Content deleted Content added
Undid revision 645973199 by 178.254.80.199RV mixed, uncommented, uncited edit. |
Enervation (talk | contribs) Added content from Biblical infallibility (for merge) because the difference is too convoluted to be meaningful |
||
Line 1:
{{About|the Christian doctrinal position|Jewish doctrinal positions|Rabbinic literature}}
{{Bible related}}
Line 13 ⟶ 12:
</ref>
Some equate ''inerrancy'' with ''
There are a minority of biblical inerrantists who go further than the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy", arguing that the original text has been perfectly preserved and passed down through time.
Line 22 ⟶ 21:
== Terms and opinions ==
{{see also|Biblical inspiration
The word ''inerrancy'' is formed from the word ''inerrant'', from the Latin ''inerrāntem'', (being in- + errāntem the present participle of errāre to err or wander). It is defined by the [[Oxford English Dictionary]] as "That does not err; free from error; unerring."<ref>''Oxford English Dictionary''.</ref>
Another word often used to characterize the Bible is "infallible". From dictionary definitions, Frame (2002) insists that this is a stronger term than "inerrant". "'Inerrant' means there are no errors; 'infallible' means there ''can be'' no errors".<ref>Frame, John M. "Is the Bible Inerrant?" IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 4, Number 19, May 13 to May 20, 2002 [http://reformedperspectives.org/files/reformedperspectives/theology/TH.Frame.inerrancy.html]</ref> Yet he agrees that "modern theologians insist on redefining that word also, so that it actually says less than 'inerrancy.
In this sense it is seen as distinct from biblical inerrancy, but always accompanying it. The [[Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy]] uses the term in this sense, saying, "Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished but not separated."<ref>[[Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy]], Article XI</ref> The idea of ''biblical integrity'' strengthens the concept of infallibility by suggesting that current [[Judeo-Christian]] biblical text is complete and without error (inerrant). The proposal suggests that the "integrity" of Biblical text—to include its present day message, purpose, and content—has never been corrupted or degraded.<ref name="inerrancy"/>
According to H. Chaim Schimmel, [[Judaism]] had never promulgated a belief in the literal word of the [[Hebrew Bible]], hence the co-existence of the [[Oral Torah]].<ref>Schimmel, H. Chaim, ''The Oral Law: The rabbinic contribution to Torah Shebe'al Peh'', 2nd, revised ed., Feldheim Publishers, Jerusalem, 1996, pp.19-21</ref>
Within [[Christianity]], some mainstream [[Evangelical]] and [[Protestant]] groups adhere to the current inerrancy of [[Scripture]] as it reads today. However, some note that "Evangelical scholars ... doubt that accepting the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is the best way to assert their belief in biblical authority".<ref>''Encyclopædia Britannica'', "Evangelicalism".</ref>
The [[Catholic Church]]
[[John Wesley]], the founder of the [[Methodist Church]], used the word "infallible" to describe the Scriptures. In his sermon on "The Means of Grace," Wesley says, "The same truth (namely, that this is the great means God has ordained for conveying his manifold grace to man) is delivered, in the fullest manner that can be conceived, in the words which immediately follow: 'All Scripture is given by inspiration of God;' consequently, ''''all Scripture is infallibly true''''; and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness;' to the end 'that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works' (2 Tim. 3:16, 17)" (emphasis added).<ref name=Lambrecht>{{cite web|url=http://tomlambrecht.goodnewsmag.org/what-is-meant-by-infallible/|title=What Is Meant By ‘Infallible’|last=Lambrecht|first=Tom|date=27 May 2014|publisher=Good News: Leading United Methodists to a Faithful Future|accessdate=28 May 2014}}</ref> As such, "orthodox, evangelical, and traditionalist United Methodists believe in the 'infallibility' of Scripture."<ref name=Lambrecht/> "Article V—Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation" in the [[Articles of Religion (Methodist)|Articles of Religion]] states that
{{quote|The Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation; so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man that it should be believed as an article of faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical books of the Old and New Testament of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=1649|title=The Articles of Religion of the Methodist Church V-VIII|year=2004|publisher=The United Methodist Church|accessdate=28 May 2014}}</ref>}} The United Methodist theologian Rev. Thomas A. Lambrecht therefore writes that "The Bible is not God, and those who believe in its infallibility do not worship the Bible. But the Bible is God’s most objective and detailed way of communicating with us, God’s people. Its infallibility means we can trust the Bible to truly communicate to us what God wants us to believe and how God wants us to live. To ignore or disobey the teachings of Scripture is to contradict its infallibility, which puts us on a completely different theological path altogether."<ref name=Lambrecht/>
Some literalist or conservative Christians teach that the Bible lacks error in every way in all matters: chronology, history, biology, sociology, psychology, politics, physics, math, art, and so on.<ref name="inerrancy">
Line 44 ⟶ 47:
During the 18th and 19th centuries, various episodes of the Bible (for example the [[Genesis flood narrative|Noahide worldwide flood]],<ref>Plimer, Ian (1994), ''Telling Lies for God: Reason vs Creationism'', Random House</ref> the [[Genesis creation narrative|creation in six days]], and the [[Adam and Eve|creation of women from a man's rib]]) began increasingly to be seen as legendary. This led to further questioning of the veracity of Biblical texts. According to an article in ''Theology Today'' published in 1975, "There have been long periods in the history of the church when biblical inerrancy has not been a critical question. It has in fact been noted that only in the last two centuries can we legitimately speak of a formal doctrine of inerrancy. The arguments pro and con have filled many books, and almost anyone can join in the debate".<ref name="infallible">{{cite journal|last=Coleman|journal=Theology Today| volume = 31|issue = 4|year=1975|title=Biblical Inerrancy: Are We Going Anywhere?|doi=10.1177/004057367503100404|first1=R. J.|pages=295}}</ref>
The idea of Biblical infallibility gained ground in [[Protestant]] churches as a [[fundamentalist]] reaction against a general modernization movement within Christianity in the 19th and early 20th centuries. In the Catholic church, the reaction produced the concept of [[Papal infallibility]], while in the [[Evangelical]] churches the infallibility of the Bible was asserted.<ref>[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DDbdltnokfsC&pg=PA47&dq=fundamentalism+infallibility&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QaDTU8SDLavb7AaFsIH4CQ&ved=0CDwQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=fundamentalism%20infallibility&f=false Ruthven, M., ''Fundamentalism: A Very Short Introduction'', Oxford University Press, 2007, p.47.]</ref> "Both movements represent a synthesis of a theological position and an ideological-political stance against the erosion of traditional authorities. Both are ''antimoderne'' and literalist."<ref>[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FBVCgetqZAAC&pg=PA84&dq=fundamentalism+infallibility+papal&hl=en&sa=X&ei=E6jTU7HMDPLe7Aaqw4CIBg&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=fundamentalism%20infallibility%20papal&f=false Kaplan, L., ''Fundamentalism in Comparative Perspective'', Univ of Massachusetts Press, 1992, p. 84.]</ref>
In the 1970s and '80s, however, the debate in theological circles, which centered on the issue of whether or not the Bible was [[Biblical infallibility|infallible]] or both infallible and inerrant, came into the spotlight. Some notable Christian [[seminary|seminaries]], such as [[Princeton Theological Seminary]] and [[Fuller Theological Seminary]], were formally adopting the doctrine of infallibility while rejecting the doctrine of inerrancy.▼
<blockquote>No matter how little common ground was apparent at the time between Roman Catholicism and the Evangelical Right, these two reformulations of scriptural and papal supremacy represented a defiant assertiveness in reaction against the crisis of religious authority that was engulfing Western religion.<ref>[http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=j1UW7fPz3REC&pg=PA127&dq=fundamentalism+infallibility&hl=en&sa=X&ei=caHTU8qzE42p7Aam4IHQDg&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBDgK#v=snippet&q=infallibility&f=false Warner, R., ''Secularization and Its Discontents'', A&C Black, 2010, p.19.]</ref></blockquote>
▲In the 1970s and
The other side of this debate focused largely around the magazine ''[[Christianity Today]]'' and the book entitled ''The Battle for the Bible'' by Harold Lindsell.<ref>Lindsell, Harold. ''The Battle for the Bible. '' Zondervan, 1978. ISBN 978-0-310-27681-4</ref> The author asserted that losing the doctrine of the inerrancy of [[Scripture]] was the thread that would unravel the church and [[Christian fundamentalism|Conservative Christians]] rallied behind this idea.
Line 236 ⟶ 242:
* [[An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture]]
* [[Biblical hermeneutics]]
* [[Biblical literalism]]
* [[Bibliolatry]]
| |||