The Doctrine of Inerrancy

[In what follows, I use the word "inerrancy." While there are debates about the terms "inerrancy" and "infallibility," I do not take these debates as relevant to my thesis in this post, so substitute whichever term you like as you read.]

There are many variations on the idea that the scriptures are without error. According to the famous Chicago Statement, "Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives." This somewhat excessive rendition of the doctrine may be contrasted with the more modest and orthodox version promulgated by the Second Vatican Council: "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." Other versions will differ in similar respects.

In any case, though, what is the epistemological status of such a doctrine? Specifically, is the doctrine of inerrancy a conclusion of interpretation or an assumption for interpretation? Is it descriptive or regulative? In other words, does one examine the biblical texts, measuring them carefully, and discover them to be inerrant, or does one approach them from the beginning under the assumption that they are so as a guiding principle for interpretation?

For many people, the doctrine of inerrancy is clearly intended to serve an assumptive function: the scriptures are interpreted in light of or through the lens of their inerrancy. When apparent errors are found, they are examined not under the question, "does the best interpretation leave us with an error?", but instead, "since there is no error, how can we interpret this in such a way as to cause it to vanish?" If the doctrine is taken as a conclusion, it cannot play any role in the relevant interpretation without begging the question, and this seems to be precisely where it is most commonly invoked.

But why treat the doctrine this way? Instead of laying down inerrancy at the outset as a principle for interpretation, why not treat the doctrine as a conclusion to be reached through the careful study of the scriptures? If the scriptures are inerrant, they hardly need the help of such an assumption and are quite capable of defending the doctrine on their own merits. If the scriptures are inerrant, then there will be no difference at all between an approach which says, "do everything good interpreters do, plus assume inerrancy", and one which simply says, "do everything good interpreters do." If one believes the scriptures to be inerrant, the assumption of inerrancy as a principle of interpretation is, at best, redundant.

Thus, the doctrine of inerrancy need be taken as a principle for interpretation only by those who want to secure for the biblical text a status they believe it cannot secure for itself. Only if the scriptures are not inerrant does inerrancy need to guide interpretation.