Biblical inerrancy: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
MDJH (talk | contribs)
m →‎Present-day Catholic teaching: Text simplified to avoid duplication of titles of works cited.
MDJH (talk | contribs)
→‎Terms and positions: Paragraph on infallibility rewritten to better bring out the different understandings of "infallibility".
Line 26:
 
{{term|Inerrancy and Infallibility}}
{{defn|Some theologians speak of the "infallibility" of the Bible. This can be understood in one of three ways.
{{defn|Some authors use "inerrancy" and "infallibility" interchangeably, while others limit the term "inerrancy" to complete inerrancy and use "infallibility" to refer to the more limited view that the Bible is without error in conveying God's self-revelation to humanity.<ref>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> Still others understand "infallibility" differently. 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>}}
* 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>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" says less than "inerrancy".
{{defn|Some authors use "inerrancy" and "infallibility" interchangeably, while others limit the term "inerrancy" to complete inerrancy and use "infallibility" to refer to the more limited view that the Bible is without error in conveying God's self-revelation to humanity.<ref>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> Still others understand "infallibility" differently.* 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}}