Scripture is inerrant. Part of what that means is that, “It is without error or fault in all of 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.” (taken from the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy).
Not only does the bible itself teach a theology of inspiration and inerrancy, not only do most Christians seem to instinctively know this upon conversion, but from this upholding of Scripture’s truthfulness can be traced in the church fathers as well. Sadly this has to be proven though. I’ve heard liberal theologians go so far as to say that inerrancy is the invention of nineteenth century churchmen like A. A. Hodge and B. B. Warfield (who they say were overly shaped by modernism). I thought to myself, “How in the world can that be true? Did someone just recently invent inerrancy? If we went back in time and held a conversation with the church fathers, what would they say about the absolute truthfulness of the bible?”
I recently read a helpful book addressing this very issue, Biblical Authority: (John D. Woodbridge, 1982). I thought many of his quotes of the church fathers and reformers were worth posting. If you really like these issues, the whole book would be worth checking out.
Clement of Rome (died in 99 A.D.)
“You have studied Scripture [O.T.] which contains the truth and is inspired by the Holy Spirit. You realize that there is nothing wrong or misleading in it.”
Justin Martyr (100-165 A.D.)
“… but if (you have done so) because you imagined that you could throw doubt on the passage in order that I might say the Scriptures contradicted each other, you have erred. But I shall not venture to suppose or to say such a thing; and if a Scripture which appears to be of such a kind be brought forward, and if there be a pretext (for saying) that it is contrary (to some other), since I am entirely convinced that no Scripture contradicts another, I shall admit rather that I do not understand what is recorded, and shall strive to persuade those who imagine that the Scriptures are contradictory, to be rather of the same opinion as myself.”
Irenaeus (born in 135 A.D. or possibly 115 A.D.)
“Now if any man set Luke aside, as one who did not know the truth, he will (by so acting), manifestly reject that Gospel of which he claims to be a disciple… It follows then, as of course, that these men must either receive the rest of his narrative, or else reject these parts also. For no person of common sense can permit them to receive some things recounted by Luke as being true, and to set others aside, as if he had not known the truth.”
Theophilus of Antioch (died circa 183-185 A.D.)
“Moreover, it is said that among your writers there were prophets and prognosticators, and that those wrote accurately who were informed by them. How much more, then, shall we know the truth who are instructed by the holy prophets, who were possessed by the Holy Spirit of God! On this account all the prophets spoke harmoniously and in agreement with one another, and foretold the things that would come to pass in all the world. For the very accomplishment of predicted and already consummated events should demonstrate to those who are fond of information, yea rather, who are lovers of truth, that those things are really true which they declared concerning the epochs and eras before the deluge: to wit, how the years have run on since the world was created until now, so as to manifest the ridiculous mendacity of your authors, and show that their statements are not true.”
John Chrysostom (347-407 A.D.)
“It was not without reason these points came in for mention, not in vain I spoke to you about them. My reason, in fact, was that some men are like robots: when they take hold of the divine books, and find in their pages a heap of dates or litany of names, they pass them by without a thought, meeting any objection with the remark: They are only names, nothing useful in them. Do not utter such infamy. God speaks, and you have the effrontery to say, Nothing useful in what is said. I mean, if you merely have the chance of laying your eyes on an inscription come to light – tell me, do you not eagerly pore over it and examine the wealth it contains? But why talk of dates and names and inscriptions? Note the force of the addition of one single syllable, and stop despising the whole names. Our patriarch Abraham (he belongs to us, you know, rather than to the Jews) was originally called Abram which has the meaning “migrant.” But later his name was changed to Abraham and with this he became father of all nations; and it was the addition of one syllable that entrusted this upright man with such a glorious destiny. In other words, just as kings hand out to their officials golden ledgers as a sign of their authority, so God on that occasion gave that just man for sign of his importance a syllable.”
---
“With the Scriptures, however, it is not like this. The gold does not lie before us mixed up with earth; instead it is gold and only gold.”
---
Commenting on Matthew and the gospels - “But that they [the narratives] are not opposed to each other, this we will endeavor to prove throughout the whole work. And thou, in accusing them of disagreement, are doing just the same as if thou wert to insist upon their using the same words and forms of speech.”
Augustine (354-430 A.D.)
Commenting on Jerome’s contention that a good man (St. Paul) might purposefully deceive out of a sense of duty - “For it seems to me that the most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the sacred books… It is one question whether it may be at any time the duty of a good man to deceive; but it is another question whether it can have been the duty of a writer of Holy Scripture to deceive; nay, it is not another question – it is no question at all. For if you once admit into such a high sanctuary of authority one false statement, as made in the way of duty; unless, perchance you [St. Jerome] purpose to furnish us with certain rules by which we may know when a falsehood might or might not become a duty.”
---
“I have learned to yield this respect and honor only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error.”
---
“Therefore everything written in Scripture must be believed absolutely.”
---
“Whatever, they [the men of physical science] can readily demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises to be contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is, to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events, we must without the smallest hesitation believe it to be so.”
---
“And in order to carry out this design to a successful conclusion, we must prove that the writers in question do not stand in any antagonism to each other. For those adversaries are in the habit of adducing this as the palmary allegation in all their vain objections, namely that the evangelists are not in harmony with each other.”
---
Commenting on the need to reconcile ‘time sequence’ problems in the gospels - “For this reason, therefore, when the order of times is not apparent, we ought not to feel it a matter of any consequence what order any of them may have adopted in relating the events. But whenever the order is apparent, if the evangelist then presents anything which seems to be inconsistent with his own statements, or with those of another, we must certainly take the passage into consideration, and endeavor to clear up the difficulty.”
---
“With great eagerness, then, I fastened upon the venerable writings of thy Spirit and principally upon the apostle Paul. I had thought that he sometimes contradicted himself and that the text of his teachings did not agree with the testimonies of the Law and the Prophets; but now all these doubts vanished away. And I saw that those pure words had but one face, and I learned to rejoice with trembling.”
---
“For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the MS. Is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it. As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of its truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason. I believe, my brother, that this is your own opinion as well as mine. I do not need to say that I do not suppose you to wish your books to be read like those of prophets or of apostles, concerning which it would be wrong to doubt that they are free from error. Far be such arrogance from that humble piety and just estimate of yourself which I know you to have…”
Luther (1483-1586 A.D.)
“It is impossible that Scripture should contradict itself; it only appears so to senseless and obstinate hypocrites.”
---
“But everyone, indeed, knows that at times they [the fathers] have erred as men will; therefore I am ready to trust them only when they prove their opinions from Scripture, which has never erred.”
---
“Whoever is so bold that he ventures to accuse God of fraud and deception in a single word and does so willfully again and again after he has been warned and instructed once or twice will likewise certainly venture to accuse God of fraud and deception in all of His words. Therefore it is true, absolutely and without exception, that everything is believed or nothing is believed. The Holy Spirit does not suffer Himself to be separated or divided so that He should teach and cause to be believed one doctrine rightly and another falsely.”
---
“One letter, even a single tittle of Scripture, means more to us than heaven and earth. Therefore we cannot permit even the most minute change.”
---
“Consequently, we must remain content with them [words], and cling to them as the perfectly clear, certain, sure words of God which can never deceive us or allow us to err.”
---
“For if they believed they were God’s words they would not call them poor, miserable words but would regard such words and titles as greater than the whole world and would fear and tremble before them as before God himself. For whoever despises a single word of God does not regard any as important.”
---
“Not only the words but also the diction used by the Holy Ghost and the Scripture is divine.”
Calvin (1509-1564 A.D.)
“Scripture is produced by the inspiration of the Spirit who testifies to our hearts of the truth and authority of his words.”
---
Commenting on 2 Timothy 3:16 – “This is the principle which distinguishes our religion from all others, that we know that God hath spoken to us, and are fully convinced that the prophets did not speak at their own suggestion, but that, being organs of the Holy Spirit, they only uttered what they had been commissioned from heaven to declare. Whoever then wishes to profit in the Scriptures, let him, first of all, lay down this as a settled point, that the Law and the Prophets are not a doctrine delivered according to the will and pleasure of men, but dictated by the Holy Spirit.”
---
Commenting on a number discrepancy in 1 Corinthians 10:8 and Numbers 25:9 – “… for in one day twenty-three thousand, or according to Moses, twenty-four thousand, of them perished. But although they differ about the number, it is easy to reconcile their statements. For it is not unheard of, when there is no intention of making an exact count of individuals to give an approximate number. For example, there were those whom the Romans called the Centumviri, The Hundred, when in fact there were on hundred and two of them. Therefore, since about twenty-four thousand were destroyed by the hand of the Lord, in other words, over twenty-three thousand, Moses gives the upper limit, Paul the lower, and there is really no discrepancy.”
---
“… we see that the Spirit is not less diligent in narrating burials than the principal mysteries of faith.”
---
“[We] ought to embrace with mild docility, and without any exception, whatever is delivered in the Holy Scriptures.”
---
“For Scripture is the school of the Holy Spirit in which as nothing useful and necessary is omitted, so nothing is taught which is not profitable to know.”
William Whitaker (An Anglican/Puritan-sympathizer, 1548-1595 A.D.)
“But, say they, the church never errs; the pope never errs. We shall shew both assertions to be false in the proper place. We say that scripture never errs, and therefore judge that interpretation to be the truest which agrees with scripture.”
---
“… we cannot but wholly disapprove the opinion of those, who think that the sacred writers have, in some places, fallen into mistakes. That some of the ancients were of this opinion appears from the testimony of Augustine, who maintains, in opposition to them, “that the evangelists are free from all falsehood, both from that which proceeds from deliberate deceit, and that which is the result of forgetfulness.”
---
“… it becomes us to be so scrupulous as not to allow that any such slip can be found in Scripture.”
---
“We, on the contrary side, say that the authentic and divinely-inspired scripture is not this Latin, but the Hebrew edition of the Old Testament, and the Greek of the New.”
---
“For authentic scripture must proceed immediately from the Holy Ghost himself… (2 Tim. 3:16); now Jerome’s translation is not divinely inspired; therefore it is not authentic scripture.”
---
“That Scripture only, which the prophets, apostles, and evangelists wrote by inspiration of God, is in every way credible in its own account and authentic.”
(btw – I think inerrancy is a very relevant issue and important doctrine. And though there are often many nuances that can be right to consider and weigh out, I tend to seriously question anyone’s profession of faith if they don’t hold to inerrancy. Label me what you want, a fundamentalist, a fideist, but nevertheless here I stand.)
