy one and put it in the street. People would flock to it. AMAZING that they could see themselves. But, these were cheap mirrors. Over time they corroded, scratched, and became 'clouded'. Paul said our knowledge of God (and perhaps our interpretation of the Bible) is like looking into a mirror like that. It's been so eroded over time that while we see God in there, it isn't the clear picture some would like us to have. What we have to do, is take the parts that are clear and use them as a lens to understand the parts that are cloudy. Until one day in heaven we have that beautiful polished mirror that lets us reflect Christ fully, and understand God entirely.

There, there's your blasphemy of the day courtesy of yours truly!

 

[bdavison]

It is interesting that you should mention this. Many appear not to be aware that Methodism has never held to "sola scriptura". Wesley classified himself as "a man of one book", but even he never promoted "sola scriptura". It is more accurate to describe Wesleyan theology as "prima scriptura", meaning scripture first, but not scripture only. As Wesleyans we also hold to the validity of bringing tradition, reason, and experience alongside the scriptures to help us make sense of it in how one applies it to the living of the Christian life.

I would not say Wesley was "prima scriptura"....his quadrilateral, while not dividing faith from reason, always put reason under scripture. He himself said that scripture is the first authority in every case, and that "It is a rule sufficient of itself. It neither needs, nor is capable of, any further addition". His quadrilateral always formed that tradition, experience, and reason were proof of scripture in our lives...not the other way around.

And he also thought that without the Holy Spirit, reason is futile. Which I agree with since the bible tells us in 1 Corinthians 2:14 that "The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit."

According to the UMC, "Scripture is considered the primary source and standard for Christian doctrine. Tradition is experience and the witness of development and growth of the faith through the past centuries and in many nations and cultures. Experience is the individual's understanding and appropriating of the faith in the light of his or her own life. Through reason the individual Christian brings to bear on the Christian faith discerning and cogent thought. These four elements taken together bring the individual Christian to a mature and fulfilling understanding of the Christian faith and the required response of worship and service."

In simple terms, Tradition, Reason and Experience are witness to Scripture. Not replacements or alternatives to it.

I've always surmised that if Wesley had been presented with a theological dilemma wherein Tradition, Reason and Experience all agreed with one side, but it was not found in, or congruent to Scripture he would have tossed Tradition, Reason and Experience out the window and went with Scripture.

 

[charliehcf]

Like circuitrider said, "inerrant" is a modern doctrine, often associated with fundamentalism (also a modern doctrine, dating from the early 20th century).

I relate it to the difference between truth and fact. Fundamentalists focus on the factualness of the Bible. "It is a FACT..." you hear them say.

Inerrancy means the Bible is FACT. Inerrancy means if the Bible says God created the earth in six days, then God created the earth in six days. And when the Bible says that Jesus is the gate for the sheep, it means that Jesus is made of wooden planks, and that he has hinges. Otherwise, the Bible would be errant.

Infallible is a much more ancient doctrine. It asserts that the Bible is TRUE. Can it be true that Jesus is the gate for the sheep, and yet Jesus not be made of planks and hinges? Yes, the doctrine of infallibility allows for this. Is it possible that the truth of the creation story lies not in the literal number of days, but in the truth that God created everything we know out of nothing, and that his inspired authors are capable of eloquence and metaphor? Yes, the doctrine of infallibility says that's absolutely OK.

 

[BryanW92]

Inerrancy means the Bible is FACT. Inerrancy means if the Bible says God created the earth in six days, then God created the earth in six days. And when the Bible says that Jesus is the gate for the sheep, it means that Jesus is made of wooden planks, and that he has hinges. Otherwise, the Bible would be errant.

So, if a non-fiction book contains a single metaphor, then it is not a non-fiction book?? Are we at the point where we can't recognize a metaphor anymore? It's quite possible that the parables were just stories and not a retelling of actual events, so that makes the bible not true (fallible) as well as errant.

 

[circuitrider]

Bryan,

Inerrancy is a very new theory of inspiration that none of the denominational founders ever heard of. The Bible is full of narrative but also poetry, apoclyptic literature, metaphors etc. If you try to use "inerrant" then you have to use the scientific mindset of inerrancy that demands everything be taken literally and factually even if the author himself never intended the writing to be taken that way.

Worse it isn't even a Biblical term. I don't dislike infalible. But I much prefer the word "inspired" because that is what Bible said, not what some Presbyterian at Princton Univerity said in the 19th century.

 

[GraceSeeker]

So, if a non-fiction book contains a single metaphor, then it is not a non-fiction book?? Are we at the point where we can't recognize a metaphor anymore? It's quite possible that the parables were just stories and not a retelling of actual events, so that makes the bible not true (fallible) as well as errant.

There are other figures of speech besides the metaphor. It is quite possible that passages like the creation story in Genesis 1, the creation story in Genesis 2, and the creation mini-story in Genesis 5 where not met to be taken any more as history than Jesus parables were. To see them as either fiction or non-fiction is to be asking questions that I don't believed ever crossed the mind of the authors of the scriptures.

 

[BryanW92]

There are other figures of speech besides the metaphor. It is quite possible that passages like the creation story in Genesis 1, the creation story in Genesis 2, and the creation mini-story in Genesis 5 where not met to be taken any more as history than Jesus parables were. To see them as either fiction or non-fiction is to be asking questions that I don't believed ever crossed the mind of the authors of the scriptures.

I agree. When I was a teenager, I was a huge fan of Greek mythology. Their mythology parallels Genesis pretty well. We assume that their mythology is just a story, so it it quite possible that Genesis is just myth as well.

But, if a person chooses to believe that Genesis is fact because they want to believe in the power of God to do anything--including the implausible--what does it hurt?

Science says that the six-day creation did not happen and that the Flood did not happen. Science also says that a man cannot rise from the dead after being dead for three days. If I remove all the things that science says cannot happen from the bible, I'm left with the Jefferson Bible.

Frankly, if God is just a good idea and Jesus is only a healthy philosophy of life, then I'd rather be a Buddhist.

 

[charliehcf]

... If I remove all the things that science says cannot happen from the bible, I'm left with the Jefferson Bible.

Frankly, if God is just a good idea and Jesus is only a healthy philosophy of life, then I'd rather be a Buddhist.

Well said, Bryan. I am in complete agreement with you.

 

[BryanW92]

When I wrote the post above, it got me thinking of the state of the church and our beliefs. They say that we're in a Post-Christian world and I think that our quickness to distance ourselves from words like inerrancy or from the Six-day Creation shows that we really don't have enough faith to worship God anymore. We aren't a church that can throw itself down before God and believe that anything can happen, except for some group-think kumbayah thing where we all get inspired by our own actions.

Have we evolved to the point where church really is just a recharge station for our own feelings of self-importantance? Is God just a figment of our imagination that soothes our need to have an answer to "Where did I come from?", "Why am I here?", and "What happens to me when my body expires?"

We guilt ourselves into action by asking, "If the church disappeared, who would notice?" If we don't believe in the power of a God who created the universe, then we really are just a very inefficient delivery system for social services. If we throw out pieces of our own bible as mythology, then why keep any of it? Why go through the charade of weekly worship? Why keep the building that doesn't really serve anyone except us? Why waste money on clergy when we only need someone to adminster the outreach programs?

The Baptist church across the street has over 1000 in worship every Sunday. We are lucky to have 100 (down from 150 a year ago). If someone walks into their church and asks "Is everything in the bible true?", they answer "YES." If they ask us, we start hemming and hawing about infallability vs inerrancy, about metaphor and allegory, and then we tell them that it doesn't really matter as long as we serve the community in some way.

Are we afraid to tell the rational, scientific, and secular world that it is wrong? Do we believe them when they say that Christians are just weak people who need a crutch named Jesus as their motivation to do anything good?

 

[GraceSeeker]

Science says that the six-day creation did not happen and that the Flood did not happen. Science also says that a man cannot rise from the dead after being dead for three days. If I remove all the things that science says cannot happen from the bible, I'm left with the Jefferson Bible.

Frankly, if God is just a good idea and Jesus is only a healthy philosophy of life, then I'd rather be a Buddhist.

I agree on both points. What I don't agree with are what I think are some inferences you draw when writing:

When I was a teenager, I was a huge fan of Greek mythology. Their mythology parallels Genesis pretty well. We assume that their mythology is just a story, so it it quite possible that Genesis is just myth as well.

But, if a person chooses to believe that Genesis is fact because they want to believe in the power of God to do anything--including the implausible--what does it hurt?

Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but is seems that you infer that myths can't be trusted to tell us the truth. I would argue just the opposite. The the power of myth is that they are told specifically to convey a truth, but not necessarily historical fact.

For instance, I'm from Illinois. Our favorite son is Abraham Lincoln. One of the traits that is most associated with Lincoln is his honesty. And to convey this, one of the stories told about Honest Abe is that Lincoln walked six miles to return three cents to a customer he’d unintentionally overcharged while working as a clerk in a dry goods store. The thing is that I have heard this story told many different ways. Sometimes it is 1 mile and a nickel. Sometimes it is 2 miles and a penny. Sometimes it is change he didn't give at the post office. And I cannot tell you what the historical facts actually are. But, I can tell you that the reason the storie(S) remain is because the myth conveys a very real truth about Abraham Lincoln, he was noted for his exceptional honesty in dealing with people. But one would be incorrect to therefore infer that Lincoln was always so scrupulously honest. The passage of the Emancipation Proclamation and later of the 14th amendment where both instances where Lincoln engaged in a great deal of not just political manuevering, but outright subterfuge.

So, is the story about Honest Abe honest? Is it true? Well, that depends on how you define those terms. I can tell you only that it is a myth, and that they myth does a good job of communicate an essential truth about Lincoln's character and what those who knew him in his own day thought of him. For a historian, it might be important to chronicle the details of this aspect of Lincoln's life more thoroughly before writing a biography about him. But, as one who simply wants to convey the grandeur of the man to his grand children, it is not.

And when I talk to my grandchildren (or my congregation) about God, I am likewise trying to convey something of his character, and not writing a history. Therefore, I'm quite happy to let you call anyone or all three of the creation stories a "myth" and not be insulted by the term. I will still tell them to help other people to know something about the nature and character of God or even of certain aspects of our human nature but I won't use them for those who are trying to trace the origin of the species.

 

[BryanW92]

I'm not saying that myths can't give us a message. The Greek myths are full of great messages and exciting stories. But if we're going to declare parts of the bible to be myths, I'm just not sure where the "myth" part of the bible ends and the "history" begins. Genesis and the supernatural parts of Exodus are surely myths. Jonah, the prophets, Job, Samson would be myths or the stories of liars, lunatics, or fools. Sodom and Gomorrah are certainly myths.

And big chunks of the gospels would be myths. Demons and angels are myths. Heaven and hell would be a myth. The afterlife would be a myth.

So, we're left with an exaggerated history of the Jewish people and some of the words of an executed philosopher, along with the religion that his followers created after his death.

If there's even a God in there, it's just the god of deists.

Why would you use the "grandeur" of Genesis to convey anything about God since he didn't do anything but appear as a character in a work of fiction? If the creation story in Genesis is myth, then all it conveys is that people invented God, wrote a story, and defended the story long enough for it to become a classic and then co-opted the power of the Roman Empire to make the story go global.

Why does the UMC have a business plan that denies the supernatural aspect of God and then wonders why it is failing? Is it all just a cynical ruse to rally the folks to do some charitable work?

This actually scares me. My church thinks that God is just a literary hero. Is Christianity a fraud? Did I really give up the contentment of atheism to join this?

 

[GraceSeeker]

I'm not saying that myths can't give us a message. The Greek myths are full of great messages and exciting stories. But if we're going to declare parts of the bible to be myths, I'm just not sure where the "myth" part of the bible ends and the "history" begins.

You use "myth" differently than I do. The whole of the Bible is "myth" from Genesis to Revelation. The most important part is the myth of Jesus, especially his death and resurrection. I don't say those events "myth" because they are untrue, on the contrary I believe that they were in fact historical events as real as the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But their power, like those events, are much bigger than just the facts of the story, but what more the story means beyond just those short moments in time.

 

[BryanW92]

I'm using this definition:

myth

noun \ˈmith\ : an idea or story that is believed by many people but that is not true
: a story that was told in an ancient culture to explain a practice, belief, or natural occurrence
: such stories as a group

Full Definition of MYTH

1
a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon
b : parable, allegory

2
a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society <seduced by the American myth of individualism &#8212; Orde Coombs>
b : an unfounded or false notion

3
: a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence

4
: the whole body of myths


You seem to be saying that the creation story in Genesis is myth like definition #1.

The rational part of my brain agrees that the Genesis story is myth. There's too much scientific evidence to not believe in the Old Earth. But, the part of me that wants to believe is willing to accept the Young Earth without telling people that they are wrong for believing it.

IMO, it is a pastor's job to help people increase their faith and not to teach science. You shouldn't demand that people accept the Young Earth (as the Baptists do) and you shouldn't tell people to not believe in it either (as the Methodists and public school teachers do). Don't be afraid to let the secular world call us superstitious fools because they will do that as long as we have a belief in the resurrection and the afterlife anyway. Trying to make friends with the secular world by denying the supernormal aspects of God never works, and it only weakens the church.

 

[BryanW92]

I read this yesterday:

"2014 Graduating class of Asbury Theological Seminary&#8230;This is my charge to you: Go forth as William Borden did: No Reserves, No Retreat, No Regrets. That is your posture. Don&#8217;t waste your time trying to build a professional ecclesiastical career&#8230; that&#8217;s building political reserves. Don&#8217;t waste your time second guessing the truth or power of the Word of God, or the centrality of Jesus Christ, that&#8217;s creating a retreat in case the winds of popular culture turn against the church. Don&#8217;t end your ministry on any other note but faithfulness, for that will create regrets. As God&#8217;s Word says and the presence of our Golden Grads testify: It is not the one who starts the race who will win the prize, it is the one who finishes it." (Emphasis added)

(My Charge to the Asbury Theological Seminary Graduating Class of 2014 - Timothy C. Tennent | Timothy C. Tennent)

It doesn't matter if a parishoner believes in the Old Earth or the Young Earth, as long as they believe in Jesus Christ and that he is both God and man. If they need to believe in inerrancy to do that, then let them. If they need infallability to do that, then let them. The UMC takes pride in its tolerance of ideas, but I've noticed that the only thing that is not tolerated is someone who steps out too far on faith.

 

[GraceSeeker]

The UMC takes pride in its tolerance of ideas, but I've noticed that the only thing that is not tolerated is someone who steps out too far on faith.

I suppose that this is true with some people. But you certainly are not hearing me say anything even close to that. For instance, you also say...

It doesn't matter if a parishoner believes in the Old Earth or the Young Earth, as long as they believe in Jesus Christ and that he is both God and man. If they need to believe in inerrancy to do that, then let them. If they need infallability to do that, then let them.

And this is exactly what I do do. If you were to sit my the pew in my congregation, or even participate in a Bible study where I am more willing to get into and discuss disagreements in interpretations, you won't find me critical of anyone for believing in a literal 6 24-hour day creation. From the pulpit (where one does not have time to go into details) the most I say is that it doesn't matter whether one is speaking from an evolutionary standpoint or from a literalistic one, the message of the Bible is still that God is sovereign over all and ultimate Creator whether one believes he spoke the world into being or caused it to evolve over time. We still have the same message about God's relation to the world whichever way you arrive at it.


But I would suggest to you Bryan that you've posted more than one definition of "myth". Which is it that you are using:

an idea or story that is believed by many people but that is not true

or

a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon

I am using the second understanding, most certainly NOT the first. I divorce completely from the idea of myth an ability to determine truth simply because the story is packaged in the form of a myth. Which does not mean that we cannot attempt to determine historical truth or scientific facts by some other means (namely historical or scientific research), but we must do so by these other means, and recall that a mythological vessel for communicating knowledge is not intending to communicate either history or science, but to explain something else.

For instance, "a stitch in time saves nine". Really? Has anyone done the math. My experience is that one stitch by itself usually isn't enough to fix anything, but two or three can save you 50 or 60, or maybe even having to throw the whole thing away. But you know what happens when I point this out to people? They tell me that I missed the point. That they weren't being literal in suggesting that it was some sort of math equation. Rather that the idea was to fix something early when the problem is small, rather than waiting for it to become a bigger one later.

So, I want to suggest that the above saying is true, even though it isn't factual, because it teaches us a lesson that truly needs to be applied in our lives. But it is poor math that rarely works out to actually have a 1:9 correspondence. But, then again, that isn't the point, any more than I think 6 24-hour days is the point of Genesis 1.

IMO, it is a pastor's job to help people increase their faith and not to teach science. You shouldn't demand that people accept the Young Earth (as the Baptists do) and you shouldn't tell people to not believe in it either (as the Methodists and public school teachers do).

Right. Though, if asked, one has to be prepared to give an answer to those who ask about what we believe (see 1 Peter 3:15), a lots of people are asking these sorts of questions both within and outside of the church.

Trying to make friends with the secular world by denying the supernormal aspects of God never works, and it only weakens the church.

No one is suggesting this. I don't know why you even bring it up.

If God were simply a part of nature, then he would be less than God. So, it follows that any god we speak must be both outside of and above nature. Hence, by definition, any god referenced (whether known as God or not) must be supra-natural or one isn't referencing god. No one is going down this road unless you've got some sort of strawman you're introducing to the discussion that I don't know about.