Infallibility an Inescapable Concept

 

by Paul Bishop

 

“Your word is truth.”  -- Jesus (John 17:17 – NKJV)

 

Much ink has been spilled and much breath has been spent in the last 200 years debating the issue of the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible.  I have some good news for all parties on both sides of the debate.  No, I can’t make both sides happy.  Either the Bible is infallible or it isn’t.  We can’t have it both ways.

 

The good news is, every philosophy, every theology, every system of thinking, Christian or non-Christian, theistic or non-theistic, Biblical or non-Biblical, has within it an ultimate, final, unappealable source or court of authority that is accepted by faith as infallible and therefore inerrant.  Infallible is the Latin meaning “not capable of error.”  Inerrant is the Latin meaning “without error.”  We say “infallible, therefore inerrant.”

 

Dr. R. J. Rushdoony, in his excellent little book entitled Infallibility - an Inescapable Concept, examines several philosophies, some of which explicitly state their source of infallible authority (e.g., Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, and even some secular and non-theistic philosophies) and some where the infallible source of authority is only implied.  Even where only implied, Dr. Rushdoony shows where and what that source of authority is.

 

Our purpose here is to show, not where or what the source of authority is for any specific system of thought, but 1) that it is inescapably there, and 2) that it is accepted by faith as infallible.  When I say “by faith,” I don’t mean against proof, but I do mean without proof.  This is known as a philosophical presupposition.  More good news.  Both sides have certain premises that are accepted as true without proof.  That is what a premise or presupposition is.

 

If you say your philosophy of life has no such final, unappealable source of authority that is accepted by faith as infallible and therefore inerrant, then you just became it, because to say that you do not have one logically implies that you are it, because if you are not it,  then you cannot say with any authority that you do not have one . . . unless you have one.

 

If you have “proof” that your infallible source of authority is infallible, then your “proof” must also, of necessity, be infallible.  If it is not, then obviously you cannot use it to “prove” that your infallible source of authority is infallible.  But if your “proof” is infallible, then it is your final, unappealable source of authority because it is the determiner of truth for all things for you, including the assertion that your stated source of infallible authority is infallible.

 

If one says that the Bible has errors in it, then indisputably, there exists somewhere within the philosophy of the one alleging error in the Bible, a source (let’s call it Source A) of some kind or nature (be it a book, a person, an institution, an expert, what the Bible in I John. 4:1 calls a “spirit”) that has the ability and the authority to sit in judgment on the Bible and make the determination that the Bible has errors in it.  This is very interesting.  Those who criticize Christians about being judgmental because the Bible says we are not supposed to be judgmental, are themselves sitting in judgment on the Bible and saying it has errors in it. 

 

How do they know that the part that says we are not supposed to be judgmental is not in error?  This is intellectual hypocrisy.  So, if someone tells you you're not supposed to be judgmental because the Bible says so, play his own game with him.  Tell him that the part that says “judge not that ye be not judged” is one of the errors in the Bible.  Notice also that the critic is himself being judgmental in telling you that you are not supposed to be judgmental.

 

Note very carefully that this source of ability and authority that sits in judgment on the Bible to make the determination that the Bible has errors in it must itself be infallible.  If it is not, then its determination that the Bible has errors in it is not an acceptable determination.  For if this source of authority (Source A) has error in it, then its determination of error in the Bible must be rejected as an errant determination.

 

More follows however.  If this source (Source A) of ability and authority is infallible, then it is accepted by faith as infallible.  It has to be, because if it is not accepted by faith as infallible, then inescapably there is another source of ability and authority (we’ll call it Source B) that has already made a determination that Source A is infallible.  And if we are to accept Source B’s determination that Source A is infallible, then we have not accepted Source A as infallible by faith, and therefore, we have accepted Source B by faith as infallible.

 

More follows however.  If this source (Source B) of ability and authority is infallible, then it is accepted by faith as infallible.  It has to be, because if it is not accepted by faith as infallible, then inescapably there is another source of ability and authority (we’ll call it Source C) that has already made a determination that Source B is infallible.  And if we are to accept Source C’s determination that Source B is infallible, then we have not accepted Source B as infallible by faith, and therefore, we have accepted Source C by faith as infallible.

 

Etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum.  This is called “infinite regression” in logic and philosophy.

Make no mistake about it.  All parties in both camps have a source of authority that they accept as infallible by faith.  The quantity and quality of the faith of those who reject the inerrancy of the Bible is exactly equal to the quantity and quality of the faith of those who accept the inerrancy of the Bible.  The object of that faith is the only difference, and is a choice based on ones’ philosophical presuppositions or premises about God, life, and reality.  To repeat, the only difference is the object of that faith.

 

The assertion that God’s Word has errors in it is the same statement made by the devil to Eve in the Garden of Eden when he said “Yea, hath God said?” Educated critics have admitted in their own writings that orthodox evangelical Christianity has been uniform in its testimony for nearly two thousand years that the Bible is the God-breathed, ultimate, final, unappealable, infallible and therefore inerrant source of authority in determining truth in all areas of faith and practice in all areas of life.  It is only in the last 200 years that these critics have gone from Biblical criticism to Biblical vandalism in their attempts to destroy the trustworthiness of the Scriptures.

 

Psalm 19:7-10The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple; The statutes of the Lord are right, rejoicing the heart; The commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes; The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring forever; The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, Yea, than much fine gold; Sweeter also than honey and the honeycomb. Moreover by them Your servant is warned, and in keeping them there is great reward.  (NKJV)

 

I John 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. (NASB)