You’ve accepted by faith that the death and resurrection of Christ had a specific purpose for you on account of the written Scriptures. There is no way for you to know that the plan of God for Christ to come and die for you had any meaning or purpose for you individually except on the basis of the gospel writers who recorded their accounts in written form. On this basis, you have tacitly assumed and trusted and believed on faith that their words are infallible and inerrant and speak authoritatively as it pertains to you, and the reason Christ had to come and die for you to solve your problem.

You are being arbitrary then, when on the one hand you believe the gospel writers are speaking infallibly and inerrantly when it comes to why Christ died for you, yet won’t believe the other portions of Scripture are written with the same intent and purpose.

It shows a weakness and inconsistency in your argument for trusting Christ’s purpose for you from the gospel writers written accounts, yet dicounting the rest of it.

Your atheist friends can logically challenge you on this inconsistency and arbitrariness, and show up the logical fallacy in your argument, rightly asking you, ‘Why believe in Christ as personal Savior, specifically having a purpose and intent for you to solve a problem you have, from portions of the Christian Scriptures, yet not believe any of the rest of it’?

I’m grateful for your comments. Each of you has given me much to consider. david c., your point is a good one. Certainly there’s much that’s contained in the Bible, that can be reasonably interpreted metaphorically. What concerns me, however, is the potential for some, (not you, david c., or anyone else commenting here) to, perhaps use this as a convienent ad hoc way of “correcting” potential problems. For example, if one refers to Jonah being swallowed by the whale, it could be that the author of this intends to convey a literal account, or a metaphorical account. I’m certainly inclined toward the latter, but is this sensible? If someone interpretes it metaphorically, due to this being the best interpretation available, in light of what we know historically, about how the Hebrew, (or Greek, for the New Testament) uses words, and how they can be translated into modern english, without loosing much of the original language, then great. But if it’s being done due to ther interpreter being fearful that the author really did mean it literally, and since this is untenable for modern thinking, he interprets it metaphorically, this would be inappropriate. Aside from this, I think you’re right, david c., that the Bible is full of metaphors, and much of the language, at least how it’s translated into modern english, is very beautiful.

Speaking of translations, though, it’s difficult to know if any translation, into a modern language, from the original hebrew, and Greek, for the old and new testaments, respectively, is accurate. The old saying “lost in translation” is applicable. Do the words mean the same, in translation? Not necessarily. And, frankly, unless someone is well versed in Hebrew and Greek (which I’m not), one has no basis for assuming that the Bible that one is reading, is infallible (of course, this is distinct from whether the Bible is infallible, per se, but whether we can trust, not only that the translators honestly translated the bible, but also didn’t make any mistakes. Of course, one could argue that God would never let this happen, but I would prefer that we have some empirical data that either God did not let this happen, or that the translations I’m reading were faithfully translated by the translator or translators. And, since we have the “lost in translation” problem, do we answer this as also being rectified by God, making sure that whatever words are translated mean the same thing? I’m not saying God cannot, or did not do these things, but I prefer empirical evidence that he did do them.

Steve, certainly faith is important. You make a good point, if I’m going to accept the Resurrection, on faith, then why not the whole Bible? Clearly though, if scientific evidence emerged that, beyond reasonable dispute, showed that the resurrection was contrary to established facts, I would have to reject the resurrection, if I wished to remain rational. But, of course, science does no such thing. If I remember correctly, it was from reading Peter Kreeft, and Ronald Tacelli’s excellent HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS, where they discuss the fact that, if the resurrection did not occur, and the Gospels were written when many would be alive to know if this was a lie or not, it wouldn’t make any sense for the authors to make this up. Also, Paul points to 500 witnesses to Christ’s resurrection, and, as Kreeft and Tacelli pointed out, this wouln’t make any sense to make up 500 people seeing this, if it didn’t really happen. So, there are reasons, beyond faith, to accept the resurrection. But, you provide something for me to think about, Steve.

Tom, thanks for your intelligent insights. But I think that, the notion that the Bible as a whole (as distinct from many parts of it, which I have no problem with), being entirely without error, requires a profound amount of evidence for it, which I haven’t seen. I’m not saying it doesn’t exist, I’m just saying that I haven’t seen it, that’s all. You state that you belive in its infalliblity on the basis of reason and evidence, and not pure faith. I believe that you do, and that you do so completely honestly. But there’s a distinction between you, or anyone else, believing it on more than just faith, and me believing it. I would need to see the evidence for myself. (I might give “doubting Thomas” a run for his money;-)) Others, as knowledgeable as you, don’t believe that the evidence and arguments supports Biblical infallibility.

Thanks again for your comments, Bret. David c has answered your questions concerning free will, and I think you’ve said that you have no further problem with that aspect of the question. Do I understand you correctly on that?

If so, then the next most important question is this one.

I simply don’t see why it’s necessary to interpret the Bible as being infallible. Why is this necessary? Is it because the Bible says so?…. If we accept all of the Bible as infallible, what’s our basis for doing so? There doesn’t seem to be anything other than pure faith. How is this decision any more (or less) rationally based than the atheist who decides that all of the Bible is false?… Isn’t the only way to proceed, to attempt to decide what parts of the Bible are fallible, or infallible, on the basis of rational and empirical analysis? To not assume that it’s either infallible or fallible, prior to seriously investigating it?

Yes, it is quite clear that the Bible takes the Bible to be infallible. I’ll come back in a moment to the circularity question, for that is not always quite what it seems to be. There are almost 500 instances where it says, “Thus says the Lord.” There are at least 250 times when it refers to “the Word of the Lord.” Psalm 119 repeatedly emphasizes the perfection of God’s word. Jesus said that not one word of the OT would pass away (Matt 5:18). Peter referred to Paul’s writings as among the Scriptures (2 Peter 3:16). 2 Timothy 3:16 says all Scripture is inspired by God. Beyond all of these definite ascriptions, there is also a pervasive sense all through Scripture that it has the authority that comes only from truth.

Jesus’ regard for the Scriptures is especially crucial. He referred often to the OT both as a guide for teaching (sometimes misunderstood, but never—and this is significant—because the source was in error but because its interpreters were). He saw his life as fulfillment of the OT. He emphasized truth throughout his ministry. He spoke of “truly, truly, I say to you” at least 25 times. He promised his followers that the Spirit of Truth would guide them into all truth (John 16:13).

Now if you accept that Jesus rose from the dead, then it follows that he has authority to speak of things whereof most of us have no knowledge. He claimed to be God, he claimed an intimate relationship with truth (John 14:6), and for that reason I take it that he spoke truth and he supported the speaking of truth. It is largely because of his own witness to the truth of Scripture that I take it actually to be truth.

Is this circular? I think not. First, we humans are required to examine truth in a closed system (per Gödel). Coherence is a strong test of truth (I do not mean to say that coherence is the definition of truth, as some coherence theorists argue). The Bible hangs together. It coheres. It agrees with itself and with what I know in general about reality (which amounts to a form of existential corroboration). Second, we have external historical corroboration for large swathes of biblical information, so it’s not just internal and existential evidence that supports the Scripture.

So it is not the case that we “assume” that it’s infallible prior to investigation. We conclude that it is infallible as a result of investigation.

I want to camp on that point for a moment. You take it that Scriptural infallibility is an assumption that we bring to the Scriptures. I want to ask you to intentionally, decisively, and finally remove that thought from your belief set. You may not agree with the outcome of our investigations, but you have no evidence to support the idea that it is an assumption, and plenty of evidence now against that belief. If you want more I could recommend web pages and entire books for you. In fact you could look at the links I gave you in my last comment. It’s not an assumption, okay? Thanks.

But I need to come back to this before I finish here:

Isn’t the only way to proceed, to attempt to decide what parts of the Bible are fallible, or infallible, on the basis of rational and empirical analysis? …. How do we proceed to know that anything in the bible is true? We look at particular parts, compare them with what is established historically, and empirically, and form a judgment.

From the standpoint of one who has concluded that the Bible is trustworthy, a better approach is to look at our interpretation of Scripture, compare our interpretations with other knowledge, and form conclusions—for although Scripture is infallible, our interpretations are not. But in the process we take the Scriptural accounts as reliable data.

Your approach is not from that position, of course (though you’re welcome to come around to it at any time!).

Now for the next couple of paragraphs I run the risk of changing the subject. I hope that doesn’t happen, though I don’t know how realistic that hope is. What I want to do here is not to re-direct this thread to a discussion of homosexuality but to show that you yourself do not follow the approach you claim that you do. You may think you do, but I want to suggest that the truth is otherwise.

Following your approach, you have decided that the Bible is wrong to condemn homosexual practice. I put it to you that you came to that conclusion through some process other than by “what is established historically, and empirically.” That “homosexual practice is just fine” is not something you can find in history. Maybe you can find it in the last ten years of public opinion, but back yourself up to about, say, 1990, and ask yourself, “Is there historical evidence in favor of homosexuality’s being morally commendable?” The answer would be no better than “Not much–and I have to look hard to find even that.” Yet there were activists then who started then to tell us it was good to have gay sex. They did not get that from history.

Is there empirical evidence in favor of homosexuality’s being good? No. I think that’s pretty plain. Not only is it impossible to derive moral oughts from empirical information, there is also a ton of evidence that homosexual practice harms people.

So if you apply your standard, “We look at particular parts, compare them with what is established historically, and empirically, and form a judgment,” to the issue of homosexuality, you have nothing there that is historically or empirically established. (I could say the same for “rational” analysis of homosexuality, but I’m really trying not to spend that much time on this illustration.)

What do I conclude from this? That your opinion on homosexuality is wrong? No, not at this time. That’s the other discussion I’m trying to touch on as lightly as possible. What I conclude from this is that if you’re judging the Bible on historical and empirical grounds, you run the risk of doing something quite different: judging the Bible on grounds of what 21st century Americans have come to take as their own assumptions.

That word comes back to haunt us here, doesn’t it?

‘Perhaps you all have good reasons, besides pure faith, to accept the Bible as infallible. But I have not seen any good reasons to believe this, but perhaps I just haven’t been exposed to any.’

This is really no mere academic exercise we’re engaged in here. By faith, Bret, you accept the death and resurrection of Christ as satisfaction for your sin problem. God in the flesh, come down as man, to provide reconciliation for us and to restore a right relationship with God. You have no reason to believe this to be the case apart from the Scriptures. Sure, historically you can prove that Jesus lived, died, and resurrected, but what reason do you have that there was any purpose there for you? That it solved your problem? You accept this on faith based on what you’ve read in the Scriptures or on what you trust is someone else’s testimony, right?

Do you see what I’m getting at here? You’ve used faith to believe that Christ’s death for you satisfied a problem you have, yet won’t use faith to believe that the Scriptures are God’s inerrant and infallible communication to us.

If you’ve used faith once; to believe that Christ’s death and resurrection had a specific purpose for you, and you can only believe and trust this from the accounts written in Scripture, are you not being double-minded when you won’t trust the other portions of Scripture?

I wonder if part of the issue here is not a misunderstanding of what is meant in a theological context by “infallible”.

You seem to take a very fact driven, scientific rationale based, somewhat wooden, view of what the term means.

When I say that I believe the Scripture is our “only infallible guide for faith and practice” I mean that the Bible is true and without error in ~what it intends to teach~.

Let me give you a couple of examples of what that means. When Jesus said “the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds” he was not factually correct. There are orchid seeds (for example) that are much smaller. But if he had said to his hearers “the orchid seed is the smallest of all seeds” he would have lost his hearers (and the thread of his argument) completely — orchids were no part of every day experience in first century Palestine.
But I think that we can agree that scientific accuracy is not what Jesus is after in the parable of the mustard seed. He is using common imagery to promote spiritual truth/reality. So while the simile is not 100% scientifically accurate is is nevertheless 100% spiritually true.

Let me give you a modern example of something similar. I said to my wife yesterday “what a lovely sunrise”. Scientifically incorrect, of course. But does it not convey another kind of truth? Is it not my attempt to communicate, in a way that resonates with us both, the reality of a beautiful dawn? Only a cramped and narrow definition, driven by a naturalistic/materialist view of the world would call my statement false.

God condescends to communicate with us in many different ways/forms. It is the height of folly to apply a single narrow standard of “truth” to every one of those forms. The truth value of Biblical poetry, for example, has to be interpreted differently than does the truth value of Biblical history.

When the Psalmist writes (in Psalm 133):

“How good and pleasant it is
when God’s people live together in unity!

It is like precious oil poured on the head,
running down on the beard,
running down on Aaron’s beard,
down on the collar of his robe. ”

I see a beautiful, deep, and abiding truth likened to an experience that I have never had (my head being anointed with oil). Were I take this literally it seems to my mind and times rather unpleasant. Having my head doused with scented olive oil seems, well, kinda gross. But that would be a really poor (and rather ignorant) way of reading this psalm, would it not? The truth conveyed by the image is not bound by the image’s particular applicability to me, is it?

On the other hand, when Luke tells me that Quirinius was governor (in Gk “hegemon” — a somewhat broader word) of Syria at the time of the birth of Jesus, he intends to be informing his readers of an historical fact. If, in fact, Quirinius was not the hegemon of Syria at the time of Jesus’ birth we would have an error that would concern me and which would be a challenge the doctrine of infallibility…

Sorry to go on like this, but it seems to me an important point that you perhaps have not considered in understanding what “infallible” means…

But even if God and Paul were merely “aligned” how can a mere human, such as Paul, ever write infallibly, since humans are incapable of doing so?

Isn’t the only way to proceed, to attempt to decide what parts of the Bible are fallible, or infallible, on the basis of rational and empirical analysis?

To not assume that it’s either infallible or fallible, prior to seriously investigating it?

I’m certainly open to the possibility to the bible being infallible, but one cannot, I believe, assume prior to a serious study of it, accepting on pure faith that it is. Why the Bible, as opposed to any other holy book?

I may be wrong, in my interpretation here, but it seems that, at least many, who accept the Bible as infallible, do so at least in part, on the assumption that, since God wants us to know about the essentials, such as Christ’s resurrection, all that’s contained in the writings that include Christ’s resurrection must be true. But how do we know this? Would God necessarily do this? No.

How do we proceed to know that anything in the bible is true? We look at particular parts, compare them with what is established historically, and empirically, and form a judgment. But we cannot assume all of it is true, I believe, unless we, to the best of our ability, assess each part, to see whether it conforms to reasonable interpretations of history, science, and logic. We may, of course, still be wrong. But isn’t it less fallible than assuming on faith that all of it is true? After all, how are we sure that the belief that all of it is true, especially if we don’t have the history, science, or logic to support it?

I’m not saying that history, science, and logic have been irrefutably shown to “disprove scriptures complete infallibility. I’m open to the opposite. But, if one doesn’t at least have these things, or one of them,(science, logic, or history), what basis does one have to really believe in scriture being completely infallible?

I’m certainly not claiming that I have the answers here, and I could be very wrong, but unless the reasons are there, to support the Bible’s infallibility (aside from tradition supporting it) I think that we have to look at the Bible like any other historical document, and be open to its claims, to requiring good evidence to support its infallibility. Otherwise, there’s no real answer to someone of another religious tradition, who claims his holy book is infallible, and says he bases it on faith; one could merely say I base mine on faith too, and both are at an epistemological standstill. Wouldn’t a better approach be, that there’s good historical, logical and even empirical reasons, to supprot Christ’s resurrection, as represented in the New Testament?

Perhaps you all have good reasons, besides pure faith, to accept the Bible as infallible. But I have not seen any good reasons to believe this, but perhaps I just haven’t been exposed to any. I certainly admire all of the intelligence, and civility, that each of you bring to this discussion.

These are not even remotely analogous. It could have been the case that Paul’s will and God’s will were aligned. You haven’t addressed that. This argument still isn’t responding to david c.’s point at comment number 33.

I simply don’t see why it’s necessary to interprete the Bible as being infallible. Why is this necessary? Is it because the Bible says so? It doesn’t, (of course, even if it did, it would be circular to argue that this is proof of the Bible’s infalliblity). Is it that, otherwise we would have no rational basis for deciding what to reject, and what to accept? I’m sympathetic to this objection, but I think that, we have to try and rationally assess each part, to attempt to decipher which is correct, and which isn’t. Otherwise we’re without a basis, other than pure faith, for deciding that it’s all true. After serious rational and empirical analysis, it’s suprising how much of the Bible is correct. But it cannot be assumed to be so, an an a priori basis.

With respect to authors of the New Testament, I don’t necessarily have a problem with them being “inspired”, to write what they wrote, if one means by “inspired” that God gives them some insight, or help. But I certainly don’t berlieve that God controlled every word written, to ensure that no error is commited. If Paul, for example, whose to write “x”, when God wanted him to write “Y”, I don’t believe that God caused Paul to write “Y”. To do so, would be an infringement on Paul’s free will. But, clearly, since Paul is human, he will make mistakes, and, will likely choose to write something mistaken. Which would mean that God would have to intervene, and cause Paul to write what was correct. Certainly God can do this, if he wishes, and one could claim that, under ordinary, nonscripture writing circumstances, Paul is free to do as he wishes, but God removes Paul’s free will, specifically, and only, for New Testament writing.

But one must acknowledge that the New Testament writers have had their free will taken away, during this writing process.

So, I don’t deny that God could do this, if he wanted. But we couldn’t argue that Paul has free will, all of the time, AND that the New Testament is without errors. That would involve a contradiction. That would be like God making squares, circles, and yet still squares, I agree with Aquinas, that God cannot make something illogical, logical, not because God is “restricted” in his power, but because it just makes no sense.

I simply don’t see the need to believe that the Bible is completely free of errors. I believe that the Bible is a guide, but not an infallible one. As many Catholic thinkers have asked, does the Bible say that it’s infallible?

I just thought of the following analogy: consider that life, including humans, have bodies that are the product of evolution. The evolutionary process, has made our bodies less than perfect, we have bad backs, because we walk upright, our necks have anatomical structures unprotected by bones, we’re suseptible to all sorts of diseases. Now, God made the evolutionary process. But he allowed it to go its own way, with all its flaws.

Similarly, the Bible was, what God intended for humans to know many things about what’s right, wrong, certain aspects of history, and moreover, that Christ died for us. But he allowed humans to go their own way, as it were, in writing it. This is an analogy that just emerged in my mind, while writing this, so I’m not sure if I will stand by it, after reflection, but, just as God knew the evolutionary process would create flawed bodies, but the bodies are sufficient, the Bible is able to convey the important message of Christ, without every part of it, being flawless.

I want you to know I appreciate the clarity of your recent response. It’s good to know that you believe in the crucifixion and resurrection, and that you have grounds to stand on for that belief. Thank you for that.

I’m trying to wrap my mind around your argument for biblical infallibility, considering that you believe in God (your position would be much easier to understand if it were coming from an atheist, but it isn’t). You take several separate lines in your argument. The first one analyzes this way:

1. Humans don’t write infallible history.
2. The NT was written by humans.
3. Therefore the NT could not be infallible.

The argument is only valid, however, if 1 is in this form:

1b. Humans cannot write infallible history under any circumstances.

Evangelicals (and other believers in Scriptural reliability) would generally say that 1 is generally true but that 1b is not. The problem with 1b is that it forgets God, which is a very strange thing for a theist to do. What if God can superintend conditions such that humans can write true history? Surely you believe the God of truth, the author of all communication, is able to make that happen! Except that you go on to question whether he can do it without contradicting himself:

4. In order for God to ensure that there were no errors in the NT he would have had to override and control humans’ actions to the extent that they have no free will concerning what they write.
5. God would not override and control humans’ actions in that way.
6. Therefore God could not (without denying himself) ensure that there were no errors in the NT.

This conclusion 6 seems prima facie unlikely to me: it seems to place a very strange logical limit on God’s abilities. How is it that the God who created us, the one described (in his Second Person) as the Logos, the Word, could have ended up so tongue-tied? Of course if premises 4 and 5 were true, I would have to accept the conclusion 6 whether I liked it or not. But david c has given reasons to doubt that 4 is true. You might also look here and here. If nothing else, sources like these indicate that the question you raise is not a new one. It’s been around for a long time, and many, many thinkers have found satisfactory answers to it. That fact alone doesn’t get us all the way to where you surely want to be, which is at the point where you yourself consider these answers satisfactory. But before you settle into the view that there is no satisfactory answer, I encourage you to go to these pages, and also to the excellent list included at the bottom of this article.

In the meantime, I have two cautions for you. The first one is that you must realize that in this context, you hold the burden of proof for your position. You have made a definite assertion regarding what God cannot do, and you have based your conclusion on that assertion’s being true. Many, many good thinkers throughout history have taken a position contrary to yours. You are in effect saying that they could not possibly be right. The burden is on you to support that claim. At this point your position is unsupported and unargued for, so you would be unwise to put any weight upon it unless you have more support to offer.

My second caution has to do with committing yourself to a position that includes 6. It is very unlikely on the face of it that God would suffer that inability. It ought to lead you to doubt the reasoning that led up to it; and (crucially!) it might also cause you to re-consider whether you are really viewing God as God.

Finally you suggest this:

7. John admitted that there were many things Jesus did that were not written down.
8. Therefore what was written down was “written from particular witnesses’ perspectives.”
9. Therefore we conclude that God allowed the accounts to reflect different witnesses’ perspectives.
13. (Implied) Therefore the accounts cannot be taken as reliable history.

This is no argument for your position either, I’m afraid. First, if you read through the linked documents you will find a considerable amount of frank and thoughtful discussion on God’s working through and working with humans’ perspectives. Statements 8 and 9 are perfectly consistent with standard theories of inspiration.

Second, there is a considerable distance between 9 and 13 (I skipped three numbers on purpose). The conclusion in 13 is supportable just if one accepts 11 and 12 as necessarily true:

11. The fact that the accounts reflect different perspectives means necessarily that they are distorted records.
12. These distortions materially affect the reliability of the records.

But 11 and 12 also need a prior claim to support them:

10. God is unable to supervise the partial recording of history such that the message he wants communicated actually succeeds in being communicated.

And we have already seen that this is a problematic position to take.

Therefore your third argument is as problematic as the first two.

It seems to me that so far at least, you have no strong claim on your position.

Your trouble with the doctrine of inspiration seems to have to do with what you perceive to be a violation of the author’s free will. But why must it be understood as such? There are many things I do in my life because (motivated by love) I WANT to do them. If Paul longs with all his being to love and serve the Lord and the it is revealed to him that one of the ways he may do so is by writing letters to churches, and then out of love and under the tutelage of the Spirit he does so… where is the violation of his will?

You seem to believe that inspiration requires something like Balaam’s ass (Number’s 22:21ff) or some variant of dictation theory or automatic writing. That is not what orthodox Christians hold. We believe rather, that the original writers wrote under the inspiration of the Spirit without violating their wills or personalities….