Scriptural Infallibility

I’m responding here to Mr. Hilton’s post arguing for the fallibility of Scripture. It was, in my humble opinion, an excellent post. The arguments for the fallibility of the Bible are made often for emotional reasons, perhaps out of embarrassment that Christians still believe that some 3000-year-old document is historically accurate, or out of disgust for the schisms caused by contorted interpretations. Instead, Mr. Hilton argued from academic reasons. To make sure I understand his arguments, I will reproduce here a few of the salient conclusions from his post.

First, canonicity: the question revolves around what books you include in the Bible. “The choice of canonical books is arbitrary, human, and fallible,” and, as such, the Scripture is itself fallible. Think of the analogy: “if the calculation of the engineer is fallible, then the whole car may be said to be fallible. Similarly, if the decision to include any book in the canon of Scripture is fallible, then the whole canon may be fallible.”

Second, the modern text of Scripture we have today is obviously corrupted from the original. How then could you believe in its infallibility? And, if you don’t, then why even declare the original was infallible?

Third, the limited knowledge of the authors of Scripture prohibited them, in all probability, from being accurate to the minutest scientific detail. The authors of Scripture could not know scientific details that would necessitate the infallibility of Scripture. “In sum, the authors of Scripture were not right in every particular detail.”

However, this has little effect. The point is Christ and his message, not dependent on the minor details. Amidst the great gospel message, small contradictions are trivial.

On the contrary, “take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ”, who is “the Way, the Truth, and the Life”. The Gospel is confined, not liberated, inside a Bible where details do not matter. But the Gospel is much bigger and involves both the great salvation wrought by him and every sparrow that falls. Further, Mr. Hilton supposes that he can rid religion of infallibility. But he can’t. Provided Scripture is no longer infallible, the individual becomes the decider of what gets included and what gets excluded. Or maybe a council of men will decide it. But this is naïve. Infallibility can never be displaced, only relocated. In this case, relocated in the individual. Instead of an ecumenical dream world with all twisted interpretations and contortions gone, one has one’s self a world of chaos.

To get the proposition on screen, I argue for the traditional position that unites practically all churches up until the advent of evangelicalism. The Bible is infallible. It is free of error and inconsistency; in short, “given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (II Tim. 3:16). It is a logical necessity that it be free of error and inconsistency if it is indeed inspired by God. (P1 – God cannot speak lies in His Word, i.e. be inconsistent; P2 – Scripture is his Word, i.e. under his direct inspiration; Conclusion – Scripture cannot speak lies, as it is the Word of God, i.e. it cannot be inconsistent.)

Let me also point out that Mr. Hilton understood perfectly the idea of infallibility. One of the ringing conclusions he came to was that nearly infallible doesn’t equal infallible. I concur heartily. I do not simply believe that the Bible has one or two minor errors that can be overlooked. Nor do I believe that it has none, but could potentially. It is impossible that it have error. This is what infallible means. The gap between infallible and fallible is not a matter of degree. Anything that is close, but not quite infallible, is just as close to being infallible as a five-year-old’s self-made history of the 100 Years’ War.

As for his specific objections, my fellow editor Mr. Hilton somewhat confusingly brought canonicity into this argument. Unfortunately, canonicity has little or nothing to do with it. Canonicity is a matter of deciding which books are infallible. But whether or not Ecclesiasticus is in the canon of Scripture has no bearing on whether or not Hebrews or Genesis is infallible. Neither is the analogy of the car the most lucid part of Mr. Hilton’s generally scintillating article – the components of that analogy are the plans for car and the completed structure of the car. The components of the canonicity of Scripture are which books and how that affects what’s in them. Mr. Hilton, in order to prove the relevancy of the question of Scripture’s canon to the question of Scripture’s infallibility must prove the connection between what’s in the books and which books. I don’t thinks his analogy did this successfully.

Canonicity is dealt with, traditionally, in two ways. Roman Catholics deal with it simply – if the Church is infallible, and the canon of choice was produced by the Church, thus the canon of choice is infallible. Protestants can’t say this, obviously, since they believe in sola Scriptura, the denial that the Church is infallible. So Protestants admit that the canon itself is fallible, i.e. a fallible set of infallible books. How then can we know with infallible certainty which books are infallible? We can’t. But we have faith in the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the councils that decided the canon of Scripture.

Secondly, Mr. Hilton argued that, since the modern text of Scripture is corrupted, it is fallible. I agree. The modern text is corrupted and thus fallible. But the original was not. It was inspired by God. God did not move the pen for St. Paul. He did not whisper in St. Paul’s ear. He did, however, guide St. Paul’s hand away from writing untruth. Whether or not the modern text of Scripture is infallible has no bearing on the infallibility of the original. As textual criticism gets better, we may hope that so will our translations approach closer to the original. Through faith we may also believe that large mistakes in the handing down were prevented.

Thirdly, Mr. Hilton has gone outright and declared his scandalous position – “the authors of Scripture are not right in every detail”. No, that’s quite true, they are not. But their writings in the Bible are. Since Mr. Hilton has proposed a simple proposition – that the Bible has inconsistencies – I shall do the simple thing and ask him where. He alluded to the two deaths of Judas, which I’ll clear up quickly. Matthew 27:5 says Judas hanged himself. Acts 1:18 says he fell and his body burst open. I fail to see the contradiction. I doubt it’s the anomaly of the millennium that the rope hanging somebody snapped and the body burst open on the ground. Cf. When Critics Ask by Geisler and Howe.

Many books have been written on this subject and many PhDs lie on both sides of the issue. I firmly believe that many, especially non-believers, have tried to find contradictions. But let me conclude with countering thoughts that began Mr. Hilton’s post. No contortions are necessary. The Bible is effortlessly free from error, not contrivedly so. And, while Mr. Hilton is right in acknowledging that Scripture speaks only through the interpretation of others, this is not what we mean when we say “scripture speaks for itself”. We mean that the Bible must be interpreted with all other Biblical passages in the balance. But it is interpreted by sometimes arbitrary, but always human and fallible men. But which would you rather have – a world with one despot of a book or a world with millions of little despots?

Posted at 7:35 am EST on the 26th of December 2008 by John R. Ahern.

Under Theology as ,

There are 5 replies.
 
  1. Nick says on December 29th, 2008 at 6:58 pm

    I think your reasoning has one central problem- your principal aim in all this is to preserve the internal logic of your form of Christianity. But in your eagerness to defend infallibility in this way, you’ve created a few inconsistencies yourself.

    “Provided Scripture is no longer infallible, the individual becomes the decider of what gets included and what gets excluded. Or maybe a council of men will decide it. But this is naïve. Infallibility can never be displaced, only relocated.”

    So you say. Yet when the issue of canonicity comes up, you not only affirm that *its* infallibility *can* be displaced, but that we may put faith that God’s hand has guarded the councils of men that decided the canon.

    “Protestants admit that the canon itself is fallible, i.e. a fallible set of infallible books. How then can we know with infallible certainty which books are infallible? We can’t. But we have faith in the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the councils that decided the canon of Scripture.”

    Obviously you believe that sometimes infallibility can be displaced, and sometimes we can trust councils of men… this begs the question: when?

    You go on to claim that your belief in infallibility is supported by the classic Timothy passage, II Tim. 3:16. First of all, Timothy’s intent was obviously to refer to his “canon” (though I think the idea and the “necessity” of a real canon came much much later in church history) of the Old Testament. The “Bible” wasn’t around. Second, inspired does not mean infallible. According to my thinking, an inspired author can still make factual mistakes without our having to say that God lied, or anything like that. Apparently, according to your thinking, an inspired author cannot. But please, show me why your view is provably superior to mine.

    You talk about inconsistencies in the Bible, claiming that they aren’t there, and you talk specifically about the death of Judas.

    “He alluded to the two deaths of Judas, which I’ll clear up quickly. Matthew 27:5 says Judas hanged himself. Acts 1:18 says he fell and his body burst open. I fail to see the contradiction.”

    Acts actually says that he fell “headlong”- impossible to do if you’ve been hanging by your neck, unless your head is the size (and weight) of a boulder. Matthew says that the field was called “The Field of Blood” because it was bought after Judas’ death by the priests with the money Judas was given for betraying Jesus. But Acts says that Judas bought the field himself, and that the field was called “The Field of Blood” because he got his guts all over it. How is that not a contradiction?

    Finally, you close your argument with a question: “But which would you rather have – a world with one despot of a book or a world with millions of little despots?”

    You seem to be saying that we have a choice about which view to believe (I agree), and that it would be better if the Bible were infallible (I’m undecided), and that because it would be better, we should therefore believe it. I disagree vehemently. I’m not going to believe the sky is yellow just because I would “rather have” it that way, or because it somehow makes the universe better.

  2. Nate says on December 30th, 2008 at 6:59 pm

    Because of a generally unwatched tendency to make assertions without always referencing support, I will try to only comment based on Nick’s specific passages. Nick has done this with John, largely, but with a few unfortunate (and avoidable) exceptions. His first strange assertion regarding John’s note is:

    “Your principal aim in all this is to preserve the internal logic of your form of Christianity.”

    Upon careful reflection, can you really say this? Where, specifically, does John assert the primacy of “internal logic” over all else? His first substantive words are a quote from scripture: “Take every thought captive to the obedience of Christ” who is “the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” The clear thesis, and the one I think John intended, is that scripture is the God-breathed, inspired Word of God, and that because of that, arguing for scriptural infallibility both undermines the Gospel and is illogical. Nowhere in John’s note is there evidence that his “principal” aim is simple preservation of a kind of logic. John uses logic; he does not exalt it as an End (unless, of course, we use “logic” to mean “God” according to John 1:1, which is correct, but not as you used the word here).

    Second, you say to John:

    “You not only affirm that [canonicity's] infallibility *can* be displaced, but that we may put faith that God’s hand has guarded the councils of men that decided the canon.”

    John never said that the canon of scripture is infallible. In fact, he said the exact opposite: “Protestants admit that the canon itself is fallible.” According to this view (which it seems both the Protestants and John adopt, and certainly the view you’re referencing), the Canon wasn’t once infallible and is now (as you say) “displaced” into fallibility. The Canon was never asserted to be fallible in the first place. So to tell John that he affirms that the canon’s “infallibility *can* be displaced” misses the point entirely, and it certainly does not create a contradiction in John’s argument where he originally said “infallibility can never be displaced, only relocated.” As John stated without confusion, scripture is what is infallible. The canon is what is fallible. Each have always been this way without any switching around.

    Further, in reference to John’s discussion of II Tim. 3:16, you counter:

    “Inspired does not mean infallible. An inspired author can still make factual mistakes without our haing to say that God lied.”

    Although you did not address it, John speaks directly to the discrepancy between the original text (which he argues is infallible) and subsequent translations (which he argues are fallible). I agree that “inspired” does not indicate “infallible.” But in this case it does, though a translation more faithful to the original is “God-breathed.” The Greek word for this is “theopneustos” and its meaning is easily apparent: “theo” means God, and “pneustos” means “breath.” God-Breathed always means infallible (not just some of the time), and it points back to John’s syllogism (at the end of his 7th paragraph). Additionally, II Peter 1:20-21 corroborates this: “No prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” This scriptural corroboration also corroborates John’s statement that “the Bible must be interpreted with all other Biblical passages in the balance.”

    The discussion of Judas’ death is difficult, because unless we argue from the words of the original text, we invite arguments and counterarguments with no resolution. Further, transcription (copyist) errors are possible, so that a *copy* of the original Greek in Acts says “prenes genomenos” (“becoming headlong”, which implies hanging) where perhaps (though not necessarily) it should say “presthes genomenos” (“becoming swollen,” like a corpse does after it dies in any number of ways, not necessarily hanging). I recommend this page (http://www.tektonics.org/gk/judasdeath.html) for a close look at this discrepancy between Acts and Matthew. While it may not provide resolution, it illustrates the importance of a close look at the original text. It also illustrates the importance (noted also by John) of realizing that scripture “is interpreted by sometimes arbitrary, but always human and fallible men.”

    Finally, you claim John says (though you do not quote him as saying):

    “It would be better if the Bible were infallible . . . and that we should therefore believe it.”

    No. That is not his logic. I’m sure John agrees that its better if the Bible is infallible, but that is not the basis of his logic. The basis of his logic is Scripture, the fact that God *is* Logic, and that infallibility does not make logical sense. As such, John would agree with you that he will also not “believe the sky is yellow just because [he] would ‘rather have’ it that way, or because it somehow makes the universe better.” His “rather have” was simply (and rather clearly) to illustrate his point. “Rather haves” and “somehows” are decidedly not the basis of his arguments.

  3. Nate says on December 30th, 2008 at 9:18 pm

    CORRECTION:

    In my paragraph regarding canonicity, the sentence “The Canon was never asserted to be fallible in the first place” SHOULD read:

    The Canon was never asserted to be INfallible in the first place.”

  4. Nick says on December 30th, 2008 at 10:37 pm

    Reading Nate’s reply, I realized that my arguments were really anything but watertight, but I still hold to most of them. First, I still think John’s main goal in the post is to preserve the internal logic of his form of Christianity. His first objection to the idea that the Bible is fallible is that, “Provided Scripture is no longer infallible, the individual becomes the decider of what gets included and what gets excluded.” Why is this a bad thing? Not because the Bible is provably infallible (or even because there is evidence that it is) but rather because Because, “Instead of an ecumenical dream world with all twisted interpretations and contortions gone, one has one’s self a world of chaos.” John’s first objection is that the idea of scriptural fallibility creates chaos. The clearly implicated point here is that because we don’t want chaos, we’ve just got to believe in scriptural infallibility. I vehemently oppose the common and surreptitious idea that we should believe whatever we must in order to avoid chaos and discrepancy. It breeds dishonesty in the most sincere and honest people and it curtains the truth behind what supposedly *must* be believed.

    In his next point, John argues that if we are to believe that scriptural is inspired, we must believe that it is infallible. “It is a logical necessity that it be free of error and inconsistency if it is indeed inspired by God.” Instead of even considering alternative definitions of the doctrine of inspiration or considering forms of Christianity other than his own, he holds onto his own definition with a death grip, and irrelevantly insists that (according to his form of the doctrine), fallibility is illogical. If he had been willing to argue against- or even mention- prominent Christians who believe in inspiration but not infallibility (eg. Karl Barth, N.T. Wright), I would not be forced to believe that he is, again, merely defending the internal logic of his own flavor of Christianity. If he is not merely interested in preserving the logic of his understanding of Christianity, then why can he not even bring up other understandings? Why does he insist that scriptural fallibility is illogical according to his assumptions, and leave it at that?

    These are John’s two main points before he mentions that he believes Phil understands infallibility perfectly, and goes on to address to canonicity and corruptibility. So these are his two principal objections to the idea of scriptural fallibility: it creates chaos, and it is illogical according to his assumptions. I think I’m justified in saying that his principal aim is to preserve the internal logic of his form of Christianity.

    You go on to point out, “John never said that the canon of scripture is infallible.” Agreed. Upon re-reading, I realize I was attacking an error that was my own fantasy. Apologies.

    Your next point makes nearly no sense to me at all. You say, “God-Breathed always means infallible (not just some of the time), and it points back to John’s syllogism (at the end of his 7th paragraph).” Why does God-Breathed always mean infallible? Am I missing something? You also completely ignore my point that the Timothy quote only refers to the Old Testament scriptures that Timothy was familiar with, not the scriptures as we understand them today. You then quote another passage, II Peter 1:20-21, ““No prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.” But ostensibly, this again does not refer to any of the New Testament, and only to the *prophecies* of the Old Testament, which is a gigantic minority. Most of the Bible is not prophecy at all, so the quote is somewhat irrelevant.

    Your points on Judas’ death are well-taken. I still think they are probably two contradictory stories, but I understand that there is a certain amount of room for disagreement.

    I’m still puzzled as to why John would place a choice before the reader if he didn’t mean it to be understood as a choice. I’d like to hear from John exactly what he meant. And finally this idea that “God *is* Logic” seems to me to have no basis, scriptural or otherwise. To take John’s use of the Greek word logos- which has a slippery meaning at best, but had certain connotations in Greek philosophy- and to equate that usage with the rather concrete English meaning of “Logic” seems completely and utterly unjustifiable.

    N.B. No worries about typos. I certainly won’t call you on something that trivial. I think I made several myself in my first reply and I appreciate your jumping over them.

  5. Nick says on December 30th, 2008 at 10:40 pm

    CLARIFICATION:

    “To take John’s use of the Greek word logos…”

    - I mean, of course, the author of John’s Gospel’s use of the word logos in his Gospel. Not John Ahern’s use of the word.