# Inerrancy or Infallibility (Defining our Terms)



## Thomas2007 (Feb 4, 2009)

Hello,

I've noticed a consistent problem over the past year on this forum regarding discussions on the Biblical texts, it seems to me that two groups with different presuppositions are talking past one another. We are using similar language, but different terms and concepts. The way in which those terms and concepts frame the presuppositional basis of our thinking concerning the textual issues is never really addressed.

I would like to limit this thread, if anyone wishes to partake in it, to defining our terms and not debate. I think the two factions should at least expend some effort in trying to understand one another, and maintain the bonds of brotherhood and fellowship.

It is a longing of my heart to become a better Christian and more consistently Christian in my thinking, attitude and behavior. Certainly, we should presume we all have that common goal to become better servants unto our Lord. It does bother me, however, if my brother is needlessly offended, especially if it is because of my pride, sinfulness and shortcomings, or just ineffective ability to communicate my ideas.

Proverb 18:19 says, "A brother offended is harder to be won than a strong city: and their contentions are like the bars of a castle."

I would, then, like to ask for forgiveness if my various posts over the past year or so on these issues has offended anyone. I am passionate about this issue, I think my position has merit and I think it is of utmost importance to the Church, but I will attempt to be more irenic and better at explaining myself.

I was disappointed that the previous thread, TR/CT debate - split from White/Ehrman debate thread, was shut down without the opportunity to respond to brother McFadden's last post. As I was reading his post, I got to the second paragraph and read his first sentence and I realized that we really are talking about two completely different ideas.

Brother McFadden said:



> "As an orthodox Christian who holds to the inerrancy of the Bible, I want my English Bible to be based upon the closest thing we can get to the original autographs. The CT and TR crowd are both trying to do that."



After reading that, and after a year of discussing this in various threads, I'm thinking, "_How doesn't he understand that this is not what the TR advocates are concerned with?_" Well, we are talking about two different things, "inerrancy of the Bible" (CT Position) vs "infallibility of the Bible" (TR Position)

Concerning text critical matters "inerrancy of the Bible" is not what those that hold to the RT position are primarily concerned with. While we certainly desire to maintain faithful and accurate texts, we are not concerned with inerrancy. When we get into discussions about the WCF and what it means, we are not holding "inerrancy of the Bible" presuppositional in our thinking. I think it is important to understand that.

It's my hope that discussing the disparity between these two views can, at least, lead to a settling of contentions. If we disagree, then at least we can disagree understanding why we disagree, and the strife implicit in our various arguments might be able to be settled. I honestly do wish to maintain bonds of fellowship and brotherhood, even if we disagree.

In some research on Google in trying to figure out how to explain this, I found an essay by Dr. Theodore Letis published is the fall of 2004, that does a better job than I could do. While I was familiar with the concepts in this article, I had not seen it before last night. Please understand that his essay is poignant and direct. If you disagree with it and want to debate the merits and demerits of his article, that is fine, please open your own thread, that is not my desire here.

His article was published in the October 2004 issue of Christianity and Society published by the Kuyper Foundation, it is colorfully entitled:

"Don't You Believe in the Inerrancy of the Original Autographs"? or Have You Stopped Beating Your Wife Yet"


----------



## larryjf (Feb 4, 2009)

There's also a pragmatic side to the discussion.
If we take Scripture in its original languages as our final authority then, practically speaking, we should define which authority that is. In other words, it's not the originals since we don't have them...it must be defined in terms of the apographs (copies).

If i were to debate a doctrine in my denomination (PCA) with others, theoretically we could all be using different original language texts and therefore talking past each other to a certain degree.

From my understanding some churches have adopted an official stance with the Received Text being their final authoritative text. However, i haven't heard of a church adopting an official stance with another text as their authoritative text.

Would it not be beneficial for denominations to go further than merely saying "original languages" are our authority....and stating what their specific textual authority is?

One could even imagine men using existing manuscripts to come up with their own NT text to argue their doctrines from.


----------



## ThomasCartwright (Feb 6, 2009)

I think the question needs to be answered on all sides of this debate: does the Bible promise God would be involved in preserving His Word and, if so, to what degree?

Our answer to this question will determine how we see the historical transmission of the text in Church History. 

I do not understand your or Letis' attempt to draw a divergence between inerrancy and infallibility. On what Biblical basis do you believe we should make this distinction?


----------



## larryjf (Feb 6, 2009)

ThomasCartwright said:


> I do not understand your or Letis' attempt to draw a divergence between inerrancy and infallibility. On what Biblical basis do you believe we should make this distinction?



I would suggest that the distinction should be made simply because the words have distinct meanings.

Clearly the apographs that we have in hand are not inerrant, but they are infallible in that they teach the truth of God as He has faithfully preserved it.

Only the originals can claim inerrancy, but this is in fact a theory since we don't have the originals. In my opinion it's a theory in good standing because it's based on the nature of God and not on the text itself. Since God directly inspired the manuscripts it is a sign of His character that they would be inerrant.

Since inerrancy has more to do with God's character than with the text that we have, some believe it should be left out of the discussion of textual criticism.


----------



## ThomasCartwright (Feb 6, 2009)

larryjf said:


> I would suggest that the distinction should be made simply because the words have distinct meanings.
> 
> Clearly the apographs that we have in hand are not inerrant, but they are infallible in that they teach the truth of God as He has faithfully preserved it.
> 
> ...



Thanks Larry,

You are correct that most of the apographs we have are not inerrant, but you cannot be sure that all are, especially the tiny fragments. However, the position that those like Jerusalem Blade is that the printed texts of the Hebrew and Greek underneath the Authorised Version are both inerrant and infallible.

Why would you believe the fact that the originals are inerrant to be only a theory? Surely, the text reflects and reveals the character of God and Christ? You cannot separate the two as we cannot know the Trinity except as revealed through the Word. That is the historic Protestant view I would have thought.


----------



## larryjf (Feb 6, 2009)

ThomasCartwright said:


> You are correct that most of the apographs we have are not inerrant, but you cannot be sure that all are, especially the tiny fragments. However, the position that those like Jerusalem Blade is that the printed texts of the Hebrew and Greek underneath the Authorised Version are both inerrant and infallible.


It's not so much a matter of fragments...it's more a matter of the text in its entirety. It wouldn't matter if a small fragment was inerrant...the real point is that the NT text as a whole is not inerrant in the sense of containing no errors (including grammatical, spelling, etc., etc.)



ThomasCartwright said:


> Why would you believe the fact that the originals are inerrant to be only a theory? Surely, the text reflects and reveals the character of God and Christ? You cannot separate the two as we cannot know the Trinity except as revealed through the Word. That is the historic Protestant view I would have thought.


It's a theory in as much as we don't have the originals. To say that something is thus and so without having the object itself is theoretical since it can't be proved without the object in question.

The text that we have in hand reveals the character of God and Christ, but it's not inerrant.

We can't know the Trinity without the Word, but we don't need the inerrant Word to know the Trinity. As a matter of fact, folks know the Trinity without even reading the original languages at all...and translations aren't inerrant.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Feb 17, 2009)

Hi Mr. Ferguson,

Please accept my apologies for this delayed response.



ThomasCartwright said:


> I think the question needs to be answered on all sides of this debate: does the Bible promise God would be involved in preserving His Word and, if so, to what degree?



Agreed



ThomasCartwright said:


> Our answer to this question will determine how we see the historical transmission of the text in Church History.



Agreed




ThomasCartwright said:


> I do not understand your or Letis' attempt to draw a divergence between inerrancy and infallibility. On what Biblical basis do you believe we should make this distinction?



In strictly theological language the terms are probably synonymous. However, when it comes to the field of text critical matters they aren't. Historically the sacred Scriptures and sacred criticism was premised upon theological statements and theological certainty, in contrast is the text critical categories of the modern schools which interjects empirical and mathematical statements and certainty, which are encompassed in the term "inerrant," which is quite another thing.


----------



## Brian Withnell (Feb 21, 2009)

larryjf said:


> There's also a pragmatic side to the discussion.
> If we take Scripture in its original languages as our final authority then, practically speaking, we should define which authority that is. In other words, it's not the originals since we don't have them...it must be defined in terms of the apographs (copies).
> 
> If i were to debate a doctrine in my denomination (PCA) with others, theoretically we could all be using different original language texts and therefore talking past each other to a certain degree.



What I have seen in my church (and what I hold to) is that the originals are both inerrant and infallible. While I understand the idealized concept that if we have differing texts, and the originals are not available, then if we are unsure of the exact text, some may claim there is no certainty at all and therefore what we have is worthless. In debate, this is “call for perfection” and while it sounds very much like there is appeal to it given we are talking about the Bible, I would reject it as even with slight differences, we can be more than 99.99% certain of the text. Given that I also hold to the Holy Spirit keeping the word pure (but realizing what that means to a first century writer is different than what we would mean today) means that even if I don’t have the version that is 100%, to the stroke of a letter, accurate, what I have will be without error from a first century writers perspective.

It may be that we won’t find perfect copies of the originals in this age … but we know that God keeps his word pure by his definition. If I choose a version to say “this is what the original was” then I will assuredly get that wrong — while God is without error, I am not. So no matter what version I or anyone else chooses, it will be the wrong version, unless it is the actual original. 

But that does not mean there is *any* difference in what it means.

-----Added 2/21/2009 at 12:34:24 EST-----



ThomasCartwright said:


> You cannot separate the two as we cannot know the Trinity except as revealed through the Word. That is the historic Protestant view I would have thought.



If it is, the historic view would conflict with Romans 1:18 - 21.



> For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.



While it is insufficient for salvation, there is knowledge about God revealed by general revelation with sufficient clarity that the Bible calls it clear, and it is enough that all men are without excuse for knowing God's invisible attributes. If God has said he has revealed himself in creation, we would be liars to say that he can only be known through the Special Revelation of the scriptures. It is true that we see a better, more nearly complete picture through scripture (though as finite beings, I find it hard to believe that we could ever know completely all of the infinite character of God in full detail.)

What I think is a basic assertion on your part (that the inerrant text be available to us) is what I think is the sticking point. I trust that God has preserved the text even if I don't have it letter for letter available to me, and more importantly to my thinking, that what I have agrees with the original closely enough that it makes no difference if it were off by several words (all the while asserting that the original text is still existent).

I believe you have a pragmatic problem with what does it mean to preserve pure if it isn't available. I have no such problem.


----------



## Marno (Feb 21, 2009)

Thomas2007 said:


> In strictly theological language the terms are probably synonymous. However, when it comes to the field of text critical matters they aren't. Historically the sacred Scriptures and sacred criticism was premised upon theological statements and theological certainty, in contrast is the text critical categories of the modern schools which interjects empirical and mathematical statements and certainty, which are encompassed in the term "inerrant," which is quite another thing.



In strictly theological language the terms are _close,_ but not synonymous. Inerrant means the text is without error; infallible means the text _cannot_ err. Textual criticism, as I am quite sure has been extensively discussed on this board already, is concerned with both internal and external evidence to construct the most reliable text. Not much of that evidence, however, (and In my humble opinion), has to do with theological premises. It has more to do with the number and weightiness of copies, etc., all discussed at length here before, I'm sure.
The texts produced by textual criticism cannot be considered to be _either_ inerrant or infallible, but exceedingly reliable, and _essentially_ the same as the autographs for purposes of doctrine and practice.


----------



## Brian Withnell (Feb 23, 2009)

Thomas2007 said:


> Hello,
> 
> I've noticed a consistent problem over the past year on this forum regarding discussions on the Biblical texts, it seems to me that two groups with different presuppositions are talking past one another. We are using similar language, but different terms and concepts. The way in which those terms and concepts frame the presuppositional basis of our thinking concerning the textual issues is never really addressed.
> 
> ...



The problem I see with this is that the stronger term, infallibility, means incapable of failing, includes that it contains no error (inerrant). One other thing that may be of use here is that I doubt seriously if anyone that holds to the concept of the original autographa being perfect *and* that the Bible is infallible would have a problem with a CT as a starting point and would accept the TR as a lesser, but still infallible, text.

As an example, I would point to the MSS. While I fully believe that the text is infallible, I also know it varies from the original autographa by a wide margin (the MSS doesn't even use the same letters as what Hebrew would have prior to the Babylonian captivity). Does that mean that what the church had in the OT prior to the captivity was not the inspired word, or that the inspired word was lost after the captivity? Not as all. In fact, we have Christ attesting to the copies that existed at the time. Changes in the letters do not relate to changes to the word of God (at least as respects the OT). So change to the characters is not significant to God keeping pure in all time his word. Or even changes to words (the use of "Dan" in Genesis 14:14 would not have been by Moses as the land had not been divided and Moses would have know it by another name). So while we know that the Bible is infallible (which means it must also be inerrant) we know that from God's point of view, those things mean what he intends (well, actually, those words are not used, but when Jesus said not the smallest letter or stroke of the law will pass away he either intended something different from what some people think, or he could have been talking explicitly about the "law" and only the law (the ten words). Of course the Matt 24.35 passage expands on what will not pass, but then he uses "words" rather than letters and strokes.

The real issue is does God preserve his word (yes) and does he do it in the way we might expect (maybe not).

What I see though here is that there is a difference between what you think those that hold textual criticism is valid (even against the TR) and what at least some of us believe. I for one hold the scriptures to be infallible ... and while I would trust the TR to be accurate, I would prefer the NA (which I believe is more accurate to the original). What I think is relevant that is not if the letters or exact words are perfectly copied, but is it still the God Breathed message even if the letters have changed (OT we have) or even some of the words are different. When I read an English Bible, I hear the voice of my Lord in it. I don't have to read the Greek or Hebrew to hear his voice and know it is God's word. Those that are elect will hear his voice in their own language. What the original languages are appealed to are not the general application of the word to the daily lives of believers, but only very fine points of doctrine debated in minute detail.

While I respect a brother's desire to definitively know they have the word of God, I think the idea that putting a stake in the ground with the TR is accepting evidence (even if it is 400 years of church history in the English speaking church) without looking further.

I take exception (in the sense of not agreeing with) the statement that those that think later versions of the texts derived from examination of and comparison to more recently discovered texts do not hold to infallibility but just inerrancy. It is not true for at least this brother ... I hold to both.


----------



## discipulo (Feb 23, 2009)

One thing in the article puzzles me, maybe I am not getting it, 

If Inerrancy is a recent term in Scripture Doctrine, high jacked from astronomy and mostly applied by Warfield to the autographa.

If that opened a breach, that since only the apographa exist, then high criticism can state Inerrancy claim is virtually of no value.

If infabilitas has been the consistent post reformation orthodox term.

Why so many sound Theologians continue to use Inerrancy?


----------



## Brian Withnell (Feb 24, 2009)

discipulo said:


> One thing in the article puzzles me, maybe I am not getting it,
> 
> If Inerrancy is a recent term in Scripture Doctrine, high jacked from astronomy and mostly applied by Warfield to the autographa.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure why anyone would use inerrant only, unless they wanted to discredit the scriptures. What I think everyone within reformed circles holds is infallible (both those that hold to the TR, and those that do not).

What is really strange is that while both groups hold infallibility, there is almost a siege mentality on both sides. This is one of those issues were brothers can be very strongly opinionated (I know I am very certain of my preference). The strangeness enters in with people investing so much emotional capital that they tend to loose sight of the fellowship we have with other believers that stand in the opposing camp (on this issue).

While I understand how important the scripture is (it is our final authority to which the church appeals on all issues of faith and life) I also know that for most of us, we don't have the scholarly knowledge to read fluently in either Greek or Hebrew (I know very few Hebrew scholars, and one of them is much more fluent in Greek).

We all need to be careful that we make sure we are charitable in our reactions ... I know for sure that several people that I disagree with on this issue are dedicated Godly men (and women) that truly believe what they state. I hope they would acknowledge the same of me, but even if they do not, I would be bound by conscience to the belief I have unless I could be convinced from the scripture that the position was wrong (which is rather difficult, as I don't believe that the TR is mentioned in the scripture, and 400 years is a minuscule time within the scope of redemptive history.

My hope is that those that do not believe as I do would at least understand the position I hold. if they don't understand the position, they cannot possibly know if it is in error or not. If I were in error, they would have to be able to show why from that viewpoint how it contradicts the scripture (not from their viewpoint) so it would be critical for them to understand.

But back to your question ... I've heard both sides say that it is the other side that pushes inerrancy as a means of minimizing the other argument. Obviously, such statements come close to bearing false witness as both groups hold to infallibility from what I have seen (other than theological liberals, who would hold inerrancy only in the autographa, and say we have no originals, so we have no confidence in the scriptures ... and they are thoroughly condemned by both groups).

I wonder if the problem is with talking with those that are not (yet) in Christ (if they ever will be) and wanting to respond to a modern criticism of the Bible not being accurate by arguing the TR is the word, rather than pointing to the person and calling their questioning sin. While some people might be turned aside with a gentle "have you ever even read the Bible to know if it has problems?" there are others who are attempting to turn away people from believing who need to have their mouth stopped (Rom. 3:19, Psa 63:11). To them I tend to read Romans 1:18-21 to them. They know the truth, but they suppress it in unrighteousness. To them command repentance and don't even give answer to the question. To those that are elect, but not yet believing I trust in the election of God and ask them to read the scripture (without looking for errors to begin) and see what it says. If they are elect, they will hear the Lord's voice in the scripture and turn from sin and believe.

But that is  at least a little.


----------

