3.14.2012

The Infallibility of Scripture

As I am sitting in a math class, I am inspired by a fantastic teacher to write a book on an equation that has befuddled many for years: 2 + 2. After hours of research and study and days sitting before a computer screen trying to put together my first draft, I am finally able to send it to a publisher with the title, "The G-Book of Mathematics." My work comes to fruition as the book is published and thousands of copies fly off the shelves. On the one page contained in my book are the sole characters: 2 + 2 = 4.

Is my book inspired? For sure, by my math teacher. Is my book inerrant? I certainly find no errors in those five characters. Is my book authoritative? I don't see any better authority on all equations of 2 + 2. Is my book sufficient? While I hope to make money from the sequel some day, the G-Book is certainly sufficient to know how to solve all 2 + 2 equations.

If you have ever heard the Bible described in the evangelical church, most likely you have heard it described with the same adjectives used on the G-Book above. The Word of God is inspired, inerrant, authoritative and sufficient. However, there is one more adjective that is used fairly often that I believe sets the Bible apart from every other book: infallible. As we have been going through the study of Scripture in our BPSM Encounter lessons, my research has taken me to many different verses in the Bible and many different books of theologians. But when I stepped up to the plate to study and teach infallibility, many theologians fell short. So after hours of research, the Bible finally explained itself to me in a way that I believe is lacking in the church. Before I delve into the Biblical view of Scriptural infallibility, let me first describe two inadequate views I came across in my research.

1. Infallibility = Inerrancy. This first view is very common and the one I was taught growing up. This view equates infallibility to inerrancy as a synonym. Some scholars would admit there has to be a little bit of difference between the two terms, but they only go as far as distinguishing them like such: inerrancy means the Bible does not err, infallibility means the Bible cannot err. This doesn't mean much for Scripture. Although some theologians argue that this recognizes the timelessness of Biblical truths, I believe infallibility is a bit more unique than that. In the end, if infallibility is the same thing as inerrancy and the G-Book is inerrant, then the G-Book is also infallible and can be placed on the same shelf as God's Word.

2. Infallibility < Inerrancy. This view is increasingly common and has been growing in popularity since the 1960s. It places infallibility as the weaker cousin to inerrancy. It is for those that don't want to commit to the complete inerrancy of Scripture. The proponents of this view argue that the Bible was not meant to be true in every little detail. It is only true and authoritative in the big stuff, what they call "matters of faith and practice." However, I hope you immediately see the danger of this view. The danger lies in the fact that if we hold to this view then we are the sole determiners of what we want to believe in Scripture. It is evidenced by many denominations and churches that hold to this view of infallibility by their terrible decisions on what is considered a "matter of faith and practice." Through endless arguments, they are able to convince themselves and congregations that issues such as homosexuality, the virginity of Mary, the deity of Christ, the full atonement, or the existence of hell, are only minor details on which the Bible can err. Even the G-Book would be far too inerrant to be considered infallible in this view.

3. Infallibility > Inerrancy. This view places higher importance on the infallibility of Scripture, stating that the inerrant Word of God will never fail in accomplishing its purpose. This is the Biblical definition of Scriptural infallibility, taken straight from Isaiah 55:11-

"So shall my word be that goes out from my mouth;
it shall not return to me empty,
but it shall accomplish that which I purpose,
and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it."

Infallible by definition means "to never fail," which is where Isaiah 55 steps in to declare that God's Word "shall accomplish" and "shall succeed." So then we must ask what is the Bible's purpose and "the thing for which [God] sent it." Certainly, Scripture was given to reveal God to mankind, to make us wise for salvation, to teach, rebuke, correct, and train (II Timothy 3:15-17). As well, we find in Psalm 19 that Scripture is a source of great blessing for Christians; it is better than fine gold and delicious honey. But all of these benefits of Scripture find their aim in God's great purpose on earth: to glorify Christ. Indeed, that is the purpose of Scripture. 

What confidence we find in knowing that God's Word will never fail in its purpose of glorifying Christ in this world. Although many people have tried to stop the Bible from succeeding (Rome, popes, Voltaire, Hitler, etc.), we know that the Word of God is living and active (Hebrews 4:12) and shall accomplish its purpose of glorifying Christ. This is the power of God's Word alive in you. It is the only book with life-changing power and the backing of an all-powerful and infallible God. Let the best book ever consume and grip your life and prove its infallibility as it transforms your ultimate purpose on this planet to glorify Christ.

Be sure to look for the G-Book on Kindle and Nook devices shortly...

2 comments:

  1. These different "views" of Scripture seem a bit like apples and oranges as you compare them, in that one can hold to a blend of the second and the third, rather than an either/or scenario.

    For instance, I may not want to commit to the complete inerrancy of Scripture because it's untenable. Thus, I conclude that the Bible was not meant to be true in every little detail. And yet, I can still believe that the Bible is infallible as you define it, specifically that the Word of God will never fail in accomplishing its purpose.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey great comment. I would agree that the point of my post was not to compare different views of Scripture. This post was not to argue the inerrancy of Scripture. Instead, it was simply to reclaim a true and powerful definition of the infallibility of Scripture. I would agree that it is possible to hold to incomplete inerrancy (although I do not), and at the same time hold to infallibility. However, I would not agree that incomplete inerrancy IS infallibility. It seems like that is your conclusion as well--the Bible is not true in every detail, but it is still infallible as defined in definition 3.

      It was not meant as an either/or, just a definition reclamation. One can hold to a blend of views, but still must call an apple an apple and an orange an orange.

      Delete