The Doctrine of Inerrancy fundamentally addresses the reliability and truthfulness of the Scriptures. It has been called by some theologians “the most important of all doctrines,”1 because every other doctrine that Christians hold, stands or falls on the reliability of the Biblical witness. If the Scriptures are not truthful in all their parts, then who decides which parts are true as they relate to such important doctrines as sin and salvation? How do we know that what we hold in our hands is the Inspired (God-breathed) word of God? The theological ramifications of an inaccurate Bible are incomprehensible. It would contradict God’s character quality of absolute truthfulness (Titus 1:2; Hebrews ), and call into question our Lord’s very testimony.
Any attempt to answer these questions means that some terms must be defined. The two words that are most often used as synonyms to describe Biblical authority are “inerrant” and “infallible.” While there is only a shade of difference between the two meanings, clarification seems necessary. As stated above “inerrant” emphasizes the truthfulness of Scripture, meaning that it is “wholly true,” while “infallible” emphasizes the trustworthiness of the Scriptures. The former means that the Bible is exempt from error, while the latter indicates that the Bible is incapable of error. What we are really addressing then is the issue of whether or not the Bible is truthful, hence trustworthy, in all that it conveys. In other words it makes no false or misleading statements about matters of faith and practice.
One very important point must be made as it relates to this doctrine. Claims of inerrancy are only made in regards to the original manuscripts. Since the originals have long-since disappeared, and what we hold in our hands is the product of a scribal copy, it is probably beyond our ability to prove this doctrine by examining and comparing biblical texts in some historical-critical way. We must attempt to prove this doctrine by examining how the Biblical writers and speakers viewed the Bible’s truthfulness.
Internal Proof
Some disagreement exists today among scholars as to whether or not this doctrine is taught implicitly or explicitly. We feel that the Bible teaches inerrancy implicitly. The Bible attests to its own inspiration thereby requiring it to be inerrant because it is the very breath of God (2 Timothy ). Since “all Scripture is inspired by God,” this must mean that it is equally inspired in all of its parts and that it is also infallible in what it intends to communicate. In other words, God does not make mistakes. The Bible also teaches its own truthfulness (Psalm 19:7-9; 119:43, 142, 160; John 17:17, 19; Colossians 1:5). It is important to understand that this does not simply mean that it contains truth in it but that it is truth itself.
In addition to these passages it is important to consider the Biblical criteria for prophetic revelation. Deuteronomy 13:1-5 and 18:20-22 provided Israel Israel
Likewise, the New Testament writers believed their writings to be inspired “Scripture” as well (2 Peter 3:15-16). The Apostle Peter viewed Paul’s writings as “Scripture” in the same sense that he viewed the Old Testament Texts, thus he saw them as authoritative in matters of faith and practice, instructing other believers to obey their instruction. The time frame in which Peter wrote his epistle suggests that Peter may have had at least six of Paul’s letters, and perhaps as many as ten. The authority with which the Apostles wrote was not a human authority, but it was a divine authority, the Spirit of Christ giving the commands of Christ to His people. We see this very clearly in the early chapters of Acts as Christ’s ministry of teaching was transferred to the apostles (Acts 1:1-2; 2:42).
In light of this truth, there are several places in the New Testament which commend its own public reading alongside the authoritative collection of Old Testament Scripture (Colossians 4:16; 1 Thessalonians 5:27; Revelation 1:3).
Our Lord’s View of the Scriptures
We can be assured of Christ’s belief in the inerrancy of the Scriptures, hence their authority, based upon two of His own statements in the New Testament. In Matthew 5:17-20, Christ confirmed the veracity and authority of the Old Testament Law and the Prophets, when he said that not a single “letter or stroke” would pass away from it until it had all been accomplished. Additionally in John 10:34-35, He confirmed that the Scripture “cannot be broken.” He believed in the truthfulness of Scripture down to the smallest letter of the Hebrew alphabet (Hebrew, yod; Greek, iota). In fact, He also said that not even the smallest “horn” or “tittle” of a letter would pass away before it had all been accomplished.
It is important to note, that our Lord believed in the veracity and authority of the Scriptures which he possessed, which would have been scribal copies of the original manuscripts. To say it another way, Christ had every confidence in the preservation of the text which he held in His hands, and complete trust that it was the Word of God. Many have attempted to debunk this thinking with speculations of accommodation theories. They suppose that Christ was condescending to the Jews acceptance of something that was inaccurate and “accommodating” their error. Others have, heretically, gone so far as to say that our Lord was ignorant of the fact that the Scriptures were errant. The problem with both of these positions is that they call into question the very character of Christ who was not only truthful in all of His dealings, but was the sinless Son of God.
Furthermore, Christ indicated that the Holy Spirit would bring to the remembrance of the Apostles His words after His glorification and ascension (John 14:26). Thus, what the apostles wrote were things which Christ had taught them which they had been illumined to understand.
Do I Have an Accurate Copy?
The accuracy of the Bible as a whole has been contested by many over the centuries, yet “the Word of the Lord stands forever” (Isaiah 40:8; 1 Peter 1:24). Despite the attempts by human sciences and philosophies to discredit the Word of God, it has endured any and all challenges.
In order to answer the question of biblical accuracy one must evaluate the availability and reliability of ancient manuscripts of the biblical text. While we may not have the original writings in our possession, we do have reliable copies which validate the accuracy of the transmission through the centuries. One challenge in this arena is the durability of the ancient documents. Because of the climate and the materials used to make the scrolls, many of the documents have been lost to the ravages of time. Despite this obstacle a significant number of biblical manuscripts have survived and remain for us to examine.
These ancient manuscripts, when compared to other ancient manuscripts from the same period of history, provide great confidence in the accuracy of the New Testament. For example, Homer’s Illiad has some 643 ancient manuscripts to support its accurate transmission. By all accounts the current version is considered to be very accurate when compared to the ancient copies. By way of comparison, there are 5,686 Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament, and an additional 19,000 written in Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic. This reflects the Empire-wide use of the New Testament writings in the early centuries of the church. With the addition of these manuscripts, it places the total manuscript evidence supporting the New Testament at approximately 24,000.3 This simple fact provides tremendous assurance that the New Testament is indeed accurate. There are complete manuscripts of the New Testament dating from A.D. 350, and partial manuscripts dating within a century of the original writings. One important example of this is the John Rylands Papyri which contains a fragment of the Gospel of John.4 Scholars date this fragment to approximately 29 years from the original writing of the book, within the first half of the 2nd century. The fact is that no other ancient document can compare with this support.
In addition, one often overlooked fact is the view held by the early church fathers regarding the accuracy of the copies of the New Testament which they possessed. In fact, it is possible to nearly reproduce the entire New Testament using Biblical quotes from their writings. These writings themselves date back to the second century and even into the late first century, perhaps in some instances even overlapping with the ministry of the apostle John. It is plain to see that they were closer to the original writings than we are and found them to be authoritative and accurate. During the years in which the church was being persecuted at the hands of Rome Constantine
The Old Testament was preserved with even more remarkable accuracy. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in the caves of Qumran in 1947, which have been dated somewhere between 150 B.C and 68 A.D., are virtually identical with our current version of the Old Testament. For instance, a comparison of Isaiah 53 with our current version showed that of the 166 words in the passage, only 17 letters were different. The difference can be accounted for as scribal spelling errors, style differences, and word choice, none of which altered the meaning of the passage in any significant way. This is an important finding considering that liberal scholars have accused the early church of changing the text of Isaiah 53 to comport with their beliefs about Christ.
So what we have seen is that the Hebrew Old Testament was considered to be the accurate and authoritative Word of God by the Jews, by Jesus Himself, and by His apostles. The New Testament was recognized as having been written with the same authority as the Old Testament and even testifies to its own authority. The earliest of church fathers, and even the later ones, believed in and extensively quoted the New Testament in their writings, believing them to be the inspired Word of God, and Church history bears witness to the fact that up until the time of The Enlightenment most considered the Scriptures to be authoritative, infallible, and inerrant.
Living in the backwash of modernism and liberal scholarship, we have seen the devastating effects of the abandonment of the Doctrine of Inerrancy. Higher Critical methodologies have subjected the Scriptures to every form of ungodly scrutiny, which at their core are motivated by nothing more than unbelief in the possibility of the supernatural inspiration of the Scriptures. Because of this fact, Liberal scholars subject the Biblical texts to human reason and flawed speculation, thereby placing man and his wisdom above the objective truth of God.
We believe that our Bibles today, having been derived from error-free originals coupled with careful textual criticism, are near-perfect copies. This does not mean that our Bible is free of mistakes, it means that if it does contain mistakes (and it does), then they are the “mistakes of men,”2 and not mistakes in the original manuscripts. At times there may be difficulties to deal with in a particular reading of a text, but upon closer examination there are always plausible solutions to any given problem.
Having said all this we can rest in the confidence of knowing that the Bibles which we possess are, in fact, the very Words of God. Importantly, the Bible does not just contain the Word of God, but it is the Word of God, equally inspired in all of its parts, and inerrant in what it communicates. It is timeless truth because its authorship was superintended by our eternal, unchanging God.
“The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs”
The Evangelical Theology Society
END NOTES:
1.) Lightner, Robert P. A Biblical Case for Total Inerrancy. Grand Rapids , Mich.
2.) Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids , Mich.
3.) Geisler, Norman & Peter Bocchino. Unshakeable Foundations. Minneapolis , MN
4.) Mezger, Bruce M. & Bart D. Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament, 4th Ed. New York , New York
No comments:
Post a Comment