Believing in God and the Biblical Narrative: The Paths of Biblical Inerrantists and Biblical Interpreters

*This article is an attempt to explore the relationship between the Bible and faith. It does not assert a specific position, but rather invites you to read it as one perspective while respecting the freedom of religion, thought, and conscience.

1. The question: "If you believe in God, should you also believe in the historicity of everything in the Bible?"

While watching the video I mentioned in the article below, I heard the speaker say the following words:

I think these words can feel correct.
If you believe in the God written about in the Bible, it might seem logical to also believe in the historicity of every account within the Bible concerning that God.

However, I also believe that reality is not that simple. As a stark fact, believing in God and believing that every account in the Bible is historical fact are not necessarily the same thing.

2. The position of Biblical Inerrantists

First, there are people whose position can be called Biblical Inerrantism. These people likely accept that "the Bible is the Word of God, and in terms of historical accounts, there is no error in any jot or tittle of the Bible."

• They believe that the "Creation" and "Noah's Flood" written in Genesis are events that actually occurred in history.

• By being rooted in the Bible, they appear to be granted an unshakable faith regarding their understanding of belief.

• One can consider that this purity and strength have driven missionary work and faith movements.

However, this position may also have its challenges. It might have a side that is easily shaken when exposed to criticism from science or history. There may also be a danger of excluding those who "cannot believe it as it is."

3. The position of Biblical Interpreters

On the other hand, if we assume a position different from the Biblical Inerrantists mentioned above, there are people who can be called Biblical Interpreters. These people try to cherish the message of God contained within each document in the Bible while paying attention to the literary form in which it was written.

• Reading "Creation" and "Noah's Flood" as symbolic or spiritual stories.

• Continuing to believe in the God to whom the Bible points, even while keeping an eye on the contradictions and challenges of the Bible.

• Valuing dialogue with science and modern society, and attempting to harmonize faith with the modern age.

This position seems to possess a resilience of "believing even while harboring doubts." However, if it leans too heavily on reason or criticism, there may be a danger that faith itself becomes diluted.

4. Faith as compassion

What is interesting is that we can also see scenes where those who favor biblical interpretation show consideration for those who hold to biblical inerrancy.

• They might say, 'I cannot believe it myself, but your pure faith is noble.'

• They do not directly deny the other's faith, but rather seek to protect that pure faith.

• Even if they read the Bible with different stances on faith, they respect the way the other lives out their faith, acknowledging that they are looking toward the same God.

This may be one expression of the 'attitude of accepting one another' that the Bible calls for.

On the other hand, when it comes to understanding the Bible, some might think that this seemingly gentle consideration can actually become a hindrance to Christian faith.

5. 'Accept the one who is weak in faith'

The Apostle Paul said the following in the Book of Romans:

• From the perspective of biblical inerrantists, biblical interpretationists might appear as 'weak people who cannot fully believe in the factual nature of the biblical text.'

• From the perspective of biblical interpretationists, biblical inerrantists might appear as 'weak people who cannot believe while also looking at scientific knowledge.'

However, Paul did not say to 'judge.' What he said was to 'accept.'

6. Biblical Understanding in History

This difference did not arise suddenly in the modern era, but has been nurtured over a much longer history.

The Early Church and the Church Fathers

For example, Origen and Augustine are said to have valued spiritual and allegorical interpretations alongside literal meanings, while accepting the Bible as an authoritative book given by God. Origen is said to have understood passages that sometimes seemed unnatural when taken literally as 'stumbling blocks placed there to help us search for a deeper spiritual meaning.' Augustine, while acknowledging allegorical interpretation, is said to have never forgotten to base it on the literal meaning, seeking harmony between the two. Also, while it is said that they spoke of the Bible as having no errors, it is possible to interpret this as referring to truth concerning salvation, and not as a guarantee of historical accuracy in the modern sense.

Medieval Catholic Church

The Latin translation of the Bible (Vulgate) was considered the sole authority. What was important was not the verbatim accuracy of the biblical text, but rather that church tradition and authoritative interpretation were the standard.

The 16th Century Reformation (Protestantism)

Luther and Calvin upheld 'Sola Scriptura' (Scripture alone). However, it is unlikely that they established 'inerrancy' in the modern sense. It is said that Luther once referred to the Epistle of James in the New Testament as an 'epistle of straw.' However, he ultimately retained it as part of the canon and did not completely exclude it.

Calvin is also said to have shown an attitude of acknowledging harmony with natural knowledge, stating that 'the Bible is a book that teaches truths concerning salvation, not a textbook on astronomy or natural philosophy.' In his 'Commentary on Genesis,' Calvin is said to have explained that when God speaks to humans, He speaks in accordance with human understanding, just as a parent speaks to a young child in words that are easy to grasp. One could understand this not as a means to teach historical facts in every detail, but as a way of speaking intended to allow people to receive the truths concerning salvation.

17th–18th Centuries

Under the influence of the Enlightenment (often called the 'Age of the Light of Reason'), which prioritized reason over tradition and authority, a movement emerged to read the Bible critically through the light of reason. On the other hand, Puritanism and Pietism strove to apply the Bible in a more living way within the life of faith.

19th Century and Beyond

Amidst the progress of natural science and the spread of critical biblical studies, groups such as the Princeton Theological Seminary in the United States emphasized that 'the Bible is without error in every word and letter,' aiming to systematize biblical inerrancy. In contrast, historical criticism developed in Germany, and liberal theology, which interprets the Bible historically and literarily, rose to prominence. It can be thought that in this way, the polarization between 'biblical inerrantists' and 'biblical interpretationists' became distinct.

7. Understanding of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches

Unlike the Protestant position, it is said that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches maintain different understandings.

• Catholic
  It is believed that the Bible is the word of God inspired by the Holy Spirit and that there is no error in the truths concerning salvation. However, in interpretation, it is said that the tradition of the Church and the authority of the magisterium are emphasized. Furthermore, it is said that it is not claimed that everything in the Bible is historically accurate.

• Orthodox
  The Bible is cherished as the word of God, but it is considered to be a word that lives within the liturgy and tradition of the Church. Rather than treating the Bible as an absolute in isolation, it is received together with tradition, so it is said that spiritual reading is emphasized more than modern 'inerrancy.'

8. Conclusion: The Center of Faith is God

Looking at it this way, it seems clear that the difference between 'biblical inerrantists' and 'biblical interpretationists' is not merely a conflict of opinion, but a response nurtured over a long history and culture.

• Inerrantists demonstrated the strength and purity of believing the Bible literally.

• Interpretationists demonstrated the tenacity of believing while holding onto criticism and questions.

• It could be said that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are attempting to keep the Bible alive within the tradition of the Church.

Each seems to have its strengths and weaknesses. However, one can consider that the center of faith lies not in the letters of the Bible, but in God, Christ Himself who died and rose again, who is beyond those letters.

In today's church and life of faith, both the positions of 'biblical inerrantists' and 'biblical interpretationists' continue to exist. We likely need to listen to one another while understanding those differences.

When we accept one another and learn from each other, faith is enriched—that may be the teaching that has been spoken through history.