⇠ Thought Crimes

Flushing Friday: It’s Fun Again ⇢

Inerrancy and Infallibility

Inerrancy and infallibility are difficult topics to address in a single blog post, but it is a necessary place to begin the weekly posts I promised last week on the intersection of faith and science. Fortunately, my intent is not to provide an exhaustive treatment on the subject. I simply want to state my position on the issue, not because my view is what is important, but as a foundation for future posts.

Though my religious background is varied, it is decidedly evangelical. As such, I had very little question about the inerrancy and infallibility of the Scripture. I no longer consider myself an evangelical, and many would consider my views “liberal” but I am still rather conservative in my view of Scripture ( or maybe I’m the only one who thinks so ).

Let’s start by trying to define both inerrancy and infallibility.

There seems to be some debate among theologians about the terms. I always understood that inerrancy meant that the Bible did not contain errors, and that infallibility meant that it could not contain errors. I was never particularly pleased with those definitions. Today, most understand the terms as follows.

Inerrancy – Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact. 1

Infallibility – Scripture is completely trustworthy as a guide to salvation and the life of faith and will not fail to accomplish its purpose.

Essentially, the Bible is infallible if all of its claims about faith and practice are true. It is inerrant if all of its claims, including those referring to history and science, are accurate.

For the purposes of my posts on science and faith, I have no issue accepting both the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture. I would point out that in my opinion, inerrancy still allows for proper interpretation of Scripture. For example, when the Bible claims that a bat is a bird, I don’t see that as proof of errancy. Tim Challies has a great series of post that examines passages like that ( this is a good place to start ).

(NOTE: I am not convinced on the issue of inerrancy, but for the purposes of this series, I am going to agree that Scripture is inerrant and I will attempt to use only arguments that would not violate that assumption.)

What do you think about inerrancy and/or infallibility? Do I have it all wrong?

Next week, I plan to address the topic of Special Revelation vs. General (Natural) Revelation.

⇠ Thought Crimes

Flushing Friday: It’s Fun Again ⇢