Q24. What is biblical inerrancy?

Question 24: What does it mean to say that the Bible is inerrant?

Answer: To call the Bible inerrant means that it is free from both error and lies, for Christ cannot lie.

To this point in the discussion, we’ve been considering the nature of the Bible in positive terms. That is to say, we’ve been talking about the nature of scripture as true. Another way of opening up and understanding the concept of the truth of scripture is to consider it negatively. That’s what the concept of inerrancy in fact does. So let’s explore that a bit.

As we’ve seen, human thought and language is designed to be reflective of that which exists – being that which exists in and proceeds from the mind of God. Lies are thus a uniquely creaturely distortion. They misrepresent that which exists, and thus present a distorted, twisted, and false idea or image of reality. They take that which exists and proceeds from the mind of God, and falsely represent it. Proverbs 30:5-6 shows us the nature of lies as an inverted corrupting of truth: “Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.” There are two further relevant points we may draw from this particular text: 1) It reinforces and proves my original definition of truth as being intrinsically linked to the divine person of God; and 2) it clearly shows the sense in which truth – for us – is a matter of receiving God’s word (again, a point that I have previously made). From a human perspective, the word of God is the ultimate standard of truth, and God himself will judge us to be liars when we go beyond that word. Other scriptures also plainly present this “negative” perspective on the God of truth by stating most emphatically that he cannot lie (Num 23:19; Titus 1:2; Heb 6:18).

Let me expound this from scripture at greater length. To say the same things again is not burdensome for me, and it is safe for you! The fact is that there is no darkness in God (1 John 1:5), he hates lies (Pr 6:17), and so it is unthinkable (and impossible) that he should speak one. We affirm that scripture is a divine revelation from God – the voice of the living Christ. We also affirm that he is morally perfect. We must therefore inescapably conclude that the Bible will be perfectly true in all it says – that the scriptures do indeed “possess the quality of freedom from error” (Young, Thy Word is Truth, p.113). “All that the Bible-believing Christian asserts when he declares that the Bible is inerrant is that the Bible in its statements is not contrary to fact” (Young, Thy Word is Truth, p.135). If the implication that I’ve drawn wasn’t logically full-proof by inference from scripture (which it is), we have the explicit testimony of scripture itself directly and without the need for logical inferences: “The law of the LORD is perfect” (Ps 19:7). In other lwords, we must either side with scripture and affirm both the infallibility, truth, and inerrancy of the Bible, or we must abandon Biblical Christianity all together. You could theoretically affirm something in between, but it would dishonor God, and be both logically inconsistent and spiritually harmful on your part (and for the lambs of God that you influence).

There are two follow up points that we must make here. Firstly, according to 2 Peter 1:21, we must infer that only the original autographs of the scriptures were infallible and inerrant. Nowhere does scripture say that the copying and translation process that has followed down through the centuries is infallible and free from error. There are plenty of historic copies of the scriptures with errors in them that bear this fact out. The Bibles we take to church on Sunday are therefore not infallible. Nevertheless, we confess that God has providentially protected the scriptures to the extent that we have a sufficiently trustworthy record of what was originally written. And “sufficient” is an understatement, for we actually have something very close to a carbon copy (more on this topic at a later point).

The second thing I wish to point out here is that we must state plainly that anything short of assent to the doctrine of scriptural inerrancy results in a compromise to our faith. Claiming errancy in the scriptures inevitably either degrades the integrity of scripture itself as a revelation of God, or it degrades the integrity of God himself (and it probably attempts to do both of those things most of the time). Compromise here is a compromise of our faith altogether, for if we do not have a sure and trustworthy word from God, we do not have anything in which we can trust and stake our life upon – we could not be sure of that which we know (or don’t know). After all, why would I believe anything scripture says if it’s possible that there are some parts that I can’t trust? And if there are some parts that I can’t trust, how can I tell which parts they even are? Certainly the “vast methodological disarray” of liberal critical biblical scholarship can offer no certainty on this question (Carson, “The Many Facets of the Current Discussion”, in: Authority of the Christian Scriptures, p.10).

With these things in mind, then, here is the answer to our question. What does it mean to call the Bible inerrant? To call the Bible inerrant is to say that it is free from error or untruth (as per Frame, cited below). As a product of the divine mind, it is by nature entirely true. It does not distort or misrepresent what is in his mind at all, and it does not distort or misrepresent what has proceeded from his mind at all. Having said that, we must again take the limitations of human language as a given here, for the Bible is written in human language. Don’t expect modern-day scientific jargon from a work of ancient Hebrew poetry. Nonetheless we must say without question: everything spoken in the Bible is perfectly harmonious with the created order as it too has proceeded from the mind of God.

A final word on the place of inerrancy. In terms of the broader theological conversation on this issue in recent decades, inerrancy is generally perceived to be the defining word. Now there’s nothing wrong with the term, of course. In the discussion above, I’ve handled the idea of truth from a positive and negative perspective. Inerrancy encapsulates – in part – the negative side of the equation. John Frame, citing his choice of dictionary, helpfully and simply defines inerrancy as “freedom from error or untruth” (Frame, ST, p.597). If to be inerrant is to be without error or untruth, you can clearly see the sense in which it states the truth-issue negatively rather than positively. As I see it, there’s nothing wrong with using the language of inerrancy to engage the issues here (provided your definition of the term is clear and sound). For my part, however, I think it’s more helpful to shape the debate in positively and in scriptural terms: his word is true. This also puts the emphasis on the case as an essentially positive one – which indeed it is. SDG.