| Part 1 The Theory of Faith | Hirohumi Hoshika |
The argument that stands out from the inerrantist position is the reasoning that "if God is perfect, then the Bible is perfect." It is sometimes stated that "the Bible, written by divine inspiration, contains no errors" or that "the words of the Bible are the 'insufflation' of God and are without error."
Although it is occasionally phrased as a threat, saying "If you are an evangelical, you must uphold the inerrancy of the Bible," this is broadly the same assertion as the previous one. Advocates of biblical infallibility criticize these arguments as "a priori principles" or "foundationalism", and regardless of whether these terms are appropriate, I believe the criticism itself is valid.
The proposition that "if God is perfect, then the Bible is perfect" is not logical. However, Advocates of biblical infallibility consider this to be a logical proposition. Here, a "logical proposition" is a proposition whose truth can be determined solely from its form. For example, "A tall man is a man," which Kant called an "analytic judgment," is an example of a "logical proposition".
This corresponds to the "and-elimination rule" in classical propositional logic, a field of modern logic, which states that "if A and B, then B can be derived." A proposition of this form, in which the predicate is contained in the subject, does not require observation of a state of affairs to be known to be true. We don't need to see a tall man to know that a tall man is a man. This is what a logical proposition is.
The claim that "the inerrancy of the Bible" can be derived from "God's perfection" would be based on this argument. This is because inerrantists draw conclusions from a situation in which they cannot observe "God's perfection". To say that a conclusion can be drawn without observation is to say that the proposition is considered to be a logical proposition. Presumably, "God's perfection" here is thought to include "the inerrancy of the Bible".
We certainly believe that God is perfect, but this is faith, not knowledge, so we do not know what the specific content of the belief in "God's perfection" is. Therefore, just as we can derive "man" from "tall man", we must admit that it is unclear whether we can infer "the inerrancy of the Bible" from "God's perfection".
Furthermore, even if it ultimately becomes clear that the perfection of the Bible is due to the perfection of God, this would be known through experiences at the end of the world or in heaven, and therefore does not mean that the connection between the two can be considered logical, that is, that a conclusion can be drawn without looking at the facts.
Several hundred years ago, there was a time when it was believed that God is perfect, and therefore Earth, where humans, created by God as the only supreme being, live, was at the center of the universe, and that the orbits of the planets around Earth were perfectly circular. However, even after this view of the universe was overturned in the modern era, people did not conclude that God's perfection was diminished. Rather, it was the previous understanding of God's perfection that was deemed to be incorrect.
Similarly, the "inerrancy of the Bible" does not necessarily have to be directly linked to God's perfection. Even if it were proven that the Bible is in error, Christianity would continue to preach about God's perfection. In that case, the very definition of the "perfection of God" that is so continually asserted will be called into question and redefined.