# Biblical Infallibility, Inerrancy



## buggy (Oct 10, 2010)

Can anyone explain to me the difference between infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible? Most online definitions sound too vague and I need some practical examples. Thanks.


----------



## Herald (Oct 10, 2010)

LTL, the terms are debated and do have some overlap. Basically, infallibility, in regards to scripture, means incapable of error; i.e. the bible is completely trustworthy for all matters of faith, doctrine, and practice. Inerrancy, again, in regards to scripture, means that the bible is without error in the original autographs. There are textual variants and edits by redactors in subsequent translations, but none of these impact the trustworthiness of the bible; i.e. the infallibility of scripture. Definitions get a bit hazy and confused when comparing the two words independently, but they have a more distinct meaning when applied to scripture.


----------



## py3ak (Oct 10, 2010)

In itself, infallibility is a stronger term than inerrant. A given Wikipedia article might well be inerrant (containing no errors), but Wikipedia is not infallible (incapable of error). 
It's my impression, though, that some sneaky people were willing to speak of infallibility with regard to the Bible, but still thought it could contain errors on matters of fact, etc. So people began to use the language of inerrancy in addition to that of infalliblity to smoke out the weasels.


----------



## Andres (Oct 10, 2010)

I have wondered the difference between these two words also. thank you Buggy for asking and thank you Bill and Ruben for your explanations.


----------



## DTK (Oct 10, 2010)

buggy said:


> Can anyone explain to me the difference between infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible? Most online definitions sound too vague and I need some practical examples. Thanks.



I think that most of us understand inerrancy, that it means without error, and as it has been pointed out there is overlap between infallibility and inerrancy.

But, as I understand its Latin use, the emphasis of infallibility is its impossibility to deceive or to lead astray.

Here are some uses by Augustine...

*Augustine (354-430): *God alone swears securely, because He alone is infallible. _NPNF1: Vol. VIII, St. Augustin on the Psalms_, Psalm 89, § 4. 
*Latin text:* Deus solus securus jurat, quia falli non potest. See In Psalmum LXXXVIII Enarratio, Sermo I, PL 37:1122.

Same passage as above, different translation...

*Augustine (354-430):* When God swears an oath, it is to confirm his promise. Men and women are with good reason forbidden to swear, because if they get into the habit of doing so they may slip into perjury, given the fallibility of human beings. God alone swears safely, for he cannot be wrong. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., _The Works of Saint Augustine_, Part 3, Vol. 18, trans. Maria Boulding, O.S.B., E_xpositions of the Psalms, Psalms 73-98_, Psalm 88.4 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2002), p. 276.
*Latin text:* Dei quippe juratio, promissionis est confirmatio. Bene prohibetur homo jurare; ne consuetudine jurandi, quia potest homo falli, etiam in perjurium prolabatur. Deus solus securus jurat, quia falli non potest. See I_n Psalmum LXXXVIII Enarratio_, Sermo I, PL 37:1122.

*Augustine (354-430): *But human authority is very often deceiving. _FC, Vol. 5, Saint Augustine On Divine Providence and the Problem of Evil_, Book 2, Chapter 9, §27 (New York: CIMA Publishing Co., Inc., 1948), p. 305.
*Latin text:* Humana vero auctoritas plerumque fallit. _De Ordine_, Liber Secundus, Caput IX, §27, PL 32:1008.

*Augustine (354-430) written 413/414 AD: *Do not doubt that this duty of ours [i.e., to intercede for others] is a part of religion because God, ‘with whom there is no iniquity,’ whose power is supreme, who not only sees what each one is but also foresees what he will be, *who alone cannot err in His judgment because He cannot be deceived in His knowledge*, nevertheless acts as the Gospel expresses it: ‘He maketh his sun to rise upon the good and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust.’ F_C, Vol. 20, Saint Augustine, Letters 131-164_, Letter 208 – To Macedonius (Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1953), pp. 282-283.
*Latin text:* Noli ergo dubitare hoc officium nostrum ex religione descendere, cum Deus apud quem nulla est iniquitas, cujus summa potestas est, qui non tantum qualis quisque sit videt, verum etiam qualis futurus sit praevidet, *qui solus potest in judicando non labi, quia in cognoscendo non potest falli*, facit tamen, sicut Evangelium loquitur, solem suum oriri super bonos et malos, et pluit super justos et injustos. See _In Epistola CLIII_, Caput II, §4, PL 33:654.

*Augustine (354-430):* Let them love Him [i.e., Christ], *who Alone doth not deceive, who Alone is not deceived, Alone deceiveth not*; let them love Him, for that is true which He doth promise. But because He doth not give at once, faith wavers. Hold on, persevere, endure, bear delay and thou hast borne the cross. _NPNF1: Vol. VI, Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament_, Sermon 41 (96), §9. 
*Latin text: *Ament eum *qui solus non decipit, qui solus non fallitur, solus non fallit*: ament eum, quia verum est quod promittit. Sed quia non modo dat, titubat fides. Dura, persevera, tolera, porta dilationem, et tulisti crucem. _Sermo XCVI_, Caput VII, §9, PL 38:588.


----------



## Mushroom (Oct 10, 2010)

py3ak said:


> In itself, infallibility is a stronger term than inerrant. A given Wikipedia article might well be inerrant (containing no errors), but Wikipedia is not infallible (incapable of error).
> It's my impression, though, that some sneaky people were willing to speak of infallibility with regard to the Bible, but still thought it could contain errors on matters of fact, etc. So people began to use the language of inerrancy in addition to that of infalliblity to smoke out the weasels.


And smoking out weasels is an admirable endeavor when it comes to defending the infallibility, inerrancy, and perpescuity of scripture.


----------

