Content deleted Content added
GreenC bot (talk | contribs) Reformat 1 URL (Wayback Medic 2.5) |
changed "says" to "claims," in order to clarify the difffering extents to which inerrancy and infallibility assert. |
||
Line 23:
{{defn|Some theologians speak of the "infallibility" of the Bible. This can be understood in one of three ways.
* Some authors use "inerrancy" and "infallibility" interchangeably.
* For others, "inerrancy" refers to complete inerrancy and "infallibility" to the more limited view that the Bible is without error in conveying God's self-revelation to humanity.<ref name="McKim, DK 1996">McKim, DK, ''Westminster dictionary of theological terms'', Westminster John Knox Press, 1996.</ref><ref>Geisler, N. L. (ed), ''Inerrancy'', Zondervan, 1980, p. 22. "The trouble is that such a distinction is nowhere to be found in Jesus' own teaching, and seems to be precluded by His testimony both to the unqualified historical accuracy and the inspiration of the Old Testament{{nbsp}}[...] The attempt to discriminate{{nbsp}}[...] seems to be a product of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries".</ref> On this understanding, "infallibility"
* Citing dictionary definitions, Frame (2002) claims "infallibility" is a stronger term than "inerrant": "'Inerrant' means there are no errors; "infallible" means there {{em|can be}} no errors".<ref>Frame, John M. "Is the Bible Inerrant?" IIIM Magazine Online, Volume 4, Number 19, May 13 to May 20, 2002 [http://reformedperspectives.org/files/reformedperspectives/theology/TH.Frame.inerrancy.html]</ref> Yet he acknowledges that "modern theologians insist on redefining that word also, so that it actually says less than 'inerrancy.{{'"}} [[Harold Lindsell]] states: "The very nature of inspiration renders the Bible infallible, which means that it cannot deceive us. It is inerrant in that it is not false, mistaken, or defective".<ref>[[Harold Lindsell|Lindsell, Harold]]. ''The Battle for the Bible.'' Zondervan, 1978, p. 31. {{ISBN|978-0-310-27681-4}}</ref>}}
{{glossary end}}
| |||