3.2.1 The Fundamentalists’ Option
Infallibility and inerrancy as essential notes of scripture are integral to a fundamentalist position that understands scripture to have originated miraculously (e.g., by divine dictation or verbal inspiration). As such, Scripture contains propositional revelation that makes an absolutely authoritative claim upon and constitutes the unique and absolute norm of faith. Christians who champion this cause believe that because a statement is made in the Bible, God’s inspired Word; it must be true and reliable. They also argue, in defence of their belief that since God is the God of truth, whatever he says in the Bible must be true; hence the Bible must be infallible and inerrant.
The primary objection to the fundamentalist notion of inerrancy is that it is an indefensible claim in view of the evident factual inconsistencies Bible itself. In the first chapter of Genesis, for example, the animals are created before mankind; whereas in the second chapter they come after the first man. There is an obvious discrepancy here, but it is equally
30
obvious that the author or editor who put these two accounts together did not consider that important nor contrary to the truth he was intent on teaching, that namely, which relates to God’s activity as creator. Again, the Bible supposes a geocentric universe, and the notorious condemnation of Galileo was occasioned by the belief that the heliocentric theory he advocated must therefore be false.
Another major objection to this understanding of inerrancy is not empirical but theological, namely, that attributing inerrancy to the Bible constitutes a kind of biblical Docetism. It is analogous to such Christological assertions claiming that Jesus had all possible knowledge, even those not yet discovered in his days; or that he only appeared to die but could not really do so because he did not really have a material or physical, therefore, mortal nature. Such an understanding of inerrancy in the Bible would constitute a denaturing of the symbolic medium of revelation into a thin disguise for an overpowering divine presence that alone is real. As an offshoot of fundamentalism, it is an attempt to bend Jesus to religious security. According to Raymond Brown:
“Fundamentalism is saying, ‘you really don’t have to think – this ancient document or statement is your answer, all set for you.’ In the case of Bible fundamentalism, the Word of God is so much stressed that one forgets that human beings wrote the Bible and human beings received it.” A theology of symbolic revelation, by contrast, affirms the reality of the symbolic medium and takes completely seriously the consequences of its reality for the occurrence and nature of revelation.
3.2.2. The Progressive Understanding
Among the so-called progressives – we are using this for want of a better concept – there exists different attitudes on inerrancy depending on where one stand on the inspiration spectrum. Some would dispense altogether with inerrancy as a wrong deduction from the valid thesis that God inspired the Scriptures. Others share the view that however much we insist that the Bible contains the Word of God, the Bible does contain errors and contradictions (and as such constitutes an insuperable barrier to any claim that the Bible is infallible or inerrant). As a result, they look for some other view of the inspiration of the Bible which will help them resolve this difficulty.
One such view is that inspiration produces an inerrancy affecting religious issues but not science or history. For them therefore, all theological stances in the Scriptures would be inerrant. Still others, recognising the diversity within the Scriptures even on religious issues, would maintain only a limited theological inerrancy.
31 While each of these views has a point or two to its favour, the sometimes unchristian and unbiblical rift that exists between them does not move us forward in the discussion. On this account, some scholars have suggested a shift of focus in approaching the question of the effects of inspiration. They see a problematic in a quantitative understanding of inerrancy that limits it to certain passages or certain issues in the light of the fact that inerrancy flows from inspiration that covers all Scriptures.
As such, they advocate for placing more emphasis on a qualitative understanding whereby all Scripture is inerrant to the extent that it serves the purpose for which God intended it.
3.2.3. A More Balanced Scholarly Position
The crucial point here is the concept of what God wished to be written.
If we look again at 2 Tim 3:16, we find that the stated purpose of the Scriptures is to provide the instruction that leads to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus, and this is then detailed in terms of teaching, reproof, correction and training which enable the man of God to be fully equipped for every good work. The purpose of God in the composition of the Scriptures was to guide people to salvation and the associated way of life.
From this statement we may surely conclude that God made the Bible all that it needs to be in order to achieve this purpose. It is in this sense that the word ‘infallible’ is properly applied to the Bible; it means that it is
‘in itself a true and sufficient guide, which may be trusted implicitly.’
We may therefore suggest that ‘infallible’ means that the Bible is entirely trustworthy for the purpose for which God inspired it.
Closely connected to this is the issue of the limits of hermeneutics.
Hermeneutics is the science of biblical interpretation. It is necessary to interpret a text properly, to know its correct meaning, before asserting that what a text says is true or otherwise.
A key hermeneutical principle taught by the Reformers is the analogy of faith, which demands that apparent contradictions be harmonised if possible. If a passage appears to permit two interpretations, one of which conflicts with another passage and one of which does not, the latter must be adopted. Probably the most important aspect of this a p p r o a c h is the understanding of inerrancy in terms of truth and falsity rather than terms of error. It has been far more common to define inerrancy as “without error,” but a number of reasons are preserved for relating inerrancy to truth and falsity. To use “error” is to negate a negative idea.
32
So to understand inerrancy that takes into account the purpose for which God inspired the Scriptures (“for the sake of our salvation”) limits the guarantee against error to it, and offers a much more defensible position than the originally proposed assertion that the Bible is free from error
“in every field, religious or profane.” Nevertheless, this assurance of truth is of great importance, for the Bible has always been authoritative and normative for Christians in those things which are taught “for the sake of our salvation.”
The effect of drawing out the significance of inspiration in this way is to shift the focus of discussion from the truth of biblical claims to the Bible’s adequacy for what God intends it to do. Thus, we find that by so doing we have opened up the possibility of a fresh approach to the Bible which may prove to be illuminating. Accordingly, we may note that a concern for the truth of the Bible in every part may be too narrow and even inappropriate. Properly speaking, ‘true’ and its opposite, ‘false’ are qualities of statements or propositions which convey factual information. But the concept of truth is a complex one that is not easily applicable to every part of the Bible. More than asking of every statement contained in the Bible whether it is true or false, we should be asking in what ways the Bible need to be true in order to fulfil its God-intended purpose, and if it is in fact true in these ways.