are The Scriptures Infallible or innerant, Letis has his say.

[One Little Nail]

I most certainly DO believe in verbal inspiration. Furthermore, I do not have a private definition for either "inerrancy" or "infallibility." Let me state as succinctly as possible the issues at stake when one chooses to use the word "inerrancy" rather than the historic orthodox word "infallibility" (let's not confuse the issue at this point with extraneous material such as the Chicago Statement).

There are seven reasons why the word "inerrancy" cannot be used by anyone who considers themselves orthodox. They are as follows:

1) Inerrancy as a word is not a theological term; nor was it ever used as a theological term until the late 19th century. What are the implications of this:

2) Inerrancy as a word is an innovation of the faith, just as anyone who wanted to introduce a different word other than homoousios ("of the same essence") into the Nicene Creed would be introducing an innovation in the definition of historic orthodox Christology.

3) Inerrancy as a word is unnecessary because everything it attempts to say in a non-theological way, has already been invoked by the historic orthodox word of "infallible."

4) Inerrancy as a word has no connection to the notion of inspiration, that is, it does not require verbal inspiration to be true, since inspiration is not required to obtain "inerrancy." Any humanly produced document can be inerrant.

5) Inerrancy as a word is a defection from orthodoxy because it locates final inspired authority in the autographic form of the text alone.

6) Because the autographic form of the text does not exist, "inerrancy" is a dangerous word, because in its definition it demands the application of naturalistic New Testament text criticism; that is, it assumes that ALL extant editions are corrupt to one extent or another, while claiming that ONLY text criticism can "restore" a lost "inerrant," autographic archetype, the only inspired and authoritative form of the Biblical text.

7) Hence, it was the use of the word "inerrancy" by B.B. Warfield in the 19th century (a non-theological innovative terminological alteration to the language of Biblical authority), that resulted in the "quest for the historical text" i.e., the endorsement of the Westcott and Hort edition of the Greek N.T., (which assumes the extant text is corrupt), which in turn evolved into the quest for the historical Jesus and the Jesus Seminar, the most blatantly arrogant project of unbelief presently active on this planet. Moreover, his use of the word at Princeton was a major contribution towards that Institution going liberal in 1929.

Infallibility, on the other hand, is what the Church has always said the Bible was, in existing editions, and was defined as follows in the Latin (and here I give you an excerpt from a discussion list to which I recently made the following contribution):

Allow me to say that many have been confused by my advocacy of the word "Infallible," and my pronounced dislike of the modern term "inerrant," because the former word is the word always used by Luther, Calvin, and the Westminster Divines, in its Latin form, "infallibilitas." On this please consult Richard Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), s.v. "authoritas Scripturae." There you will see the meaning of "infallible"contains the sense that Scripture is "without admixture of error...historically true in its record of words, deed, events, and doctrines." As for the word "inerrant," it has no pedigree as a theological term until late in the 19th century and because when it arrived in a new context (its original context was as an astronomical term), it always and only had reference to the "autographic" form the text, a sweeping revisionism of the WCF which taught a preserved "infallibility," not a lost "autographic inerrancy." I trust this makes clear that the earlier accusation about me was intended to suggest not that I actually have a historically more grounded statement of Scripture (via the WCF), but that somehow I have a weaker view because I choose to hold to the WCF's language and content on this issue (because, with this standard my own Lutheran orthodox view is in complete agreement).

Please keep in mind that any document is capable of attaining "inerrancy." Only Scripture, however, is always "infallible" on all that it speaks, as saith the WCF.

Theodore P. Letis, Ph.D.
Director
The Institute for
Renaissance and Reformation
Biblical Studies
P.O. Box 870525
Stone Mountain, GA 30087

 

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

Problem is "infallible" has been so redefined by the liberals to mean "infallible only in matters of faith" that, while a better term as originally used, it is not a good shibboleth. A lot of neo-evangelicals will be happy to say the Bible is "infallible" but would never say it is "inerrant" since inerrancy is used to extend to ALL of Scripture.

 

[Alan D. Strange]

Dr. Letis is quite correct that the word "inerrant" did not come into currency until the late 19th century. It was often tied to textual-critical discussions but not exclusively so. It was used among fundamentalists (back in the day when this would include the Princetonians and the dispensationalists) to answer the criticism of burgeoning modernism (that developed out of liberalism and which Machen fought) that while the Scripture may be infallible it is not without error. This generally took the form of affirming what the Scriptures taught with respect to doctrine and life (though this became increasingly sketchy for liberalism, tending to support a social gospel and not deliverance through the God-man), but calling into question the Bible's teaching insofar as it was deemed to run afoul of modern science, history, and the like.

Letis is also correct that inerrancy is a lesser claim (rightly understood) than infallibility. Infallibility, rightly understood, means, among other things, that something is incapable of error. The Bible is incapable of error because of it's origin: it is God's verbal, plenary special revelation. Since the Bible comes from God, who is the quintessence of perfection, it is not capable of error. And since it is not capable of error, it actually does not have any error and is thus inerrant. Letis is right that a claim of inerrancy can be made for anything without error. But only that which comes from God, as does the Bible, can claim infallibility, since everything (and everyone) else is capable of error.

Warfield and company stressed the inerrancy of the Word of God because they wanted to make clear that not only was the Word infallible with respect to life and doctrine but without error in all that it taught. Neither Warfield nor any of the others who taught or teach the inerrancy of the Word deny the infallibilty of the Word, as far as I am aware. If they did then Dr. Letis would have legitimate grounds for his complaint.

The chronology seems a bit off here to me. Dr. Letis says in #7: "Hence, it was the use of the word "inerrancy" by B.B. Warfield in the 19th century (a non-theological innovative terminological alteration to the language of Biblical authority), that resulted in the "quest for the historical text" i.e., the endorsement of the Westcott and Hort edition of the Greek N.T., (which assumes the extant text is corrupt), which in turn evolved into the quest for the historical Jesus and the Jesus Seminar, the most blatantly arrogant project of unbelief presently active on this planet. Moreover, his use of the word at Princeton was a major contribution towards that Institution going liberal in 1929."

Here are a few problems: The quest for the historical Jesus did not begin after the eclectic text of 1881 (of Westcott and Hort), but long before, earlier even than D.F. Strauss's Life of Jesus (1835). And I know of no evidence that suggests that Warfield's use of the word "inerrancy" (Machen and all the conservatives used it) led to the liberalization of Princeton. Warfield, in fact, who died in 1921, did as much as anyone to oppose liberalism and modernism at Princeton (from at least the coming of H. Ross Stevenson as President of Princeton in 1914). Again, Warfield did not deny infallibility. He simply, in invoking inerrancy, wanted to make clear what infallibility entailed. While something may be inerrant without being infallible, nothing can be infallible and not be inerrant. This is what Warfield sought to point out in his use of the word. Yes, it did get tied into the discussion of the Bible being inerrant in the autographa and thus get connected with the textual-critical enterprise; this, however, did not exhaust its meaning.

The infallibility and inerrancy discussion has an apsect about it that is beyond the textual-critical discussion: it seeks to make clear what infallibilty really entails--inerrancy, in all that it treats. Letis may disagree with Warfield in the latter's support of the eclectic text. I do not think, however, that he depicts Warfield accurately in saying that he contributed to the liberalization of Princeton: this is an assertion for which there is no proof offered. Nor does he properly connect the textual-critical enterprise with the higher critical quest (in its first, second--which he overleaps--and third waves). I do not suggest that there are no connections here but that in his zeal to argue against Warfield, he actually misrepresents him in point 7 (not to mention shades of error in the earlier points).

Peace,
Alan

 

[DMcFadden]

Words change their meanings and connotations over time. The "Deity" of Christ used to be called the "Divinity" of Christ. Now, Deity is the stronger term; Divinity the weaker one (mainly due to the weaselwording by progressives).

"Theoretically" infallibility is the stronger term (it cannot err) rather than inerrant (it does not err). However, as a graduate of a seminary that dropped inerrant in favor of infallible to cover their downgraded affirmations of biblical truths, let be assure you that infallibility no longer makes the stronger statement.

At times, I have wanted to say to my alma mater, evoking the sage words of Inigo Montoya in "Princess Bride", . . . “You Keep Using That Word. I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means.”

As to the charge that it is a neologism, if we were to restrict ourselves to theological terms drawn exclusively from the pages of the New Testament, we would lose some of the best and most important words (e.g., Trinity).

 

[MW]

I think the two main problems with "inerrancy" are,

1. Using the term instead of "infallibility." The reason why Scripture does not err is because it cannot err. Why does one choose to ignore this fundamental point? To merely say that the Scriptures do not err opens the door to critical investigation of the subject.

2. The tying of "inerrancy" to so-called "originals" only. How can any one know that the originals did not err? The only way of knowing they are inerrant is by means of copies. If these copies are supposed to err there is no basis for saying the originals do not err.

To say "infallible" does not make a strong statement in light of liberal affirmations is to give authority to liberals where they do not have any. On that basis we would have to arrive at new words for the whole system of theology.

 

[DMcFadden]

I think the two main problems with "inerrancy" are,

To say "infallible" does not make a strong statement in light of liberal affirmations is to give authority to liberals where they do not have any. On that basis we would have to arrive at new words for the whole system of theology.

Any term we use can become problematic due to misunderstanding, changes in meaning over time, extraneous connotations in the semantic field, etc. For instance, I never use the phrase "have a gay old time" because of the transformation in what that term means in the context of the 21st century. It is not a matter of ceding to liberals authority they do not have, but of seeking to have people understand what we mean when we speak. There have been postings on PB over the years arguing for abandoning the word "evangelical" because of the associations many people have for it in light of the lunatic fringes of conservative Christianity. It may be the case (in point of fact) that the seemingly stronger term "infallible" fails to communicate what we want to communicate when we affirm the authority of the Bible. Whether "inerrancy" is the right alternative or not is another matter.

My seminary alma mater employs "infallible" to mean anything but infallibility. And, insofar as that use of the term seems to dominate broad evangelical circles, it does not carry the freight I want it to when affirming the authority of the Bible.

Words are funny things. But, then, so was my "nice" posting (in the "original" sense of "nice" = "ignorant"??? ).

 

[SRoper]

Point two (of the original post) is not very compelling because many words did not have a fixed theological meaning until they were hashed out in councils and creeds in response to controversy. The meanings of hypostasis and ousia were not nailed down for a number of years. We have the same situation today where we need to describe what we mean by infallibility in light of liberal and neoorthodox challenges. It must include the concept of inerrancy which the challengers deny.

 

[SRoper]

I think the two main problems with "inerrancy" are,

1. Using the term instead of "infallibility." The reason why Scripture does not err is because it cannot err. Why does one choose to ignore this fundamental point? To merely say that the Scriptures do not err opens the door to critical investigation of the subject.

I usually see it alongside infallibility, not instead of it. Where are these teachers who teach inerrancy without infallibility?

2. The tying of "inerrancy" to so-called "originals" only. How can any one know that the originals did not err? The only way of knowing they are inerrant is by means of copies. If these copies are supposed to err there is no basis for saying the originals do not err.

To say "infallible" does not make a strong statement in light of liberal affirmations is to give authority to liberals where they do not have any. On that basis we would have to arrive at new words for the whole system of theology.

We know the the originals do not err because God is the author of them. We know that copies can and do err. This caveat acknowledges reality and anticipates an objection to the doctrine.

 

[MW]

I usually see it alongside infallibility, not instead of it. Where are these teachers who teach inerrancy without infallibility?

I don't know that they teach it "without" infallibility, but as the Five Views on Inerrancy book suggests, they can be related to each other in very different ways. The Chicago Statement commences this "distinction," and it remains up in the air as a result

We know the the originals do not err because God is the author of them.

How do you know that, if not from copies? You must have already decided on an "inerrant" text in order to deduce a statement about the originals which does not err from your perspective.

 

[reaganmarsh]

This discussion reminded me of a story Mark Dever told of his time as a seminary student under Roger Nicole. Dever asked Nicole, "Why should we use the word inerrancy? Isn't that really like waving a red flag in front of a bull?" Nicole replied, "I use the word inerrancy, Mr. Dever, because I want to know why the other man will not."

Food for thought.

 

[Logan]

There are seven reasons why the word "inerrancy" cannot be used by anyone who considers themselves orthodox.

That's a very bold claim, and apparently slanders most (all?) theologians of the 20th century, not to mention those of the 19th and 21st.

"Inerrancy" as a word, may not have come into use until relatively late, but it was a term made in response to contrary claims of the day. That does not mean that it is bad, unless it replaces the idea of infallibility altogether, which I don't believe it has. It is a clarifying term, not a replacement term. Besides, the old theologians and writers often would use the words "without error".

 

[One Little Nail]

There are seven reasons why the word "inerrancy" cannot be used by anyone who considers themselves orthodox.

That's a very bold claim, and apparently slanders most (all?) theologians of the 20th century, not to mention those of the 19th and 21st.

"Inerrancy" as a word, may not have come into use until relatively late, but it was a term made in response to contrary claims of the day. That does not mean that it is bad, unless it replaces the idea of infallibility altogether, which I don't believe it has. It is a clarifying term, not a replacement term. Besides, the old theologians and writers often would use the words "without error".

from my limited perusal & observation over the last 20 or so years Ive been a christian, most books, particularly evangelical have always mentioned inerrancy as opposed to Infallibility, which never or only rarely ever gets mentioned,
probably when they are mistakenly thinking that the 2 are one & the same.

I also agree with Matthew's point on this

I think the two main problems with "inerrancy" are,

1. Using the term instead of "infallibility." The reason why Scripture does not err is because it cannot err. Why does one choose to ignore this fundamental point? To merely say that the Scriptures do not err opens the door to critical investigation of the subject.

Inerrancy is, like Letis has mentioned, usually attached to the the long lost originals & was a peculiar doctrine of Warfields invention, a "Warfieldian" if you will, which he seems to have came up with after he embraced the erroneous Wescott & Hort Textual theories, which Text & Theories have led to an erosion in the Scripture Doctrine of Preservation. If only the originals are inerrant then it assumes that copies were not or lost their inerrancy some time soon after, that the text base has become corrupted
& hence the need for Textual Critics to "recover" the Bible, is it any wonder Jesuit's like Martini sit on these committees.

Infallibility is the Doctrine of the Reformed Church in regards to the Scripture, which would also have relevance to the Doctrine of The Scriptures Preservation, Charles Hodge in his Systematic Theology has a 29 page section on Inspiration in Book I,
Chapter VI, Section 2 of his Introduction which is Titled, The Scriptures are Infallible, i.e., given by Inspiration of God. which goes on to say they derive their infallibility and authority because they are the Word of God, and they are the Word of God because they were given by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

If the Scriptures are Infallible they remain Infallible and that character is passed on down the line of Greek Hebrew Textual Transmission.

 

[SRoper]

How do you know that, if not from copies? You must have already decided on an "inerrant" text in order to deduce a statement about the originals which does not err from your perspective.

It seems to me that inerrancy is not a "bottom-up" doctrine. We don't arrive at it because we have examined a document and found it to be free from error. How could we? The Scriptures contain numerous statements of fact that cannot be independently verified. Instead, inerrency is a result of our understanding of the character of the Author.

Since the doctrine of inerrency is a result of interacting with liberals, how would you challenge someone who claims infallibility but allows for errors in, say, facts of history?

 

[MW]

It seems to me that inerrancy is not a "bottom-up" doctrine. We don't arrive at it because we have examined a document and found it to be free from error. How could we? The Scriptures contain numerous statements of fact that cannot be independently verified. Instead, inerrency is a result of our understanding of the character of the Author.

One must have examined the copies and found them to be with error in order to conclude that they are not inerrant. The a priori condition of inerrancy is then applied to an original which simply cannot be examined, and can only be known through the copies. From where does this a priori condition arise if not from the Scriptures themselves? It could only be a rationalist dogma.

Since the doctrine of inerrency is a result of interacting with liberals, how would you challenge someone who claims infallibility but allows for errors in, say, facts of history?

I would simply maintain that infallibility extends to the facts of history, but also be careful to emphasise that fallible men are interpreting Scripture.

Scripture is given to be the rule of faith and life, so commitment to an infallible Word should centre on what the Scriptures "principally" teach.

 

[Logan]

One must have examined the copies and found them to be with error in order to conclude that they are not inerrant. The a priori condition of inerrancy is then applied to an original which simply cannot be examined, and can only be known through the copies. From where does this a priori condition arise if not from the Scriptures themselves? It could only be a rationalist dogma.

I understand you believe one cannot "have his cake and eat it too". But I see no reason one must presuppose TR to be inerrant in order to presuppose the autographs to be inerrant. I've mentioned Bahnsen in relation to this before. If Bahnsen saw no problem with a presuppositionalist approach to the nature of the autographs (as inspired by God), and yet still recognized that non-uniformity of the apographs, then I'm in good company.

I should also humbly observe in passing, as someone with a bit of background in epistemology, that Sandlin has simply wandered into left field when he tries to make the issue "a rationalist standard of supposed scientific accuracy" to which we are allegedly trying to conform. To think that is the issue is to betray a fundamental misunderstanding of what the debate is about in the first place.

I'll link to his paper as well:
PT042

 

[MW]

But I see no reason one must presuppose TR to be inerrant in order to presuppose the autographs to be inerrant.

I haven't said anything about the TR.

For Scripture to be self-attesting one must have a Scripture that attests to itself. In the absence of an inerrant Scripture there can be no inerrant attestation. Inerrant originals must then take their place alongside Plato's ideal forms.