# inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture



## SRoper (Mar 28, 2008)

What is the difference between inerrancy and infallibility, and how do different people use these words?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Mar 28, 2008)

This is my biased opinion but in general people who use infallibility are scared of being labeled an "innerantist" by others.

Again my opinion.


----------



## Simply_Nikki (Mar 28, 2008)

SRoper said:


> What is the difference between inerrancy and infallibility, and how do different people use these words?


 
I thougt inerrancy was that nothing has been left out of or added to the bible that God didn't intend, and that the words in scripture are Godbreathed so they are the exact words God willed to be written (therefore its inerrant). 

Infallible I thought meant, the inerrant words in the bible are absolute truths, there are no contradictions.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Mar 28, 2008)

I've always been taught "inerrancy" means free of technical errors, such as grammatical, numerical, etc. "Infallibility" on the other hand means completely true in essence. The Bible is certainly infallible, but is not inerrant. 

An example: 2 Samuel 8:4 says David took 700 horsemen from Hadadezer, while when relating the same event, 1 Chronicles 18:4 says he took 7,000. It doesn't change the fact that David took horsemen from Hadadezer (infallibility) and defeated him in battle, but it does reveal a transcriptional error.


----------



## Pilgrim (Mar 28, 2008)

I could be wrong, but I think they essentially used to be more or less synonymous and conservatives or fundamentalists at the turn of the 20th century emphasized infallibility. But before long, liberals and those in formerly sound institutions started redefining the meaning of infallible to mean that the Bible is only infallible in matters of faith and not science, history, etc. so the conservatives reemphasized verbal and plenary inspiration and the term inerrancy.


----------



## jaybird0827 (Mar 28, 2008)

The way I remember learning it in a Bibliology course -

*inerrancy*: The Bible is without error.

*infalliblity*: The Bible is incapable of error.


----------



## jfschultz (Mar 28, 2008)

jaybird0827 said:


> The way I remember learning it in a Bibliology course -
> 
> *inerrancy*: The Bible is without error.
> 
> *infalliblity*: The Bible is incapable of error.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Mar 28, 2008)

From Theopedia article:

Some scholars see infallibility as a less restrictive term than "inerrancy" in discussing the reliability of the Bible. For example, Davis suggests


> "The Bible is inerrant if and only if it makes no false or misleading statements on any topic whatsoever. The Bible is infallible if and only if it makes no false or misleading statements on any matter of faith and practice." Stephen T Davis, _The Debate about the Bible: Inerrancy versus Infallibility_ (Westminster Press, 1977).



Thus Davis argues that infallibility does not necessitate a doctrine of inerrancy. In this sense, infallibility is seen as a nuanced and less-restrictive view of the Bible's reliability. 

However, others see it the other way around, i.e. infallibility is the stronger term and specifically implies inerrancy. In article XI, the Chicago Statement (on Biblical Inerrancy) says,


> "We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated."


This then is contrary to Davis' view above. 

Further, in article XII, the Chicago statement says,


> "We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science."



Adding to the potential confusion is the layman's tendency to use the terms interchangeably.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 28, 2008)

jfschultz said:


> jaybird0827 said:
> 
> 
> > The way I remember learning it in a Bibliology course -
> ...



agreed

While many people think of "infallibility only" people as almost-liberals, I actually thihnk infallible is a more powerful concept than inerrant. Infallible has deep apologetical implications.


----------



## Pilgrim (Mar 28, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> jfschultz said:
> 
> 
> > jaybird0827 said:
> ...



I agree, when the term is understood correctly. The problem is when attempts are made to limit the application of infallibility, as noted above. The tip off nowadays is usually when someone affirms some form of infallibility but refuses to affirm inerrancy.


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 28, 2008)

The terms are almost never used appropriately.

As has been mentioned, technically "inerrant" means without error and "infallible" means incapable of error. If I score a 100% on a test it is "inerrant" but does not prove me to be "infallible."

In common practice, it is just reversed as most evangelicals in mid-century held to inerrancy as the shibboleth for differentiating themselves from liberals. In the late 60s and early 70s some places such as Fuller Seminary dropped "inerrancy" in favor of "infallibility" which to them, anyway, meant less to defend. 

Dan Fuller (one of the residents in my retirement home ministry), penned an article back in that time period making the case for "infallibility" ("Benjamin B. Warfield’s View Of Faith And History: A Critique in the Light of the New Testament -- 
The Evangelical Theological Society." (1968). *Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society *Volume 11 (11:75). The Fuller faculty's "change" was the topic of a chapter in Harold Lindsell's *Battle for the Bible *("The Strange Case of Fuller Seminary"). He argued that surrendering inerrancy was the first step toward other theological concessions. In the final analysis, I believe that history has vindicated his argument, if not entirely his attitude at the time.


----------



## greenbaggins (Mar 28, 2008)

It should also be pointed out that the usual description of inerrant means "without error in the original autographs." I know that some on this board would probably dispute that. Nevertheless, transcriptional errors are described this way. I agree with the definition of inerrant as without errors, and infallible as incapable of error, the latter term being far more exalted and implying the former.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Mar 28, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> It should also be pointed out that the usual description of inerrant means "without error in the original autographs." I know that some on this board would probably dispute that. Nevertheless, transcriptional errors are described this way. I agree with the definition of inerrant as without errors, and infallible as incapable of error, the latter term being far more exalted and implying the former.



I was waiting for someone to point this out, and agree entirely. In the original text, there were no transcriptional errors, and thus the text was inerrant. I was speaking of my copy of the NKJV, which is not inerrant. But the original manuscripts certainly were both inerrant and infallible.


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 28, 2008)

Circling back to Scott's OP, in the theological parlance of the day, the battle for "inerrancy" was/is part of the differentiation between liberalism and conservatism (at least certain stripes of it). Even though the word "infallibility" should be the stronger term, it is used because it permits more wiggle room for the phenomena of Scripture.

If you examine the history of "evangelical" institutions over the last several decades, the shift from "inerrancy" to any number of examples of verbal legerdemain have been signals of a desire to soften the doctrine of scripture. In many cases, however, the institution keeps its formal statement of faith (and/or confession) and simply winks at it in tolerating doctrinal explorations by professors, defended in the name of academic freedom.


----------



## larryjf (Mar 28, 2008)

I've always though of inerrant as meaning there are no errors in the text itself, whereas infallible means there are no errors in the assertions that the text makes.


----------



## DMcFadden (Mar 28, 2008)

larryjf said:


> I've always though of inerrant as meaning there are no errors in the text itself, whereas infallible means there are no errors in the assertions that the text makes.



The dictionary definition is as follows: "Inerrancy is distinguished from Biblical infallibility (or limited inerrancy), which holds that the Bible is inerrant on issues of faith and practice but not history or science."


----------



## larryjf (Mar 28, 2008)

infallible technically means "not deceitful" (in fallere)
inerrant technically means "not in error"

Because of transcriptional errors could we say that a particular manuscript could be in error without being deceitful?


----------

