adminIN the last week I presented us a very deep subject, that of the authenticity of the Bible! I made reference to the manner in which the canon of the Bible was arrived at. Some of you readers were very curious and have been asking me so many questions. I want to quickly respond and clarify that I do not attempt to give you a theological rendition as if you are in Bible school.
Furthermore, I got some good input from two people who are practicing Roman Catholics. I appreciated their contribution for the following reasons. They are very clear about their Catholic teaching and faith. I do realise though and need to make it clear now that if I differed with them or any other person of any faith it does not mean one is being adjudged as wrong. We have to accept that there are many strands of Christianity in as much as there are strands of Buddhism and Islam. What I will discuss in the coming weeks has its veracity on being historical. We need to look at the past in order to build the future so that we do not build that which once broke down in the past. I am not done with the Roman Catholic thought as it contributed a lot to the discourse and the shaping of present day Christianity. We ignore their past action to our peril as we see the Christianity in the future.
You and I need to know and accept the fact that Christianity is on a journey and that journey is taking to Africa. The next millennia will not see a European or American theological explanation of biblical truth and doctrine but certainly African. The African needs to make the necessary quantum leap into making the Bible understandable to the new African theologian say 50 years from today. At that time the perception of Christianity as an alien phenomenon to the African will have died but we are not sure if the preacher then would understand what happened to bring us there. This is why I posit to you that the Bible will not change as the major text of Christian thought. It is the true infallible and unchanging word of God!
Somebody asked me if I am advocating for the rewriting of the Bible to be an African text. My answer is no, not at all. I would like to see the African apologist and the African preacher explaining the Bible as an African and practicing Christian. In the same manner if not better than what the European and the American gave to us the brand we call Christianity today. For the African tomorrow to express unequivocal Christian truth that is still universal yet not apologising for his being an African Christian or is it a Christian in Africa?
Let us get back to the fact that the Bible is the true word of God. I, like quite a number of people, do subscribe to the infallibility and inerrancy of the word of God the Bible. In short summary inerrant means “without error” and infallible means “incapable of error”. The reason these seem very similar is that, with respect to the Bible, they are.
The word infallible is normally applied to the church, and is a key part of Roman Catholic theology. It means that the church has not only promulgated no errors in the past, but will not do so in the future. Here we are referring to the church as the Catholic Church. I hasten to clarify this because there is already a school of thought that does not subscribe to the fact that the Catholic Church as headed by the Pope in Rome is “the” church. But this is a subject for another day.
Protestants (who mostly do not recognise the infallibility of the church) have tended to apply the word to the Bible, which they take as their source of ultimate authority. However the word is not nearly as applicable to the Bible, as the Bible is a closed canon, and cannot make any statements “in the future”. On the other hand the church is not a closed canon.
The term “infallibility” is used by some theologians to refer to the doctrine that the Bible is correct in matters of faith and practice only. So in short, when applied to the Bible, the two words are virtually synonymous. When applied to other authorities, like the church, they can mean very different things.
These concepts arose when the issue of the divine inspiration of the Bible was being addressed. Questions arose such as: In what sense, or to what degree, is the Bible the divinely inspired Word of God? How does it differ from all other books? The word infallible also means trustworthy. It refers to something that is without any type of defect whatsoever. Those who trust its infallible teachings will never be lead astray.
Inerrancy means there are no errors whatsoever. While some Christians used inerrancy and infallible interchangeably they are normally used in slightly different ways. Inerrancy contends that the Bible does not have any errors of fact or any statements that contradict. Infallibility deals more with one’s personal knowledge of the Lord while inerrancy is more concerned with the details of Scripture. Infallibility is the broader term. For example, one who believes in inerrancy will also believe in infallibility. The reverse, however, is not necessarily true.
There are those who argue that the Bible contains errors of fact while still accomplishing its purpose — to bring humanity into a relationship with God. They see no problem trusting the Bible as the final standard of authority on all matters of faith and practice though it may contain some errors. However, others think the idea of an infallible but not inerrant Bible is something that is nonsensical.
A proper understanding of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is vital, since a defective view of this doctrine diminishes the power of the proclaimed Word of God. St. Paul reminds us, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim 3: 16-17). Indeed the doctrine of biblical inerrancy logically flows from the supernatural truth of the Bible’s inspiration.
It is precisely because of God’s authorship of the Sacred Scriptures that error is necessarily precluded, since God is incapable of error, and the divinely-willed purpose of the Scriptures is to lead us on the path to salvation. Yet the doctrine of the utter truthfulness of the Bible must not be understood in a naive sense; it is paramount that the intentions of the sacred authors are discerned as one interprets the Scriptures. Grounded in the literal (or historic) sense, the three-fold spiritual sense of Scripture further reveals the plan of God and must be taken into account in biblical interpretation.
The Bible is authoritative for us because it is trustworthy. It is trustworthy because it contains truth without error. It contains truth without error because it has been divinely inspired. Once we begin to call into question the inerrancy of the Bible and begin to doubt its trustworthiness, we effectively silence the Spirit and thereby blunt the powerful words of the author of the Hebrews, “For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart” (Heb 4: 12).
While all else may change the Word will not. The Bible in my view will remain the true word of God. That is the truth of the matter.
I could go on but suffice that we pause here and trust that we meet again next week. Shalom!
Online Reporter