Biblical inerrancy


Biblical inerrancy is the belief that the Bible, in its original form, is entirely free from error.
The belief in biblical inerrancy is of particular significance within parts of evangelicalism, where it is formulated in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. In contrast to American evangelicalism, it has minimal influence on contemporary British evangelicalism. Some groups equate inerrancy with biblical infallibility or with the necessary clarity of scripture; others do not.
The Catholic Church also holds a limited belief in biblical inerrancy, affirming that the original writings in the original language, including the Deuterocanonical books, are free from error insofar as they convey the truth God intended for the sake of human salvation. However, descriptions of natural phenomena are not to be taken as inspired and inerrant scientific assertions, but reflect the language and contemporary understanding of the writers.
Critics argue that total biblical inerrancy conflicts with empirical science by treating ancient texts as authoritative on natural phenomena, despite contradictions with observable evidence, such as the age of the Earth or the historicity of Noah’s Ark. In contrast, many Christian scholars and the Catholic Church emphasize interpretive flexibility, viewing certain biblical accounts as allegorical or contextually framed, allowing for revision and alignment with modern knowledge while maintaining the spiritual authority of scripture.

Terms and positions

Positions

  • Judaism: according to H. Chaim Schimmel, Judaism had never promulgated a belief in the literal word of the Hebrew Bible, hence the co-existence of the Oral Torah. The significance of most phrases, their parts, grammar, and occasionally individual words, letters and even pronunciation in the Hebrew Bible are the subject of many rabbinic discussions in the Talmud.
  • Catholic Church: the Second Vatican Council authoritatively expressed the Catholic Church's view on biblical inerrancy.
  • * Citing earlier declarations, it stated: "Since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation." But theologians disagree as to whether the words "for the sake of our salvation" in that sentence represent a shift from complete to limited inerrancy.
  • * The Council did not endorse the necessary clarity of scripture: "Since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words."
  • * The Church interprets the Scripture as part of the Deposit of Faith with Sacred Tradition, and not in an apostolic vacuum: interpretations of Scripture which contradict magisterial teaching to that extent fail to capture the inerrant meaning.
  • Evangelical Christianity: Evangelicals generally affirm that the Bible, and the Bible alone, is inspired by God and is the final authority on matters of faith and practice. However, there is an ongoing debate between two primary factions:
  1. The inerrant view - the Bible is absolutely inerrant on all matters that it affirms.
  2. The infallible but not inerrant view - while the Bible is infallible in that it does not fail believers when trusted to do what God inspired it to do, it is not absolutely inerrant in all matters it affirms, especially in some of its tangential scientific and historical statements.

    History

According to Coleman, "here have been long periods in the history of the church when biblical inerrancy has not been a critical question. It has in fact been noted that only in the last two centuries can we legitimately speak of a formal doctrine of inerrancy." The first formulations of the doctrine of inerrancy were not established according to the authority of a council, creed, or church, until the post-Reformation period.

Early Church

thought there were minor discrepancies between the accounts of the Gospels but dismissed them due to their lack of theological importance, writing "let these four agree with each other concerning certain things revealed to them by the Spirit and let them disagree a little concerning other things".
Later, John Chrysostom was also unconcerned with the notion that the scriptures were in congruence with all matters of history unimportant to matters of faith:
John D. Woodbridge disputes this claim about Chrysostom writing, "In fact, Chrysostom apparently believed in biblical infallibility extended to every detail. He does not set forth a comprehensive discussion of the subject, but scholars who have surveyed the corpus of his work usually affirm that this is case."
In his Commentary on Galatians, Jerome also argued that Paul's rebuke of Peter in Galatians 2:11–14 for acting like a Jew around the Jewish faction of the early Church was an insincere "white lie" as Paul himself had done the same thing. In response, Augustine rebuked Jerome's interpretation and affirmed that the scriptures contained no mistakes in them, and that admitting a single mistake would shed doubt on the entire scripture:
However, John D. Hannah argues that Jerome did indeed affirm the historical nature of the Bible. For example, Jerome believed in the historicity of the book of Jonah. He further argues that while Origen resorted to allegorical interpretation, he held a high view of inerrancy.
Biblical inerrancy adherents say that the Early Church Fathers did hold to biblical inerrancy, even if it was not articulated that way. In particular, Shawn Nelson cites Clement of Rome, Papias, Ignatius of Antioch, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and the Epistle to Diognetus as examples of those whom held to inerrancy.
Clement of Rome said to his readers:

Medieval era

The medieval church fathers held to the divine origin of scripture and most believed there could not be any error in scripture as interpreted by the Church. The most prominent theologian of the Medieval era was Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas wrote:
Another theologian, Hugh of St. Victor, is known for stressing the importance of the historical and literal senses of the Bible in the face of the strong allegorizing tendency of the age. He wrote:
Philosopher John Wycliff proposed an extreme version of inerrancy, that meant that even parables must have been factually true, in the book . Wycliffe's dictum says that all truths necessary to faith are found clearly and expressly in the Bible, and the more necessary, the more expressly. This later influenced Martin Luther.
Scholar Erasmus of Rotterdam, who published the first Latin-Greek New Testament in print, believed not only that translation between languages was always imperfect, that transmission errors had occurred by scribes, and that Scripture was sometimes deliberately obscure, but also that "the sayings of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels were slightly different in each. He suggested that the Holy Spirit had not bothered to correct the faulty memories of the evangelists."

Reformation era

By the time of the Reformation, there was still no official doctrine of inerrancy. Although the term was not used, some scholars argue the Reformers did believe in the concept of inerrancy.
For Martin Luther, for example, "inspiration did not insure inerrancy in all details. Luther recognizes mistakes and inconsistencies in Scripture and treated them with lofty indifference because they did not touch the heart of the Gospel." When Matthew appears to confuse Jeremiah with Zechariah in Matthew 27:9, Luther wrote that "Such points do not bother me particularly." However, other Luther scholars have pointed out that Luther, in other places, said the Scripture cannot contradict itself. Luther said in regards to whether the Bible had errors or not, "the Scriptures cannot err." Other statements made by Luther seem to contradict that, e.g. he stated that he found numerous errors in the Bible, and lambasted a couple of books of the Protestant Bible as worthless; he also stated that his idea of Christ trumps the letter of the Scripture, especially when the Scripture is cited in order to give the lie to his idea.
The Christian humanist and one of the leading scholars of the northern Renaissance, Erasmus, was also unconcerned with minor errors not impacting theology, and at one point, thought that Matthew mistook one word for another. In a letter to Johannes Eck, Erasmus wrote that "Nor, in my view, would the authority of the whole of Scripture be instantly imperiled, as you suggest, if an evangelist by a slip of memory did put one name for another, Isaiah for instance instead of Jeremiah, for this is not a point on which anything turns."
The same point of view held true for John Calvin, who wrote that "It is well known that the Evangelists were not very concerned with observing the time sequences." However, Calvin also said that Scripture is the "certain and unerring rule." Calvin scholars are divided on whether Calvin actually held to inerrancy or not. Some scholars such as Jack B. Rogers and Donald McKim said Calvin "was unconcerned with normal, human inaccuracies in minor matters" in Scripture. Other scholars such as John D. Woodbridge and J.I. Packer said Calvin did adhere to a position equivalent to biblical inerrancy.
The doctrine of inerrancy, however, began to develop as a response to these Protestant attitudes. Whereas the Council of Trent only held that the Bible's authority was "in matters of faith and morals", Jesuit cardinal Robert Bellarmine argued in his 1586 De verbo Dei, the first volume of his multi-volume Disputationes de controversiis christianae fidei adversus hujus temporis haereticos that "There can be no error in Scripture, whether it deals with faith or whether it deals with morals/mores, or whether it states something general and common to the whole Church, or something particular and pertaining to only one person." Bellarmine's views were extremely important in his condemnation of Galileo and in Catholic–Protestant debate, as the Protestant response was to also affirm his heightened understanding of inerrancy.