Biblical Infallibility

[altersteve]

What exactly do other Christians mean when they say that the Bible is infallible? And what is the difference between biblical infallibility and biblical inerrancy?

[Zakuska]

This is the Chicago Statement on Bible innerrancy:

http://www.reformed....ments/icbi.html

The Tenth Article basically says exactly the same thing as our 8th Articles of Faith.

8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.

vs

"We affirm that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original."

The problem with the Chicago Statement is that with all the contingencies and loop holes that it adds to the definition of innerrant. It basically devoids the word of all usefull meaning as a discriptor.

Then you have the more dogmatic types (usually really young) who beleive that ever little accent mark on every little word, Every period and comma was written with the finger of God. That everything the Bible speaks on, wether it be science, geology, geography, history and astronomy, etc. etc. that it is completely true in everything it affirms.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Zakuska

[diglot]

What exactly do other Christians mean when they say that the Bible is infallible? And what is the difference between biblical infallibility and biblical inerrancy?

There is a lot of overlap between inerrancy and infallibility, so much so that many people use the terms synonymously.

I always understood the terms this way:

While there are different definitions of the term, inerrancy essentially means that the Bible is correct in everything it says (while taking into account such things as literary genre, etc). Whereas infallibility means that the Bible is fully authoritative when it comes to matters of faith and practice. So while probably all inerrantists would hold to infallibility, not all who believe in infallibility would necessarily have to maintain inerrancy.

[Mudcat]

What exactly do other Christians mean when they say that the Bible is infallible? And what is the difference between biblical infallibility and biblical inerrancy?

Hi Steve,

You may have some mixed answers on this. I am an evangelical Christian that believes the Bible is infallible but also recognizes that the current available translations of the Bible are not entirely inerrant.

Taking the Gospel of Mark for example. I believe that when the Holy Spirit originally inspired the Gospels production it was both free from error and infallible. However, taking a critical look at the very ending of Mark that is available in most modern translations and comparing them with our best available manuscripts, it seems apparent that the plausibility of an error through the addition of a few verses is likely.

An inerrantist would likely support that modern translations are exactly what was given in the original. But I think there are apparent issues that make such a stance nonviable.

However, such a potential error does not also mean the Bible is fallible. If we look at what seems to be the main goal of the Bible, in that it leads people to Christ and offers instruction on faith and a Christian walk, I believe God has preserved the truth of these things within it completely.

Infallibility, as I see it means that the Bible is functionally true.

[Zakuska]

Thanks diglot...

There is a lot of overlap between inerrancy and infallibility, so much so that many people use the terms synonymously.

I always understood the terms this way:

While there are different definitions of the term, inerrancy essentially means that the Bible is correct in everything it says (while taking into account such things as literary genre, etc). Whereas infallibility means that the Bible is fully authoritative when it comes to matters of faith and practice. So while probably all inerrantists would hold to infallibility, not all who believe in infallibility would necessarily have to maintain inerrancy.

This is the one that gets me. If its all authoritative in faith and practice why do so many people and churches pick and choose those things they will practice and follow yet at the same time ignore other things that might be an inconvenience.

Take for example Pauls perscription that Women should pray with their heads covered and other than that they shouldn't speak a word in the church building because its a shame?

Then there is the fact that Bishops should be married. (some churches don't even have Bishops).

[Mudcat]

Thanks diglot...

This is the one that gets me. If its all authoritative in faith and practice why do so many people and churches pick and choose those things they will practice and follow yet at the same time ignore other things that might be an inconvenience.

Take for example Pauls perscription that Women should pray with their heads covered and other than that they shouldn't speak a word in the church building because its a shame?

Then there is the fact that Bishops should be married. (some churches don't even have Bishops).

Underline mine. Do LDS women practice this?

[Zakuska]

Underline mine. Do LDS women practice this?

In temple worship they do.

But see thats my point Mudcat. Mormons arn't the ones claiming the Bible is all Authoritative on Christian practice. Bible innerrantists are and they are the ones not following it.

Edited September 23, 2011 by Zakuska

[LeSellers]

Underline mine. Do LDS women practice this?

Only in one place.

But we don't have to follow every biblical prescription/proscription because we have living prophets who can pass along the current will of God on such matters.

Lehi

[altersteve]

So when non-LDS Christians say they believe the Bible is inerrant and/or infallible, they basically mean the same thing that the eighth Article of Faith means? This looks like another example of Mormons and non-Mormons misunderstanding and talking past each other.

[maklelan]

There is a lot of overlap between inerrancy and infallibility, so much so that many people use the terms synonymously.

I always understood the terms this way:

While there are different definitions of the term, inerrancy essentially means that the Bible is correct in everything it says (while taking into account such things as literary genre, etc). Whereas infallibility means that the Bible is fully authoritative when it comes to matters of faith and practice. So while probably all inerrantists would hold to infallibility, not all who believe in infallibility would necessarily have to maintain inerrancy.

It seems to me a lot of conservatives are forced to move the goalposts of inerrancy to align them with infallibility. In other words, they only assert inerrancy for doctrinally significant matters. Point out to someone asserting inerrancy that 1 Sam 13:1 says Saul was a year old when he began to rule and all kings of qualifications begin to be appended onto inerrancy.

[Rob Bowman]

Mudcat,

Hi there. You wrote:

An inerrantist would likely support that modern translations are exactly what was given in the original. But I think there are apparent issues that make such a stance nonviable.

No knowledgeable inerrantist would ever make such a claim. Biblical inerrancy applies to the original-language texts insofar as they correctly represent the originals, and to translations insofar as they correctly represent the meaning of those texts. For example, inerrantists agree that additions to the text of the Bible, such as the long ending of Mark (16:9-20), are not inerrant.

[Rob Bowman]

maklelan,

You wrote:

It seems to me a lot of conservatives are forced to move the goalposts of inerrancy to align them with infallibility. In other words, they only assert inerrancy for doctrinally significant matters. Point out to someone asserting inerrancy that 1 Sam 13:1 says Saul was a year old when he began to rule and all kings of qualifications begin to be appended onto inerrancy.

No inerrantist asserts inerrancy only "for doctrinally significant matters." As for qualifications to inerrancy, the most basic of such qualifications, one that has been stated explicitly at least as far back as Augustine, is that copyist errors are not inerrant. Thoughtful inerrantists do not use this qualification as "cover" for every textual difficulty, but one area where copyist error was especially likely was with numbers, and this is a reasonable explanation for 1 Samuel 13:1. It is in fact unreasonable to suppose that the original author or authors of the text intended to say that Saul began ruling when he was one year old!

[thesometimesaint]

Rob:

As we have NO extent originals that becomes problematic for determining what was said and meant.

[Rob Bowman]

thesometimesaint,

You wrote:

As we have NO extent originals that becomes problematic for determining what was said and meant.

Not so. While the originals are not extant, we have multiple copies that have a genealogical relationship to the original, allowing us to determine to a high degree of accuracy what the originals said. Not absolutely 100 percent, admittedly, but pretty close. For example, in the problem maklelan mentioned in 1 Samuel 13:1, there is no possible textual uncertainty that the king mentioned there was Saul and that his reign was over Israel.

By the way, if you think the lack of original biblical texts is a problem for knowing what was said and meant, you ought to conclude that we really have no idea what the Book of Mormon might have said or meant. After all, we have no extant copies of it, let alone extant originals.

[Calm]

No inerrantist asserts inerrancy only "for doctrinally significant matters.3;

that claim has been made on this board once or twice, perhaps you should qualify "inerrantist" with traditional or something you feel is appropriate.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob:

NONE of the copies agree with all the others. Futher with literally 10's of thousands of versions of the Bible no one can say with any authority which is the one that God has "Inspired".

We do not claim that the BoM is inerrant.

[altersteve]

No knowledgeable inerrantist would ever make such a claim. Biblical inerrancy applies to the original-language texts insofar as they correctly represent the originals, and to translations insofar as they correctly represent the meaning of those texts. For example, inerrantists agree that additions to the text of the Bible, such as the long ending of Mark (16:9-20), are not inerrant.

That sounds a lot like the eighth Article of Faith to me.

[Rob Bowman]

calmoriah,

You wrote:

that claim has been made on this board once or twice, perhaps you should qualify "inerrantist" with traditional or something you feel is appropriate.

I doubt the claim was made by someone professing to hold to "biblical inerrancy." In any case, evangelical theological expositions and apologetic defenses of biblical inerrancy are unanimous in rejecting the "only in major doctrinal matters" type of qualification.

[Rob Bowman]

thesometimesaint:

You wrote:

NONE of the copies agree with all the others. Futher with literally 10's of thousands of versions of the Bible no one can say with any authority which is the one that God has "Inspired".

There are not tens of thousands of versions of the Bible, unless you mean that the Bible has been translated into many thousands of different languages. True, no two copies agree 100% with each other, but the disagreements are almost always spelling variations, clearly accidental changes, or clearly intentional glosses, which means that we can almost always identify and weed out the erroneous variants.

You wrote:

We do not claim that the BoM is inerrant.

Ah, but that isn't the issue. The issue is whether one can know what the BOM said or means. If the lack of absolute uniformity in the extant manuscript copies of the Bible raises any doubts about what the Bible said or meant, then the absolute lack of any extant manuscripts for the BOM is an even bigger problem.

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You wrote:

That sounds a lot like the eighth Article of Faith to me.

You're right. The Articles of Faith were drafted in response to a request for a summary of LDS doctrine for public consumption, and so for the most part they are worded to sound very similar to conventional evangelical beliefs. However, LDS doctrine understands these articles very differently than evangelicals would in their theological context. With respect to the eighth Article, LDS doctrine maintains that the Bible's text has been so corrupted in the process of transmission that its original meaning can be known only by modern revelation. Evangelicals roundly reject this claim. For us, the qualification that the Bible is without error insofar as it is correctly translated is a minor qualification calling for care in textual criticism and the study of the original language text; for Mormons, it is a major qualification calling for trusting the Bible only insofar as it is validated or corrected by modern scriptures and modern prophets.

[Questing Beast]

thesometimesaint,

You wrote:

Not so. While the originals are not extant, we have multiple copies that have a genealogical relationship to the original, allowing us to determine to a high degree of accuracy what the originals said. Not absolutely 100 percent, admittedly, but pretty close. For example, in the problem maklelan mentioned in 1 Samuel 13:1, there is no possible textual uncertainty that the king mentioned there was Saul and that his reign was over Israel.

By the way, if you think the lack of original biblical texts is a problem for knowing what was said and meant, you ought to conclude that we really have no idea what the Book of Mormon might have said or meant. After all, we have no extant copies of it, let alone extant originals.

This same limitation applies to almost all of medieval and ancient history. We have, usually, one or two COPIES of a lost original; that often date to centuries after the lost original. Yet we base our knowledge of and understanding of history on what we have. Then the disbelievers in the Bible (slash BofM) opine that because we don't have the originals, we will never know whether or not the existing translations are really what God had in mind, ergo nobody can legitimately claim that scriptures are the "word of God", etc. The dichotomy in this line of reasoning is blatant: a double standard in fact. History is built largely upon extant COPIES of no longer existing originals, centuries older than the originals, and that's okay; but religious history, especially biblical history, cannot get a pass with thousands of copies, many of them much closer to the originals than any secular history?...

[altersteve]

You're right. The Articles of Faith were drafted in response to a request for a summary of LDS doctrine for public consumption, and so for the most part they are worded to sound very similar to conventional evangelical beliefs.

I agree. But I've seen so many evangelical Christians criticize the eighth Article of Faith, claiming that it means that Latter-day Saints do not believe that the Bible can be trusted. This is completely ridiculous.

However, LDS doctrine understands these articles very differently than evangelicals would in their theological context.

Agreed, to an extent. But do you have other examples? For the most part, these so-called differences in understanding are simply examples of Latter-day Saints and evangelicals talking past each other and misunderstanding what the other is saying. Both Latter-day Saints and evangelicals are guilty of this.

With respect to the eighth Article, LDS doctrine maintains that the Bible's text has been so corrupted in the process of transmission that its original meaning can be known only by modern revelation. Evangelicals roundly reject this claim. For us, the qualification that the Bible is without error insofar as it is correctly translated is a minor qualification calling for care in textual criticism and the study of the original language text; for Mormons, it is a major qualification calling for trusting the Bible only insofar as it is validated or corrected by modern scriptures and modern prophets.

CFR, please, that LDS doctrine teaches that the Bible's original meaning "can only be known by modern revelation." Your statement implies that the Church discourages scholarship (specifically Bible scholarship), which is completely, 100% false. I have never heard anything that says that Latter-day Saints can only trust the Bible if modern revelation validates or corrects it.

[thesometimesaint]

Rob:

Just some of the English versions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_Bible_translations

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

You wrote:

I agree. But I've seen so many evangelical Christians criticize the eighth Article of Faith, claiming that it means that Latter-day Saints do not believe that the Bible can be trusted. This is completely ridiculous.

I don't agree. The fact that the qualification is made for the Bible but not for the Book of Mormon speaks volumes, and confirms other indications that in LDS thought the Bible is less trustworthy than the Book of Mormon or modern revelations.

You wrote:

Agreed, to an extent. But do you have other examples? For the most part, these so-called differences in understanding are simply examples of Latter-day Saints and evangelicals talking past each other and misunderstanding what the other is saying. Both Latter-day Saints and evangelicals are guilty of this.

The first Article is perhaps the best example. When orthodox Christians read it, they think it is affirming the doctrine of the Trinity. However, in LDS doctrine the Father is an exalted man of flesh and bones, Jesus Christ is the firstborn of billions of spirit offspring of Heavenly Father and a heavenly mother, and the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three Gods.

CFR, please, that LDS doctrine teaches that the Bible's original meaning "can only be known by modern revelation." Your statement implies that the Church discourages scholarship (specifically Bible scholarship), which is completely, 100% false. I have never heard anything that says that Latter-day Saints can only trust the Bible if modern revelation validates or corrects it.

Here are a couple of statements that I think illustrate the idea:

"We believe the Bible to be the word of God, but I have often asked missionaries what they would do without the Book of Mormon and modern revelation. With just the Bible, what would be their approach? The Prophet Joseph answered it. 'Take away the Book of Mormon and the revelations and where is our religion? We have none.' (HC, 2:52.)" (James Cullimore, "The Book of Mormon," Ensign, conference edition, May 1976, 84).

"In the real and true sense of the word the only way to understand the Bible is first to gain a knowledge of God's dealings with men through latter-day revelation" (Bruce R. McConkie, Sermons and Writings, 291).

"Modern revelation and restored scripture offer indispensable interpretations of the Bible, helping Latter-day Saints to understand the Bible more fully. Jesus rebuked those who had taken away the 'key of knowledge' or the means whereby the biblical scriptures could be understood (JST Luke 11:53), thereby causing confusion in the interpretation of scripture.... Latter-day Saints interpret the Bible in the light of restored scripture and modern revelation because these have reestablished the lost key of knowledge" (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1284). This statement, though not appearing in an official LDS publication, seems to me to be fairly representative of what Mormons believe.

My claim is not that Mormons don't believe in biblical scholarship, but that LDS Church doctrine entails that Mormons should only accept biblical scholarship insofar as it can be used to support modern LDS doctrine and practice.

[Zakuska]

I don't agree. The fact that the qualification is made for the Bible but not for the Book of Mormon speaks volumes, and confirms other indications that in LDS thought the Bible is less trustworthy than the Book of Mormon or modern revelations.

And yet the BOM contains this disclaimer on its title page.

And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

Edited September 26, 2011 by Zakuska