Sign up ×
Christianity Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Is there any reason, biblical or otherwise, not to believe that the doctrine of inerrancy is relatively new (past two hundred years). I found the following statement on Wikipedia.

"It has in fact been noted that only in the last two centuries can we legitimately speak of a formal doctrine of inerrancy."


Am I understanding correctly that the idea of infallibility has been the prevalent doctrine for most of Christian history? I'm narrowing the scope to Christianity, as it's my understanding that Jewish tradition does not hold the idea of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) being inerrant.

Personal Anecdote: I grew up attending church in the 60's and 70's; the idea of inerrancy wasn't considered in the churches I attended. It seems that the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" has really changed the Christian view during the past 35 years.

This question is focused on the history of the doctrine of inerrancy, not the doctrine itself.

share|improve this question
A good answer to this question must address the arguments made by Rogers & McKim, whether for or against. – Dan Nov 12 '14 at 4:15
Good reference resource:… – Mr. Bultitude Nov 15 '14 at 23:48

4 Answers 4

The belief that the scriptures are without error or fault in all its teaching can be traced to the early Christians, and further.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe.

They would have believed the gospels and epistles as the testimony of the apostles, and thus, not as the word of men, but the truth and the word of God

John signed off his gospel with:

John 21:24 This is the disciple who testifies of these things, and wrote these things; and we know that his testimony is true.

Paul testified that:

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

Jesus himself said of the Old Testament:

John 5:39 these are they which testify of Me.

The Old Testament are the testimony of prophets. Jesus frequently quoted the scriptures against the Pharisees, leaving them speechless. When tempted in the wilderness, Jesus spoke not His own words, but quoted scripture; Satan in return tried to tempt Jesus using scripture. Clearly, these Old Testament writings had great authority because they were the word of God.

The Pharisees never displayed doubt in the veracity of the scriptures, even if they did not have the Spirit to understand the meaning. They sought to prove that Jesus was not the Messiah by trying to catch Him in preaching against the scriptures. When Jesus justified His actions according to the word, they were speechless.

Isaiah wrote:

Isaiah 8:20 To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

share|improve this answer
This starts out great in laying some ground-work for the belief, but I think to really address this question the belief must also be traced up to the present, noting any significant credal statements by the church through history and how the modern definition of the English word stacks up to the historical beliefs. – Caleb Nov 15 '14 at 17:54

The doctrine of inerrancy, a salient feature of Christian Fundamentalism, was "a creation not of the 16th century Reformation but of 19th century Princeton University theologians attempting to preserve traditional belief in divine origins."1 As you can see, there is evidence for supporting the notion that the doctrine of inerrancy is a relatively new doctrine.

Infallibility refers to "the divine assistance given by Christ to the Church to teach specific doctrines without error." 2

Whereas, Indefectibility refers to "the divine assistance given to the Church to remain fundamentally faithful to the teachings of Christ, or 'there can be no wholesale departure from the teaching of Christ' even though various leaders and/or various populations in the Church may sometimes go astray. Thus, 'indefectibility' refers to the generic divine assistance that the church will remain basically faithful to the teachings of Christ over the long run, while 'infallibility' refers to the specific divine assistance for the church to teach particular fundamental doctrines without basic error." 2

Biblical inspiration results in inerrancy, 2,3 which the Catechism of the Catholic Church describes as "the attribute of the books of Scripture whereby they faithfully and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to have confided through the Sacred Scripture." 2

As you can see, there is support suggesting that the doctrine of inerrancy was originally a Catholic doctrine.


  1. DOYLE, R. (2003). Sizing Up Evangelicals. Scientific American, 288(3), 37.


  3. Gigot, F. (1907). The Bible. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved April 26, 2014 from New Advent:

share|improve this answer
Well, I could do some additional research on whether the Catholic version of inerrancy is different from the Protestant version of inerrancy. I'd probably also check the history of the doctrine of inerrancy in the Catholic church. If the doctrine of inerrancy had been indigenous in the Catholic church, then the first source from Scientific American is just plain wrong. – Double U Apr 27 '14 at 15:30
my previous comment (It seems your 5th paragraph is contradicting the second sentence in your 1st paragraph - is there a way you could re-word this?) was poorly worded, as you clearly refer to the differning statements as 'evidence'. I guess what I would normally expect with a presentation containing contradictory evidence is an argument to either harmonize them or favor one over the other. – bruised reed Apr 27 '14 at 15:35

Jesus felt that the law was literal;

Matthew 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Paul felt the "all" scripture was true and useful.

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Jesus felt that even the verb tenses were significant;

Matthew 22:32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

The Hellenistic practice of the academy was taken into the early church but was relatively dormant until the Italian humanist movement and the scholasticism of the high middle ages. Once a forum was established for man to use his intellect as the measure of the Bible, the Bible was left behind.

The so-called age of enlightenment and German rationalism are all extensions of human thought desiring to surpass the perceived limitations of the Bible. As secularism became ascendant, there were those who attempted to stem the tide by advocating the truth of the Bible. This was not a new movement but may have appeared so to those who saw nothing wrong with the secularist trend.

A problem people have with the Bible is that it is more than just words. This cannot be seen or understood by those who are not saved;

1 Corinthians 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

The Bible calls three things truth, God, Jesus, and the Bible. People who have new life in Jesus and walk by the Spirit in truth usually do not have a problem with inerrancy. Those who do not often have a problem with what the Bible says and seek ways to interpret it so that it causes less discomfort.

1 Corinthians 1:18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

share|improve this answer
This starts out at a good place but doesn't follow through very well. About in the middle this post stops having references for any of the assertions and no terms are defined. Tracing the development of the modern view would seem to require more than this. – Caleb Nov 12 '14 at 5:27
Your assertion "People who have new life in Jesus...usually do not have a problem with inerrancy. Those who do not often have a problem..." is basically saying "real followers of Jesus agree with me." Some people who are semantically against the word inerrancy use the word "inspiration" with pretty much the same weight that you use inerrancy...they just believe that God inspired Paul to use the right word "inspiration" which is not falsified by transcription errors, etc., whereas the argument for inerrancy has to go back to the "original autographs" due to, at the least, transcription errors. – Kevin Nelson Nov 16 '14 at 22:35

For much of Christian history, the view of the inspiration and authority of the Bible outlined above held firm, and it was almost unheard of for Christians to criticize and reject the content of Scripture as erroneous. The position of the greatest of the Western church fathers, Augustine of Hippo, is instructive here. In his "Reply to Faustus the Manichaean" (XI.5), St. Augustine wrote: "If we are perplexed by an apparent contradiction in Scripture, it is not allowable to say, The author of this book is mistaken; but either the manuscript is faulty, or the translation is wrong, or you have not understood."

share|improve this answer
The first statement is an overgeneralization since we really only know about what the clergy of the Catholic church wrote, not what regular Christians thought. – david brainerd Apr 27 '14 at 19:29

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.