Thesis Statement:
“Should the Concepts of Inerrancy and Infallibility in the Bible be utilized as Sufficient Justifications of the Legitimacy of Religious Positions on Social Issues?”
Introduction
It is quite interesting to note that studies such as those by Sherkat (2011) have indicated that an increasingly large amount of religious sermons, statements of faith, and a wide assortment of other such texts related to the affirmation of the Catholic faith in God have increasingly utilized the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible as a method of legitimizing their claims to faith and justifying their views.
This is not to say that such ideas are without merit, given the supposedly divine origins of the Bible, however, scholars such as Beale (2011) have stated that utilizing the Bible as the justification for one’s faith and views is in itself highly flawed.
Beale (2011) explains this by stating that even if the Bible is inerrant and infallible the fact remains that faith should be an internal development based on a continuing relationship with God which is supported by the scripture within the Bible, not the other way round wherein scripture is utilized as a means of legitimizing faith.
Other scholars such as Smith (2012) question the concepts of inerrancy and infallibility attributed to the Bible given the archaic nature of several scriptures and their general inapplicability to modern-day situations.
What you have to understand is that in order to explain the origin of the Bible, the terms inerrancy and infallibility are often utilized interchangeably due to their ability to point out that Bible is far different to any other book that has been written thus far given its historical and religious significance as the word of God.
Yet, it must be questioned whether such terms should be considered interchangeable given their markedly different meaning and utilization by both the church and religious scholars.
First and foremost the term infallible, when utilized in the context of holy scripture such as the Bible, can be defined as transcending concepts related to sin, spiritual or material flaws as well as the deceptions of its writers and the method by which it was communicated to others (i.e. through print, digital text, etc.).
In layman’s terms, this means that when the Bible, through the Holy Spirit, describes various aspects related to the good news of Christ such as the vision, purpose and character of God in relation to his design for humanity, is in effect doing so through a transcendental effect that goes straight to the character of the Bible and its message of salvation.
Inerrant, on the other hand, when defined once more within the context of the Bible, relates to the scriptures within the Bible always being right when carrying out their intended purpose of showing who God is, his vision and purpose for humanity, and stating the good news of salvation through Christ.
It is based on this that despite the obvious chronological disparity between the present day and the time in which the bible was written, the content of the scriptures should not be disregarded as if they were a mistake, rather they should be considered as fully applicable guides to current believers regarding the true and righteous path that God had meant for us to follow.
Despite such obvious deviations in meaning and content, inerrancy and infallibility still continue to be used interchangeably to this day. On the other hand, it must be questioned whether the concepts of inerrancy and infallibility can truly be applied to the Bible.
This is based on the widely known fact that the bible as we know of it today is a combination of select scriptures by the council of Nicaea (325 AD) and as such excludes certain scriptures that could have similarly had the distinction of being considered inerrant and infallible.
Considering that the inerrant and infallible nature of the Bible is based on its divine origins, the fact that the there are some text that are intentionally excluded creates a sufficient amount of reasoning to assume that the Bible is not as inerrant and infallible as it would seem given that it can be deemed as incomplete.
It is based on this that it must be asked should the concepts of inerrancy and infallibility in the Bible be utilized as sufficient justifications of the legitimacy of religious positions on social issues?
Religious Positions on Social Issues
Religious positions on social issues encapsulate a wide variety of instances such as gay marriage, stem cell research, the death penalty, divorce, and other such issues that have ethical and moral underpinnings.
It is usually the case that religious positions on such issues often result in positive or negative effects depending on the inherent intent of the religious group involved.
For example, due to the advocacy of various religious groups stem cell research has in effect been halted in the U.S. and in other countries around the world due to idea that continuing along this path of research is unethical according to the views of God in the Bible involving the sanctity of life.
The delay in the social and governmental acceptance of gay marriage in the U.S. and in other countries as well is also a manifestation of the actions of religious groups over their interpretation of the Bible and how this results in their aversion to actions that have been distinctly stated as “abhorrent” within a variety of scriptures.
When examining such issues it can be seen that position of religion on a variety of social issues is connected to interpretations based on the Bible with the inherent justification behind its use being related to its infallibility and inerrant nature.
As explained by the article “The Evolution of the Debate (2012), various religious groups justify their arguments on social issues based on a literal and single-minded interpretation of the Bible without sufficiently thinking if such a point of view is actually applicable to the present day circumstances.
This is due to the fact that they believe that the infallible and inerrant nature of the bible deems their actions as justifiable given that they are supposedly in accordance with the will of God.
It is this way of thinking that calls into consideration whether utilizing the supposed inerrant and infallible nature of the bible actually creates a justifiably legitimate position by various religious groups on social issues.
This calls into question whether the utilizing the bible as a means of arguing against the use of stem cell research, gay marriage, and other such issues is truly valid.
Ethos and the Use of Inerrancy and Infallibility in the Bible as Methods of Justification
What must be understood is that Ethos refers to the way in which a person portrays themselves in an argument, in a sense it is a method in which persuaders present an “image” to people that they are attempting to convince.
This particular “image” refers to a persuader’s “character” in the sense that a person is attempting to persuade another person of the righteousness of their statements based on their inherent character.
In the case of the various religious groups, this takes the form of them attempting to convince other people of the righteousness of their cause on the basis of the image that they are portraying, namely, that the inerrant and infallible nature of the Bible justifies their arguments against a variety of social issues.
It is this argument on the basis of a projected image that is a cause for concern since basing it on a projected image alone does not justify the action itself.
For example, a person may argue for the righteousness of a cause on the basis of their knowledge of the event yet this attempt at persuasion may in itself be self-serving for the person that is attempting to persuade other individuals.
An examination of the motivations behind the use of ethos by various religious organizations reveals that many of their bible-based interpretations utilizing the inerrancy and infallibility as a method of justification actually originate from a self-serving nature.
Ethos in effect justifies their actions under the basis of a righteous cause yet in the end is more beneficial to them than to other individuals. In the case of ethos what must be understood is that it is “artifice”, meaning that is created, manufactured, made, constructed, etc.
It can be considered a type of surface image which may in fact have an entirely fictitious relationship to what is actually true.
For example, a teacher could show up in class one day wearing cowboy boots, a ten-gallon hat, and a long-sleeved t-shirt with a large image of a cactus on the front, the next day he can wear an average suit and tie while the day after that he could wear a Scottish kilt, bagpipes and one of those patterned hats.
The reason I mention it is due to the fact that despite the different outfits he wears the person and the ideas that are being presented have not changed at all, however, what is changed is the perception of the audience regarding the idea being presented.
The same can be said for ethos wherein the method in which the idea is “packaged” drastically changes the perception of the audience towards accepting the idea itself or the validity of its statements.
In the case of the ethos of various religious groups, it can be seen that when boiled down to its very essence it is merely a statement which says the following: “Believe in what I say since it is based on inerrant an infallible scripture”.
It is in the way that it is packaged and presented to the public that changes the perception of the public to the idea that is being presented.
What the public sees as an argument based on an ineffable and infallible scripture is in essence is a statement allowing to do whatever they want.
Inerrancy and Religious Positioning
Inerrancy is based on the concept that what is present is not false and affirms the truth whether it is religious, scientific, or physical in nature.
What you have to understand though is that the Bible being inerrant does not mean that the interpretations of the Bible that manifest itself through religious doctrine, are sufficiently inerrant themselves.
For example, the current church doctrine which is specifically against the advancement of stem cell research is based off the supposedly inerrant notion of the right to life within the bible.
Since stem cells are at times derived from zygotes which are incomplete versions of a proto-human fetus their use in medical research is considered to be an abhorrent violation of the right to life as indicated by the bible.
It must also be noted that the concept of bible ambiguity can be considered a serious problem when it comes to religious positioning based on inerrancy since passages from the bible can be interpreted in a multitude of possible ways.
For example, The Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood through their interpretation of the bible specifically state that the roles of men and women should be differentiated to specific roles within the family with no degree of overlap.
As a result of this, leadership positions within the family as well as in businesses, organizations, and even in government institutions under the council’s view should be exclusively isolated to men alone.
On the other hand, the religious group “Christians for Biblical Equality” interprets the bible under the context of men and women being equals and possessing the ability to have the same rights and roles.
This type of variant interpretation has manifested itself into the creation of numerous church groups such as the Westborough Baptist Church, the Living Church of God and other such radical segments of Christianity that state that their interpretation of the Bible makes them the “true” church of God. Given that such groups have teachings that are considered “abnormal” even by the main orthodoxy of the Catholic Church is clear evidence that religious positions on social issues based on the inerrancy of the bible is unjustifiable given the different ways in which statements within it can be adjusted in such a way that they can actually promote hate.
One of the best examples of this can be seen in the numerous instances where the Westborough Baptist Church has openly picketed in numerous areas openly stating their hatred for gays, the fact that soldiers who died in Iraq for their country are going to hell, and that God does not have a place in heaven for individuals that support concepts outside of their acknowledged religious orthodoxies.
From a certain perspective, it can even be stated that the interpretation of the inerrancy of the Bible in the case of the West Borough Baptist church is one that actually promotes hate and bigotry, which were aspects that Jesus was clearly against during his time on Earth.
Other interpretations based on the inerrant nature of the bible take the form of religious groups within the Philippines which has the largest Catholic community in Asia.
Religious groups such as “Iglesia ni Christo” do not believe in venerating Mary based on their own interpretation of the Bible.
Other groups such as the Born Again Christians do not even believe in the concept of saints which is similarly based on their belief in their own interpretation of the inerrant nature of the scripture of the Bible.
As it can be seen, interpretations of the bible can be utilized to justify a whole gamut of possible manifestations whether religious or social in nature.
Can the Bible be Considered Infallible?
The premise of the infallibility of the bible is based on the fact that it was created as a direct action of divine intervention wherein the Holy Spirit inspired the original writers of the text to create the scriptures that we know of in the present.
As such, it is considered by many religious scholars as the word of God that has been imparted to all of us as a message of love, peace, and the affirmation of our faith and our destiny as God’s children.
From the point of view of Grass (2007), the Bible is only considered infallible within the context of the Catholic faith given that other religions have their own versions of religious text which they similarly consider infallible (the Qur’an being a prime example of this).
Grass (2007), points out though that the infallibility of the bible at the present is often taken out of context regarding its original purpose.
The Bible was meant as a means of guiding people to interact with their fellow man, to establish peaceful relations within society, and to create a culture that values love, sharing, and the development of social bonds that would discourage violent actions.
Thus, as a guide, it has indeed served its purpose given that biblical text has helped to inspire society toward a more “humane” way of interaction. Yet, as Galli (2011) is quick to point out, the bible was never meant as a means of dictating every aspect in relation to how society was meant to operate.
What you have to understand is that the “timelessness” that is attributed to the infallibility of the Bible is connected to its nature of ethical actions within social relationships.
This means that aspects related to governance, development of technologies, conservation, environmentalism and other such topics which are at the forefront of modern-day debates are not specifically included in the bible for the reason that it was never meant to encapsulate such aspects in the first place.
Hylton (2011) goes on to state that it was only when religious institutions started interpreting the various scriptures within the bible based on its inherent inerrancy that the current problems related to religious interference in social issues started.
It based on this that it can be stated that the infallibility attributed to the bible when it comes to religious positions on social issues is unfounded given that what is stated within is taken out of context.
It must be noted though several studies which have examined current teachings within religious institutions reveal that many religious orders have started to teach students that facts contained within the Bible pertaining to specific scientific or historical events which do not have an impact on their concept of faith and the Christian practice of religious devotion, may in fact contain considerable errors.
This is in direct opposition to other groups who state that everything within the Bible should be considered as incontrovertible fact. What you have to understand is that despite the statements of a multitude of religious scholars, the Bible was in fact created in order to conform to ancient beliefs and practices.
This means that the story of Genesis, marriage to children, and even the stoning of women that cheated on their husbands were all manifestations of practices at the time and as such reflected themselves accordingly into the different scriptures.
In an era of modern science and greater social consciousness involving ethical marriage practices and commensurate methods of punishment, the examples presented within the Bible can no longer be considered wholly accurate, and various religious groups have started to also acknowledge this as well.
It is based on this that the inerrancy of the Bible as an entirely accurate source of information is doubted and as such is the basis behind an argument against the use of the concept of the infallibility of the Bible as a sufficient justification of the legitimacy of religious positions on social issues.
Justification of Position Based on Inerrancy
Inerrancy is based on the concept of there being no errors whatsoever within a given piece of text. Aside from grammatical errors brought about by issues in translation, the bible supposedly has no errors and is thus the pivotal text often utilized to justify religious positions.
This has been seen in numerous instances throughout history such as the debate in stem cell research within the U.S., the removal of the death penalty within several Catholic-oriented states within Europe as well as the Republic Health Bill within the Philippines which focuses on the introduction of sexual education classes to combat adverse increases in the population.
The justification behind church interference in such issues comes directly from doctrines based on the bible involving the right to life, the orders of God to “go forth and multiply” and the teachings of Jesus which specifically connote the necessity of protecting life.
In justifying their position on such matters religious scholars often point towards the inerrant nature of the Bible which focuses on the plan of God for humanity and the doctrines by which we should live our lives.
The inherent problem though with the bible is that it lacks sufficient advice regarding the current overpopulation of the planet, the spread of HIV and other sexually transmitted illnesses and the fact that stem cell research could potentially improve the lives of countless number of people.
As such, while Evangelical scholars point out that the Bible is “without error in all that affirms” the fact remains that its affirmations lack sufficient precedent on modern-day issues.
This is not to say that the bible is wrong, the fact is that the bible acts as a sufficient foundation for reasonable action and behaviors which act as the cornerstones of society, however, the fact remains that it should be considered as a foundation and not the entirety by which social actions should be based upon.
In a rather debasing fashion, Hansen (2008) points out that the bible states that it is perfectly fine to stone a woman to death, have sex with a child, and other similar types of behavior.
Hansen (2008) utilizes this as evidence that the bible is not necessarily inerrant given that such methods of behavior are widely considered to be socially unacceptable at the present.
While the arguments utilized by Hansen (2008) are far from academically appropriate, the fact remains that they do point out the inherent weaknesses of the bible and the necessity of modifying the general attitude towards its inerrant nature.
For example, post-modernist Christians point out that the bible should be considered partially inerrant with some aspects being utilized in order to justify methods of behavior but should not be utilized in order to affect issues which are social in nature.
On the other end of the spectrum, scholars point towards the inspirations drawn from inerrant scriptures as the means by which moral and ethical decisions concerning society should be based upon.
As Jelen and Lockett (2010) explain, the fact is that the bible acts as a moral compass by which society compares its current position with the intended destination by God.
It is only through such an examination that we are able to determine whether as a society we are heading towards a path of positive development or adverse debasement under the guise of technological innovation.
Jelen and Lockett (2010) go on to explain that society needs an inerrant comparison by which it can compare itself to in order to develop in such a way that it is in conjunction with the intended path set forth by God.
Such arguments are related to the concepts of the protection of life, barring the use of contraception, affirming the dual nature of the sexes (i.e. being against homosexuality), and the establishment of a life based on religious doctrine.
Conclusion
Based on the given arguments presented within this paper it can be seen that the concepts of inerrancy and infallibility when applied to the bible should not be utilized as sufficient justification on religious positions on social issues.
One of the reasons behind this stems from differences in interpretation, whether intentional or not, that result in differing groups manifesting a plethora of divergent arguments.
What you have to understand is that the context in which the Bible was written can be interpreted in either a literal or spiritual sense and as such can result in a variety of differing religious observances.
This can be seen in the general acceptance of homosexuality by one faction of Christianity and disdain from another. The same applies to views regarding women’s rights, religious observances, and general ethics.
As explained earlier, the bible was never truly meant to encompass all aspects and changes that could occur within society. It was written within the context of the time of the authors and as such manifests ethical and moral principles that were inherent to this particular time frame and culture.
Thus, when compared to present-day circumstances, the various social observances that were noted within the bible at the time become distinctly different. As such, when applied to present-day social standards the bible cannot be considered wholly inerrant given that it can no longer sufficiently apply itself to modern-day issues.
Not only that, it was originally meant as a means of helping promote social relationships such as friendship, love, and peace, and; it was not meant as a means by which people should dictate the way in which society should evolve.
It must also be noted that the infallible notion of the Bible is also highly questionable when applied to concepts related to technological development, population control, and environmentalism given that it was not meant to encapsulate such aspects.
It was originally meant as a guide for interaction, faith and the development of love for one’s fellow man. Taking this into consideration, it can be stated justifying religious positions on the inerrant and infallible nature of the Bible is thus inapplicable since what is being done is merely interpreting what is being said in order to fit the definitions that suit the needs of that particular religious group.
It can also be stated that based on the presented information it can be seen that ethos can be manufactured and created for a certain purpose and in the case of the ethos utilized by religious groups its basis is one which advocates the manipulation of facts in order to serve the ends of that particular group.
The fact remains that due to reasoning of the ethos used by religious organizations that keeps on justifying itself on the basis of the infallible and inerrant nature of the Bible shows itself to be inherently flawed.
The ethical flaw in this particular case is the fact that basis a system of ethos on self-interpretation creates far too many risks in terms of the ethical principles behind the creation of the ethos itself.
In fact further examination of this type of ethos reveals that it seems more self-serving to religious groups than to the general public.
As it was established earlier the concept of ethos can be shaped and molded in order to entice greater public support for a particular issue.
That is what is being seen in the ethos of various religious groups wherein the justification for actions are based on an ethos that has been molded to create positive public opinion but in fact is nothing more than a method of allowing such groups to do what they please.
Bibliography
Audi, Robert. “Belief, faith, and acceptance.” International Journal For Philosophy Of Religion 63, no. 1-3 (February 2008): 87-102. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost .
Beale, G. K. “Can the bible be completely inspired by god and yet still contain errors? a response to some recent “evangelical” proposals.” Westminster Theological Journal 73, no. 1 (Spring2011 2011): 1-22. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost .
Durland, Stanley. “The Structure of Biblical Inspiration.” Journal Of Spirituality & Paranormal Studies 30, no. 2 (April 2007): 101-111. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost .
Galli, Mark. “A New Bible Battle.” Christianity Today 55, no. 10 (October 2011): 11. MasterFILE Premier, EBSCOhost .
Grass, Tim. “Scripture alone: ‘Is the Bible all we need?’.” Evangel 25, no. 3 (September 2007): 66-68. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost .
Hansen, Collin. “Bishops Battle for the Bible.” Christianity Today 52, no. 12 (December 2008): 16. MasterFILE Premier, EBSCOhost .
Hylton, Pauline. “Gifted by God.” Priority! 13, no. 2 (Summer2011 2011): 39. MasterFILE Complete, EBSCOhost .
Jelen, Ted G., and Linda A. Lockett. “AMERICAN CLERGY ON EVOLUTION AND CREATIONISM.” Review Of Religious Research 51, no. 3 (March 2010): 277-287. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost .
Kantzer, K. “Why I still believe the Bible is true.” Christianity Today 32, no. 14 (October 7, 1988): 22. MasterFILE Premier, EBSCOhost .
“Leaving Out the Bible Can Lead to Incorrect Results.” Biblical Archaeology Review 37, no. 6 (November 2011): 12-66. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost .
“No Errors? The Baptists and the bible.” Time 114, no. 1 (July 2, 1979): 61. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost .
Sherkat, Darren E. “Religion and Scientific Literacy in the United States.” Social Science Quarterly (Blackwell Publishing Limited) 92, no. 5 (December 15, 2011): 1134-1150. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost .
Sheler, Jeffery L. “Mysteries of the Bible. (cover story).” U.S. News & World Report 118, no. 15 (April 17, 1995): 60. MasterFILE Premier, EBSCOhost .
Smith, Andrew. “Secularity and biblical literalism: confronting the case for epistemological diversity.” International Journal For Philosophy Of Religion 71, no. 3 (June 2012): 205-219. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost .
“The Evolution of the Debate.” Christianity Today 56, no. 7 (July 2012): 28. MasterFILE Premier, EBSCOhost .