The doctrine of inerrancy seems to be a repeatedly revisited topic here at Geometric Theology. On numerous occasions I have sought to defend a high view of scripture, and inerrancy in particular. The word inerrancy does have it’s limits (often people mistakenly associate it with a belief in 6 day creation), however, ultimately I think it gets at what the Church (and it’s Jewish precursors) has taught consistently since it’s inception.
Recently I had a conversation with someone on Twitter who argued that ‘inerrancy’ was a dangerous idea in the hands of an uneducated laity and lent itself to an abusive hermeneutic. In any case, inerrancy was a relatively new idea and that, at most, it was only two or three hundred years old.
In response, it could be argued that any technical theological idea can be dangerously manipulated in the hands of an uninformed laity (or any group of fallen human beings for that matter) but I would have thought it much more dangerous for the Church to reject the doctrine. Moreover, it seems to me that the claim that the idea of inerrancy is fairly recent is patently false.
To begin with, what do we mean by inerrancy? D.A. Carson defines it as follows,
“To claim that the Bible is inerrant is to focus on the Bible’s truthfulness wherever it is making a truth claim. The word is not to be confused with degrees of precision or with hermeneutical stipulation; it happily acknowledges that there are complex issues of literary genre with which to wrestle, and that not every sentence is a falsifiable proposition.”
Carson, “The Many Facets of the Current Discussion” in The Enduring Authority of the Christian Scriptures, (2016), 25.
Essentially, when we claim that the Bible is inerrant we are claiming that it is true. The next task is to see whether this approach to the Bible finds a good historical precedent. To this Charles Hill writes that Scripture’s “…ultimate divine authorship, sanctity, and authority, is the common assumption of the faith.” (Hill in Enduring Authority, 45) So Hill quotes Origen as an initial example,
“The sacred books (tas heiras biblous) are not the compositions of men, but …composed by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (ex epipnoias tou hagiou pneumatos…anagegraphthai), agreeably to the will of the Father of all things through Jesus Christ, and they have come down to us. (De Principiis 4.1.9).”
“Of the several teachings that Origen regards as first principles, derived from apostolic preaching, is that the Scriptures come from God, and that there is a spiritual meaning to Scripture that often lies hidden behind the material (Princ. paef. 8).” (Hill, 51).
Hill goes on to quote Clement of Alexandria,
“For in the Lord we have the first principle of instruction, guiding us to knowledge from first to last “in divers ways and divers portions” (Heb.1:1) through the prophets and the gospel and the blessed apostles. And, if anyone were to suppose that the first principle stood in need of something else, it could no longer be really maintained as a first principle. He then who of himself believes the Lord’s Scripture and his actual voice is worthy of belief…Certainly we use it [Scriptures] as a criterion for the discovery of the real facts.” (Hill, 50).
Then Gregory of Nyssa,
“We are not able to affirm what we please. We make the Holy Scripture the rule and the measure of every tenet. We approve of that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings” (De anima et resurr., MG 46, 49B). Scripture is “the guide of reason” (Contra Eunom. I, 114, 126), “the criterion of truth” (107).” (Hill, 54).
This idea that Scripture is the ‘criterion of truth’ (given it’s origin in the God of truth) implies inerrancy. If Scripture is the ultimate measurement of truth it can be taken to be true in all that it teaches. Again, that need not imply a wooden literalistic hermeneutic but that wherever Scripture makes a truth claim it can be trusted.
So Hill can quote Clement of Rome,
“You have searched the holy scriptures (tas heiras graphas), which are true, which were given by the Holy Spirit; you know that nothing unrighteous (adikon) or counterfeit (parapepoiemenon) is written in them” (1 Clem. 45.2-3).” (Hill, 55).
Quotes of a similar nature are multiplied by Hill with reference to Justin Martry (Dial. 65), Irenaeus (AH 2.27.2, 2.28.2) and Augustine. So Augustine writes,
“If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture,” wrote Augustine in his response to Faustus (397-400), “it is not allowable to say, The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood” (CFaust. 11.5).” (Hill, 59).
And,
“I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error (ut nullum eorum auctorem scribendo aliquid errasse firmissime credam).” (Hill, 60).
It seems clear then that belief in the truthfulness and inerrancy of Scripture, given it’s divine origin, was widespread in the early Church. This final quote from Augustine explicitly states that Scripture is free from error. So much for the claim that inerrancy is a concept invented by Enlightenment scholastic evangelicals.
Geometric Theology 