Infallibility

2 Tim. 3:16 (ESV)  All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, ¹⁷ that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.

I’ve been in a discussion about the infallibility of the Bible this week.  Webster gives three definitions for the word infallible: “1: incapable of error 2: not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint :certain 3: incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals.” Traditional and historic Christianity would apply all three to the entire Bible, but I’m mostly going to refer to the New Testament here because I’m much more familiar with the evidence for the infallibility of that than the Old Testament. 

First I’d like to look at the whole idea of a sacred text being fallible.  Fallible is pretty much the opposite of infallible.  Here’s Webster again:  “1: liable to be erroneous 2: capable of making a mistake.” So, a fallible religious text can be in error and is capable of making mistakes in what it has to say.  Let’s look at the philosophical concept for a minute.

If a sacred text is fallible, how would we know which parts to believe?  What if some doctrine expressed in this sacred text is in error, expressed incorrectly?  Fallibility is almost always blamed on the fact fallible man had some hand in its creation.  But, what if this uncertainty applies to a doctrine we hang our hats on?  If we can’t trust the text itself to tell us if that doctrine is true.  We could not include God as the authority.  He can’t be the final authority if fallible man can dilute or misrepresent God’s inspiration. 

So we would need another authority.  Maybe that authority is us.  We could believe what we want to believe is true in the text and reject what we think is untrue.  That would make truth subjective, though, subject to our own belief rather than our belief being subject to the sacred text.

Maybe we would need to turn to a pastor or a prophet to tell us which parts are true and which parts are not, but we would still have fallible man sifting what we agree began with God but was recast.  To be real here, this leads to relativism: truth is subjective, what is true for you may not be true for me.  “I believe something in the text is true but you don’t. Neither view has standing. So, I would conclude there is no way of knowing what a sacred text is saying if we believe fallible man was not just able to alter it but must have altered it.

Evidence

Is there evidence the Bible is accurate in its presentation of God’s leading?  The Bible certainly claims this. In the book of 2 Peter, Peter writes those prophets who came before him were inspired.

2 Peter 1:16-21 (ESV)  For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. ¹⁷ For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” ¹⁸ we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. ¹⁹ And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, ²⁰ knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. ²¹ For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Another evidence is that we have an exhaustive empirical demonstration of inspiration.  We have 66 ancient documents written over a span of more than 1500 years agreeing with one another, quoting one another in recognition of their divine inspiration, and supporting one another doctrinally, morally, and epistemologically.  I would challenge doubters to find a similar collection of ancient documents which would do the same.

Why is this important?

Ours is not a blind faith.  Our Bible is not a fallible book due to its being passed from God through man to reach us.  The question is often asked, “Couldn’t God protect His Word?”  I think the greater question is “Did He?”  In past blogs I’ve offered evidence of inspiration and of the trustworthyness of our Bible archaeologically , the authenticity of the Old and New Testament. 

We can trust our Bibles to be accurate and inspired.  They are the infallible Word of God not in translation, of course, or in copies of manuscripts, but in their original writing, the autographs.  Trust in the Bible you hold in your hand as an excellent representation of God’s Word to you.

Is our God capable of passing His Word through the hands of man without man corrupting it.  The evidence says “yes!” Ours is a God who could pass His Word through the hands of man infallibly despite the fallibility of man.