Infallibility of God

Biblical authority and Christianity: Is the Bible infallible? When people question whether the Bible has authority, they are often confused because the envision authority as coming from an external power. However, authority in the Bible is both internal and external. On one hand, when Jesus teaches in the Bible, he invokes the authority of his heavenly father and those prophets who taught and wrote scripture before him. He also invokes his own authority to teach as he is one with the father.

The Bible has a conferred authority by pointing to God but also acts as a real authority as an agent of God's self-disclosure.[footnoteRef:1] Plenary inspiration is defined as finding inspiration from these Biblical authors rather than the text alone. It also suggests that while all authors are infallible or inerrant, some may be inspired in different ways. [footnoteRef:2] Verbal inspiration, in contrast, is text rather than author-oriented.[footnoteRef:3] [1: Walter A. Elwell, "Bible, Authority of," Evangelical commentary on the Bible (Baker reference library), (Baker Pub Group), 1989: 153] [2: Walter A.

Elwell, "Plenary Inspiration," Evangelical commentary on the Bible (Baker reference library), (Baker Pub Group), 1989: 929] [3: Walter A. Elwell, "Verbal inspiration," Evangelical commentary on the Bible (Baker reference library), (Baker Pub Group), 1989: 1242] Regardless of one's emphasis on plenary or verbal inspiration, the Bible is considered inerrant (i.e. without flaw) because it is directly inspired by God.

Many theologians believe that inerrancy is defined as "when all facts become known, they will demonstrate…the Bible is entirely true…whether that relates to doctrine or ethics or the social, physical, or life sciences" even though human knowledge is imperfect and inerrancy is not yet demonstrable in fact.[footnoteRef:4] The first argument for inerrancy is quite simple: the Bible itself says that it is inerrant, as written in many places in scripture.

Scripture teaches its own inerrancy, stresses the distinction between itself and the words of false prophets, and refers back to itself as if inerrant.[footnoteRef:5] However, this argument is somewhat problematic given that it essential suggests 'the Bible is true only because the Bible says so.' Many documents say they are true but that does not prove that they are.

And even some Biblical scholars object to this notion, stating that the Bible does not really state that it is inerrant, merely inspired by God and actually contradicts and repeats itself in many sections. [footnoteRef:6] [4: Walter A. Elwell, "Inerrancy," Evangelical commentary on the Bible (Baker reference library), (Baker Pub Group), 1989: 156] [5: Elwell, 157-158] [6: Elwell, 159] Another argument for inerrancy is historical precedent. Virtually all the major religions to derive from the Bible argue for its inerrancy. To deny inerrancy is to deny the philosophical foundations of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

However, the problem with this argument is that it uses non-Biblical, human-derived sources to defend the notion of the God-generated source of Biblical doctrine. Related to this argument is the 'slippery slope' idea that to question the inerrancy of one aspect of the Bible will lead to a questioning of all doctrines, including that of the divinity of Christ. Finally, from an epistemological standpoint it is argued that all of the Bible must be true to create a comprehensive and defensible Christian worldview.

[footnoteRef:7] [7: Elwell, 157-158] One common argument against inerrancy is that many otherwise orthodox Christians do not subscribe to this philosophy -- this suggests that the 'slippery slope' argument is not valid. It is also noted that the fact that the Bible is a historical document is not inherently an argument in favor of its legitimacy, given that historical documents are open to error, since they are human-authored.

Even if the Bible is inspired by God, it was written down by men and men (even according to the Bible itself) are fallible. Furthermore, the notion of Biblical inerrancy is of relatively recent dates and many theologians specifically stated that it is not necessary to reconcile the Bible with existing scientific and secular historical data. [footnoteRef:8] [8: Elwell, 159] To me, this is the strongest argument against inerrancy (and why the historical argument in favor of absolute inerrancy is the weakest).

Human beings may have derived useful systems like science and historical analysis that can be used to understand and operate in the human world but the Bible does not need to justify itself according to these terms. There are powerful ways of knowing that transcend that of the material and the Bible contains messages on a metaphorical and cosmological level that may be inerrant but contrary to some literal scientific definitions of inerrancy and are not necessarily justifiable through a secular worldview.

This does not mean that religious people cannot enjoy the benefits of science but they must relegate science to its proper place. The relationship of inspiration and inerrancy, according to some authors, suggests that because the Bible is divinely inspired, it must be inerrant. Humans may misunderstand the truth it holds, but the truth is always there. God does not necessarily manifest himself to humanity in an easy and obvious way.

Thus if "inspiration is the supernatural influence of the Holy Spirit upon divinely-chosen agents," it is assumed that God would not allow those agents to make incorrect statements. [footnoteRef:9] However, even the staunchest definitions of inerrancy would.