Indefectibility is usually defined as that which cannot disappear or completely deviate (in its being, its mission). Infallibility is usually understood as that which cannot have any error or is incapable of error. And inerrant would be that which has no error.
Now in the Cambridge Dictionary, indefectible is defined as: If something is indefectible, it has no defect and can never develop any defect. In that sense, if the Bible were indefectible, could it be a more general concept that would encompass both infallibility and inerrancy? And if we take the other concept of indefectible (that which cannot fail or cease to be), it would be used to clarify that the Bible is indefectible in its being or that it does not cease to be the word of God or the word inspired by God, and therefore does not cease to be inerrant or infallible. I could also clarify in another context or aspect that the Bible remains true to its purpose, to infallibly and sufficiently make known to us everything related to "all things necessary for his own glory, the salvation of man, faith and life" (CBF 1.6). What I would disagree with is that it is not only infallibly indefectible in its saving mission, but in everything it teaches, not only in matters of salvation.
I understand, broadly speaking, that the term "indefectibility" is used in Reformed theology to speak of the fact that the true church cannot fail or cease to exist, because God preserves a remnant. I also understand that the church is not infallible; it can err. But my question is whether using this term within the topic of Sola Scriptura is appropriate and helps clarify some important differences without straying from Reformed orthodoxy, the historic confessions of faith.
