# The Doctrines of "Infallibility" and "Inerrancy"



## sastark (Jun 3, 2010)

(Note: I hope this thread can be used to discuss the doctrines of "infallibility" and "inerrancy." It is not my intention to discuss the merits or lack thereof of different textual traditions. That is why I am placing this thread in the "Theological Forum" and not the "Translations and Manuscripts" forum.)

I am reading Theodore Letis' _The Ecclesiastical Text_. It is quite an interesting and thought-provoking book. One of the major issues he discusses is the idea of the "inerrancy of the autographa." He posits that this concept was introduced to Princeton by Warfield. He argues that up to that point, Reformed theologians (namely, the scholastics like Turretin and Owen and the Princetonians like Archibald Alexander and Charles Hodge) had maintained the infallibility of the apographa (extant texts) as represented in the Received Text. 

My question is: is the pre-19th century idea of _infallibility_ the same as the post-Warfield idea of _inerrancy_? I understand that Warfield applied inerrancy to the _autographa_ exclusively, but I wonder if the words "inerrancy" and "infallibility" would be interchangeable to someone who held to the pre-Warfield doctrine of infallibility of the _apographa_? Is it correct to say that our current extant texts, as represented in the Received Text, are _inerrant_?

Perhaps this question will be answered as I continue to read Letis, but I thought I'd ask now, anyway.


----------



## FenderPriest (Jun 3, 2010)

Hey Seth,

I think we can say that the concept was, though there may have been some different approaches to it amidst those who agreed with the stance. For example, some Puritans would agree with the dictation theory, while not all, yet they still come at the same doctrine of infallibility and inerrancy in the autographs. Richard Muller's Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Vol 1, 2nd ed.: Prolegomena to Theology (link) would be the reference to get your answer on this. I remember reading his section on this issue, and found it very helpful. The idea that inerrancy of the autographa is a Warfield-Princetonian idea is simply sloppy scholarship. Another little book to check out if you're interested is Richard Gaffin's God's Word in Servant Form: Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck and the Doctrine of Scripture (link).

I hope that's helpful. I can try to remember to dig up my summary of that Muller section and post it tomorrow.


----------



## rbcbob (Jun 3, 2010)

*Relevant Sections of The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
*

Article XI.

We affirm that Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.
We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished but not separated.
Article XII.

We affirm that Scripture in its entirety is inerrant, being free from all falsehood, fraud, or deceit.
We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the flood.
Article XIII.

We affirm the propriety of using inerrancy as a theological term with reference to the complete truthfulness of Scripture.
We deny that it is proper to evaluate Scripture according to standards of truth and error that are alien to its usage or purpose. We further deny that inerrancy is negated by Biblical phenomena such as a lack of modern technical precision, irregularities of grammar or spelling, observational descriptions of nature, the reporting of falsehoods, the use of hyperbole and round numbers, the topical arrangement of material, variant selections of material in parallel accounts, or the use of free citations.
Article XIV.

III. EXPOSITION

C. Infallibility, Inerrancy, Interpretation
Holy Scripture, as the inspired Word of God witnessing authoritatively to Jesus Christ, may properly be called 'infallible' and 'inerrant'. These negative terms have a special value, for they explicitly safeguard crucial positive truths.
'Infallible' signifies the quality of neither misleading nor being misled and so safeguards in categorical terms the truth that Holy Scripture is a sure, safe and reliable rule and guide in all matters.

Similarly, 'inerrant' signifies the quality of being free from all falsehood or mistake and so safeguards the truth that Holy Scripture is entirely true and trustworthy in all its assertions.
We affirm that canonical Scripture should always be interpreted on the basis that it is infallible and inerrant. However, in determining what the God-taught writer is asserting in each passage, we must pay the most careful attention to its claims and character as a human production. In inspiration, God utilized the culture and conventions of his penman's milieu, a milieu that God controls in His sovereign providence; it is misinterpretation to imagine otherwise.

So history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: Since, for instance, nonchronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.

The truthfulness of Scripture is not negated by the appearance in it of irregularities of grammar or spelling, phenomenal descriptions of nature, reports of false statements (for example, the lies of Satan), or seeming discrepancies between one passage and another. It is not right to set the so-called "phenomena" of Scripture against the teaching of Scripture about itself. Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved, will encourage our faith, and where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions.
Inasmuch as all Scripture is the product of a single divine mind, interpretation must stay within the bounds of the analogy of Scripture and eschew hypotheses that would correct one Biblical passage by another, whether in the name of progressive revelation or of the imperfect enlightenment of the inspired writer's mind.

Although Holy Scripture is nowhere culture-bound in the sense that its teaching lacks universal validity, it is sometimes culturally conditioned by the customs and conventional views of a particular period, so that the application of its principles today calls for a different sort of action.


----------



## sastark (Jun 3, 2010)

FenderPriest said:


> Hey Seth,
> 
> I think we can say that the concept was, though there may have been some different approaches to it amidst those who agreed with the stance. For example, some Puritans would agree with the dictation theory, while not all, yet they still come at the same doctrine of infallibility and inerrancy in the autographs. Richard Muller's Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Vol 1, 2nd ed.: Prolegomena to Theology (link) would be the reference to get your answer on this. I remember reading his section on this issue, and found it very helpful. The idea that inerrancy of the autographa is a Warfield-Princetonian idea is simply sloppy scholarship. Another little book to check out if you're interested is Richard Gaffin's God's Word in Servant Form: Abraham Kuyper and Herman Bavinck and the Doctrine of Scripture (link).
> 
> I hope that's helpful. I can try to remember to dig up my summary of that Muller section and post it tomorrow.


 
Jacob,

Letis documents that the traditional reformed position is the infallibility of the apographa or extant texts. The idea of inerrant *autographa *(as opposed to "inerrant" *apographa*) was what Warfield introduced to Princeton. I'm just wondering if it is proper to interchange the words "infallible" and "inerrant" when discussing the positions held by Reformed Scholastics and Princetonians prior to Warfield.

To be clear: I am not questioning the inspiration, infallibility or inerrancy of the Text. I am just curious about how to best use the words infallible and inerrant.

---------- Post added at 01:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:32 PM ----------

Thank you for posting that, Bob. The Chicago Statement on Inerrancy is definitely a source I want to further study after reading Letis. I do thank you for bringing this section of the Statement to my attention.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Jun 3, 2010)

I have always understood the terms such that "inerrant" means the text _does not_ err, whereas "infallible" means that it _cannot_ err. Thus, inerrancy, as such, does not necessitate infallibility, though infallibility demands inerrancy. (Refer to Article XI in the Chicago Statement above)


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 3, 2010)

There's a good discussion about this issue in the March/April issue of MR: Modern Reformation - Issue

The long and short of it is that infallibility used to historically communicate inerrancy and much more. Infallibility used the mean that the Scriptures were incapable of error. If I say that 2+2=4 then I have communicated something inerrant but I'm still capable of error. In one sense, inerrancy is a redundant term. The only reason that the Churches have had to make further qualifications is because men have equivocated on the definition of infallibility.

Read, especially, Mike Horton's interaction with the two gentlemen in the Q&A. It was torturous and I sent him an e-mail afterward to the effect that it was especially hard for Mike to get across to the two gentlemen that the Chicago statement on inerrancy anticipates most of the bogeymen that people raise in objection to the idea.

Most people, when you say "inerrant", assume that you're not taking into account the literary types in the Scriptures or the fact that the Scriptures don't have the intent of precise, scientific impression (i.e. the Mustard seed is not the smallest of seeds). 

The core of the issue is whether we treat the Scriptures as breathed out by God, what His intent is for the specific literature that He moved Prophets and Apostles to record, and whether we trust that against our own opinions. It's a cop out to say that the ideas are infallible but the content that those ideas is chock full of human opinion. We end up with the idea of Truth being contained in the husk of human opinion and mythology and end up being the judge of "timeless truths" and divorce the Scriptures from their historic content.


----------

