Thursday, November 16, 2006
Inerrant or infallible?
Is the Bible inerrant or infallible? They mean the same thing, right?
Well, they seem to. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, inerrant means "1. Incapable of erring; infallible. 2. Containing no errors." Infallible means "1. Incapable of erring. 2. Incapable of failing; certain." They're synonyms, right?
Apparently, not, or I wouldn't be blogging about this, would I? The question isn't their "dictionary" definition, but their historical definition.
This stems out of the doctrine of inspiration. We agree the Bible is God's inspired Word. God is perfect, therefore His Word must also be perfect. The question is how much of the Bible is God's inspired Word, and that is where these two terms come into play.
Inerrancy is the belief that everything the Bible says is true. If history or science contradicts the Bible, then the fault lies with history or science. (I would also include the fault could lie with the reader's interpretation of that passage of the Bible. As an example, I have on good authority that in Greek, and combines but does not necessarily insinuate order. If I say, "I went to the store and the library and church," you may assume that I went first to the store, then to the library, and the finally to church. You cannot make that assumption in Greek. So, where Matthew and Luke might appear to disagree in the order of Jesus' temptations in the wilderness, this can be disproven by an accurate understanding of and in the Greek. When Luke uses and, he is merely saying all these things happened, not in which order they happened.)
Infallibility, on the other hand, is the belief that the Bible is true for faith and practice. If the Bible asks you to believe something or asks you to do something, then it is true. If it offers some scientific allusion or historical detail, it may be in error. The problem with this position is the opportunity for picking and choosing. If you do not like a particular passage, then you just need to build a sufficient case that it is historically or scientifically inaccurate, and it can be dismissed as untrue.
The Bible is inerrant. It is all God's Word and perfect. It can be trusted, and, indeed, it must be trusted.
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
Well, they seem to. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, inerrant means "1. Incapable of erring; infallible. 2. Containing no errors." Infallible means "1. Incapable of erring. 2. Incapable of failing; certain." They're synonyms, right?
Apparently, not, or I wouldn't be blogging about this, would I? The question isn't their "dictionary" definition, but their historical definition.
This stems out of the doctrine of inspiration. We agree the Bible is God's inspired Word. God is perfect, therefore His Word must also be perfect. The question is how much of the Bible is God's inspired Word, and that is where these two terms come into play.
Inerrancy is the belief that everything the Bible says is true. If history or science contradicts the Bible, then the fault lies with history or science. (I would also include the fault could lie with the reader's interpretation of that passage of the Bible. As an example, I have on good authority that in Greek, and combines but does not necessarily insinuate order. If I say, "I went to the store and the library and church," you may assume that I went first to the store, then to the library, and the finally to church. You cannot make that assumption in Greek. So, where Matthew and Luke might appear to disagree in the order of Jesus' temptations in the wilderness, this can be disproven by an accurate understanding of and in the Greek. When Luke uses and, he is merely saying all these things happened, not in which order they happened.)
Infallibility, on the other hand, is the belief that the Bible is true for faith and practice. If the Bible asks you to believe something or asks you to do something, then it is true. If it offers some scientific allusion or historical detail, it may be in error. The problem with this position is the opportunity for picking and choosing. If you do not like a particular passage, then you just need to build a sufficient case that it is historically or scientifically inaccurate, and it can be dismissed as untrue.
The Bible is inerrant. It is all God's Word and perfect. It can be trusted, and, indeed, it must be trusted.
The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home