| Part ofa series on the |
| Bible |
|---|
 |
Outline of Bible-related topics Bible portal |
Biblical infallibility is the belief that theBible can be relied on entirely for guidance in faith and Christian living, providing accurate and trustworthy direction for salvation and spiritual practice.[1]
Historically, Jewish and Christian interpreters have treated the Bible as trustworthy, though trust did not necessarily implyhistorical or scientific accuracy. The concept of biblical infallibility gained prominence in 19th- and early 20th-centuryProtestantism as afundamentalist reaction againstmodernist trends in mainstream Christianity. In parallel, theCatholic Church developed the idea ofpapal infallibility, while evangelical churches emphasized the infallibility of Scripture. Both movements combined theological claims with ideological resistance to perceived erosion of traditional authority, reflecting a broader crisis in Western religious authority.
Early Christian writers, such asClement of Rome, emphasized the truthfulness of Scripture, attributing its teachings todivine inspiration and highlighting the moral endurance of the righteous. Denominational perspectives vary: the Catholic Church teaches the inerrancy of Scripture in matters of salvation but requires careful interpretation of the human authors’ intentions. Methodists, following John Wesley, regard Scripture as infallibly true and authoritative for faith and practice, though not equating the Bible itself with God.Evangelical views, particularly in theU.S., often uphold bothinerrancy and infallibility, while many international evangelicals focus only on God’s infallibility rather than that of the Bible.
The concepts of infallibility and inerrancy are related but distinct. Infallibility refers to the Bible’s inability to fail in matters of faith and practice, while inerrancy denotes freedom from all errors, including historical or scientific details. Some denominations allow for minor errors in non-essential historical or scientific details under infallibility, whereas inerrancy traditionally holds that all original manuscript content is fully true. This distinction has led to ongoing debates among scholars and denominations, with documents like theChicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy affirming that infallibility and inerrancy are closely connected but not identical, and that scientific interpretations should not override scriptural teachings oncreation and divine events.
Historically, Jewish and Christian interpreters of the Bible have seen it as reliable and trustworthy, but such views do not equate veracity with historicity, scientificity or even facticity.[2] The idea of biblical infallibility gained ground inProtestant churches as afundamentalist reaction against a general movement towardsmodernism within mainstream Christian denominations in the 19th and early 20th centuries.[3]
In the Catholic church, the reaction produced the concept ofpapal infallibility whereas, in theevangelical churches, the infallibility of the Bible was asserted.[4] "Both movements represent a synthesis of a theological position and an ideological-political stance against the erosion of traditional authorities. Both areantimoderne and literalist."[5]
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.[6]
Clement of Rome in hisLetter to the Corinthians says:
TheCatholic Church does not claim infallibility of scripture, instead asserting freedom from error, holding "the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture".[8] TheSecond Vatican Council, citing earlier declarations, stated: "Since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation."[9] It added: "Since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words."[10]
The Methodist theologian Thomas A. Lambrecht notes thatJohn Wesley, the founder ofMethodism,
...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).[11]
As such, Lambrecht notes that "orthodox, evangelical, and traditionalist United Methodists believe in the 'infallibility' of Scripture."[11] "Article V—Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation" in theArticles of Religion states that:
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.[12]
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.[11]
While the doctrines of inerrancy and infallibility are cornerstone doctrines for many quarters of the USEvangelicalism, it is not so for many Evangelicals around the world, for whom God only is inerrant and infallible.[13][14]
For many British evangelicals, inerrancy was American in origin, exotic in its implications, and was associated with variousobscurantist attitudes and beliefs for which British evangelicals had no enthusiasm.[15]
Some theologians and denominations equate "inerrancy" and "infallibility"; others do not.[16] For example,Davis suggests: "The Bible is inerrant if and only if it makes no false or misleading statements on any topic whatsoever. The Bible is infallible if and only if it makes no false or misleading statements on any matter of faith and practice."[17] In this sense it is seen as distinct frombiblical inerrancy.
There is a widespread confusion among Evangelical andChristian fundamentalist circles that biblical infallibility means thatthe Bible cannot contain errors while inerrancy implies thatthe Bible contains no errors.[citation needed] However, the concept of infallibility has no relation to errors, but the impossibility of failure.
The confusion between the terms is consistent. Old Testament scholar John Walton uses the term inerrancy in the sense that the "Scripture is not to be understood as making scientific affirmations, particularly in the realms of cosmology, anatomy, and physiology";[18] however, this definition actually refers to infallibility rather than inerrancy. Using non-theological dictionary definitions, Frame (2002) insists thatinfallibility is a stronger term thaninerrancy."'Inerrant' means there are no errors; 'infallible' means therecan be no errors." Yet he agrees that "modern theologians insist on redefining that word also, so that it actually says less than 'inerrancy.'"[19]
Somedenominations that teach infallibility hold that the historical or scientific details, which may be irrelevant to matters of faith and Christian practice, may contain errors.[20] This contrasts with the doctrine ofbiblical inerrancy, which holds that the scientific, geographic, and historic details of the scriptural texts in their original manuscripts are completely true and without error, though the scientific claims of scripture must be interpreted in the light of thephenomenological nature of the biblical narratives.[20] TheChicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy uses the term in this sense, saying, "Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished but not separated."[21] And "We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or Redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on Creation and the Flood."[22]
