Biblical Inerrancy: What Calvin Really Believed

Before going any further in this series, it might be wise to reiterate what exactly we mean by “inerrancy.” Several notable Reformed scholars give straight definitions:

“Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.” – RC Sproul, President of Ligonier Ministries and author of over 100 books

“The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture, in the original manuscripts and when interpreted according to the intended sense, speaks truly in all that it affirms.” – Kevin Vanhoozer, Professor of Theology at Wheaton College, author of Drama of Doctrine, Ph.D Cambridge

“The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact.” – Wayne Grudem, author of Systematic Theology, Ph.D Cambridge

Now, did John Calvin believe in inerrancy according to these definitions?

Roger Nicole notes from decades ago that there is anything but a consensus (“Calvin and Inerrancy,” JETS, 1982):

Notable scholars in favor of saying Calvin believes in inerrancy include Murray, Packer, Woodbridge, Muller and Gerstner. Roger, McKim, and Calvin’s editor John McNeill disagree.

So, shall we run the post-modern route and throw up our hands and say “scholars disagree, so there’s no way we can know for sure!”

Nah.

Here’s what words Calvin uses when referring to Scripture (citations are from the three-volume Beveridge translation (Edinburgh: The Calvin Translation Society, 1845). :

Institutes I, 149, “The unerring standard.”

Hebrews xxi, “The infallible rule of His Holy Truth.”

Minor Prophets, I, 506, “Free from every stain or defect.”

Psalms II, 429, “The inerring certainty.”

Psalms, v, ii. “The certain and unerring rule.”

Psalms iv, 480, “Unerring light.”

Institutes, II, 58, and III, 309, “The infallible Word of God.”

Catholic Epistles 131, “Infallible oracles.”

Calvin says, “The full authority which they [the Scriptures] obtain with the faithful proceeds from no other consideration than that they are persuaded that they proceeded from heaven, as if God had been heard giving utterance to them.” 392, Institutes vii, I

Of course, let’s not forget Calvin’s heavy words on II Timothy 3:16:

Moses and the prophets did not utter at random what we have received from their hand, but, speaking at the suggestion of God, they boldly and fearlessly testified, what was actually true, that it was the mouth of the Lord that spake. The same Spirit, therefore, who made Moses and the prophets certain of their calling, now also testifies to our hearts, that he has employed them as his servants to instruct us. Accordingly, we need not wonder if there are many who doubt as to the Author of the Scripture; for, although the majesty of God is displayed in it, yet none but those who have been enlightened by the Holy Spirit have eyes to perceive what ought, indeed, to have been visible to all, and yet is visible to the elect alone. This is the first clause, that we owe to the Scripture the same reverence which we owe to God; because it has proceeded from him alone, and has nothing belonging to man mixed with it.

Those who oppose inerrancy assert that error – something that is definitely human and not divine – is, in fact, mixed in with Scripture. Error is supposedly part and parcel of what it means to be human. But, again, it isn’t. Have you wrote a paper without any typos? Was it “dehumanizing”? I think not.  Albeit historical, geographical, etc. error, critics say its found in Scripture. Calvin simply asserts otherwise, and he consistently refers to the Scriptures as being wholly truthful and worthy as a standard of correction.

Why do so many scholars believe Calvin denied inerrancy? Because of his bold proclamations regarding divine accommodation. For example, he says about Psalm 136:7:

The Holy Spirit had no intention to teach astronomy; and, in proposing instruction meant to be common to the simplest and most uneducated persons, he made use by Moses and the other Prophets of popular language …the Holy Spirit would rather speak childishly than unintelligibly to the humble and unlearned.

Also, Calvin’s commentary on I Peter 1:21:

…It is hence evident that we cannot believe in God except through Christ, in whom God in a manner makes himself little, that he might accommodate himself to our comprehension; and it is Christ alone who can tranquillize consciences, so that we may dare to come in confidence to God.

And Calvin’s (notorious) commentary on Genesis 1:6:

Moses describes the special use of this expanse, to divide the waters from the waters from which word arises a great difficulty. For it appears opposed to common sense, and quite incredible, that there should be waters above the heaven. Hence some resort to allegory, and philosophize concerning angels; but quite beside the purpose. For, to my mind, this is a certain principle, that nothing is here treated of but the visible form of the world. He who would learn astronomy, and other recondite arts, let him go elsewhere. Here the Spirit of God would teach all men without exception; and therefore what Gregory declares falsely and in vain respecting statues and pictures is truly applicable to the history of the creation, namely, that it is the book of the unlearned. The things, therefore, which he relates, serve as the garniture of that theater which he places before our eyes. Whence I conclude, that the waters here meant are such as the rude and unlearned may perceive. The assertion of some, that they embrace by faith what they have read concerning the waters above the heavens, notwithstanding their ignorance respecting them, is not in accordance with the design of Moses. And truly a longer inquiry into a matter open and manifest is superfluous. We see that the clouds suspended in the air, which threaten to fall upon our heads, yet leave us space to breathe.  They who deny that this is effected by the wonderful providence of God, are vainly inflated with the folly of their own minds. We know, indeed that the rain is naturally produced; but the deluge sufficiently shows how speedily we might be overwhelmed by the bursting of the clouds, unless the cataracts of heaven were closed by the hand of God. Nor does David rashly recount this among His miracles, that God layeth the beams of his chambers in the waters, (Psalm 104:31;) and he elsewhere calls upon the celestial waters to praise God, (Psalm 148:4.)

And on Genesis 1:16:

“Had he [Moses] spoken the things generally unknown, the uneducated might have pleaded in excuse that such subjects were beyond their capacity. Lastly, since the Spirit of God here opens a common school for everyone, it is not surprising that he should mostly select subject matter which would be most intelligible to all.”

J.I. Packer points out regarding the last few sentences of this commentary, “Evidently for Calvin, what Moses teaches the Spirit of God also teaches, actively, deliberately, explicitly, so that if Moses or any other biblical writer made a technical error, the Spirit would be making it too,” (Inerrancy and the Church, 187).

So, what can we conclude from this passages on accommodation?

Calvin says the Bible isn’t a scientific textbook. He says God stoops down to communicate to us. But he does not say that any of this has anything to do with making mistakes in Scripture. Accommodation never requires error, either intentional or unintentional, in the assertions of the written Word. I can speak childishly to a five year old boy without making a mistake in what I’m communicating.

Karl Barth beautifully summarizes Calvin’s view:

In the Reformation doctrine of inspiration the following points must be decisive: 1. The Reformers took over unquestionably and unreservedly the statement on the inspiration, and indeed the verbal inspiration of the Bible, as it is explicitly and implicitly contained in those Pauline passage which we have taken as our basis, even including the formula that God is the author of the Bible, and occasionally making use of the idea of a dictation through the Biblical writers…In Calvin’s sermon on 2 Timothy 3:16ff. (C.R. 54, 238ff.) God is constantly described as the author of Holy Scripture and in his commentary on the same passage we seem to hear a perfect echo of the voice of the Early Church…In spite of the use of these concepts neither a manti-co-mechanical nor a docetic conception of Biblical inspiration is in the actual sphere of Calvin’s thinking.

Critics say accommodation must entail error, and that this has always been the way of the Reformed tradition. But Richard Muller says this is all washed up:

The Reformers and their scholastic followers all recognized that God must in some way condescend or accommodate himself to human ways of knowing in order to reveal himself. This accomodatio occurs specifically in the use of human words and concepts for the communication of the law and the gospel, but it in no way implies the loss of truth or the lessening of scriptural authority. The accomodatio or condencensio refers to the manner or mode of revelation, the gift of the wisdom of infinite God in infinite form, not to the quality of the revelation or to the matter revealed. A parallel idea occurs in the orthodox Protestant distinction between theologia archetypa (q.v.) and theologia ectypa (q.v). note that the sense of accomodatio that implies not only a divine condescension, but also a use of time-bound and even erroneous statements as a medium for revelation, arose in the eighteenth century in the thought of Johann Semler and his contemporaries and has no relation either to the position of the Reformers or to that of the Protestant scholastics, either Lutheran or reformed.” Richard Muller. Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), s.v. accomodatio, 19.

Scholars also believe Calvin denied inerrancy because of all the mistakes he pointed out in the Bible, mainly in his commentary of Acts 7:14, 7:16, and Matthew 27:9. For example, on Acts 7:14, Calvin says:

This seemeth to me a thing like to be true, that the Seventy Interpreters did translate that truly which was in Moses. And we cannot say that they were deceived; forasmuch as [in] Deuteronomy 10, where this number is repeated, they agree with Moses, at least as that place was read without all doubt in the time of Jerome; for those copies which are printed at this day have it otherwise. Therefore, I think that this difference came through the error of the writers which wrote out the books. ⁴⁰²

Footnote 402, of course, is the association of ” ‘Librariorum,’ copyists.” Textual variation (i.e. copyist mistakes), which Calvin talks about in these texts, does not affect the doctrine of inerrancy since inerrancy only applies to the original autographic text, and we have no evidence that the autographs contained mistakes (in fact, we have every reason to believe otherwise). Manuscript copies contain variation, so of course they are not “inerrant.” That was never the issue.

Thus, scholars rightly conclude:

“Calvin believed that every word of the Bible was God’s Word…In Calvin then is clearly found a belief in biblical inerrancy.” – Robert Godfrey, Scripture and Truth, 234.

“Calvin was, quite simply, a magnificent interpreter, and we may properly cite as one confirmation among many of the viability of an inerrantist view of Scripture the fact that it can yield exposition that by ordinary rational standards is as coherent and penetrating as was his.” – J.I. Packer, Inerrancy and the Church, 284