Inerrancy vs infallibility
Submitted by bdholt1@gmail.com on Mon, 2010-02-08 03:45
In all of the lectures I have heard that cover the topic of the authority of Scripture, Dr Mounce (Content and Theology), Dr Ware (Systematic Theology) and Dr Piper (Pastoral Theology) all affirm inerrancy. That is, they affirm that all of Scripture is authoritative for faith and practice (the lesser affirmation of infallibility) as well as being historically factual (the more strict claim). Yet I am confused why the stronger affirmation (inerrancy) is professed in the lectures but the lesser affirmation is made in statement of faith:
>Article One: Scripture
>
>The Bible is the infallible word of God, the supreme rule for faith and practice.
>
>The sixty-six books of the Old and New Testament came from the very mouth of God and are without >error in the originals. Scripture is therefore the unique and supreme guide for all it affirms, >including both belief and behavior.
Can anyone (perhaps Dr Mounce) comment on this?
This was a hard one. I wrote
This was a hard one. I wrote the Statement of Faith as I did so as to try and avoid some of the debate on this point, while still affirming its utter trustworthiness. Saying "without error in the originals" is, however, a statement of inerrancy. --Bill
Response
Some things can be said without being said directly.