What does it mean for the Bible to be inerrant or infallible?

Ishmael LaBiosa: Welcome to the You Ask Podcast, where the goal is to answer common questions about Christianity. Let's listen in as Pastor Rusty answers today's question. Today's question is: what does it mean for the Bible to be inerrant or infallible? And how does that relate to the issue of authority? This is actually an excellent question and I'm not always confident that we think through this question enough because the Bible's authority is so important in the life of the Christian. If we cannot come to some agreement that the Bible has the final word, which is related to the issue of authority, then we'll have a hard time kind of agreeing on the nature of the Christian life. what we ought to believe, how we are to behave, and so forth. So what we think the Bible is is directly related to how the Bible functions authoritatively in our life. And terms have been rather slippery here because two terms that are thrown around are the terms infallibility and the term inerrancy. So if you look up in a dictionary, the term infallibility or inerrancy, the terms look pretty much like the same thing. Infallibility means it doesn't have error, and inerrancy means it doesn't err. So if you were just thinking about these two terms apart from a theological debate, then you may have no idea what they mean. Often evangelicals, including myself, affirm What is called biblical inerrancy over against a common understanding of how infallibility is interpreted. And let me just try to give you the main difference. You may not hear this right out the gate, but you need to think through it, and I think you'll see that it means a great deal different. So infallibility is often limited. They say the Bible is true. That's kind of the essence of infallibility. It doesn't have error. But then they limit the places of its truthfulness, which in my opinion also limits is authority, because this is the turn of phrase here. You can grasp it. When people affirm an infallibility, they often say the Bible is true only in matters of faith and practice or doctrine and practice. And what they mean by that is. The Bible's pretty much a spiritual book and it's to tell us about spiritual things and spiritual truths. But beyond that, that's where its authority lies. It lies in the spiritual application to our lives, but it is not without error in other places. For example, some people who affirm infallibility say the Bible's true only in matters of faith and practice. Would not say the Bible is error-free when it talks about history. It's not error-free when it talks about the beginnings of the universe. It's not error-free when it talks in other areas. It is only true in matters of faith and practice. I remember I had a theology professor who tried to put a turn of phrase on infallibility, which basically says. Well, in its spiritual application, it's true, but in other ways it's not true. And he had this turn of phrase, I'm not sure if it's helpful to you or not, because if you believe in infallibility, you say, Well, the Bible probably got this historical thing wrong. Well, the Bible probably isn't true about origins of the world. Well, the Bible's probably not true about this. But it is true when it gets to matters of faith and doctrine and practice is true in that. And I remember one professor saying the Bible is inspired in spots, and I'm inspired to spot the spots. So I don't affirm infallibility in that understanding because you're basically saying the Bible does contain errors except in a very limited area of faith and practice. So inerrancy has been argued for Because they say the Bible is not just true in matters of faith and practice. The Bible is true in every area that it touches. And the way this usually is put is, yeah, the Bible is primarily, I would say, a book about salvation. I wouldn't agree with that. And that areas of faith and practice are uttermost. But when the Bible touches any other area, the Bible's not a book of history, but when it It's not primarily to teach us about history, but when it touches history, it is without error and authoritative. The Bible is not a book of psychology per se, but when it talks about the essence of the human person, it is authoritative. And so this is the way this goes. That infallibility limits authority and said the Bible is true only in matters of faith and practice. And in an inerrantist, which I am, says the Bible is true in all areas of. That it touches. If you want a really good, full-throated definition of inerrancy, you can just go online and look up a particular statement. And this is the title of the statement. It's called the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. And that statement is what is held by evangelical scholars. Actually, there is a gathering of scholars called the Evangelical Theological Society. I attend from time to time. And to be part of this society, you have to sign one document. And the document is, I believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. And that tells us something pretty unique about how you approach the Bible. Some people have objected to inerrancy and maybe I'll quickly try to handle some of these objections. Some people say an inerrantist, the Bi which the Bible is true not only in matters of faith and practice, but all areas that it touches, say that no, the Bible itself is only concerned about spiritual things. The problem with this is, is that Christianity is unique. I would say the response to that is Christianity is unique among world religions in the fact that Christianity says God has acted in history. I mean, God has done something real. God actually raised up Moses. He actually liberated the slaves out of Egypt. He actually installed David on a throne. Jesus of Nazareth was an actual historical person. He actually rose from the dead. The church was actually born. And so it's so hard for me to see how you can diminish like the role of history in the Bible while affirming what the Bible teaches when the message of the Bible is God acts in history. So you can't quite easily Take apart what God says. This is the theology of the Bible from what God does, which he also enacts in history. Some other text that people say, well, the Bible can't be without error because, you know, God uses human authors. Now we talked about this in a previous question on inspiration. And it is true, we also talked about this in another question, that God in his essence is. Way more than we can fit in our heads. There's no doubt about this. There are many things about God that we have no real core point of correspondence. But a standard doctrine of inspiration, which means that the source of the Bible is God, is that God certainly uses the personalities of human authors, but so guides the communication about Himself through human authors that what God intends. extends to the very words that the human authors have without overshadowing their personality, which is clearly seen in the 66 books of the Bible. It's also true, by the way, that we could speak truthfully about God without speaking exhaustively about God. The Bible doesn't tell us everything there is to know about God. I think in eternity we will find out that there's a lot more that we will know about God when we see him face to face. But the Bible that we have, everything that is said about God is spoken truthfully, yet clearly is not spoken exhaustively because God is infinite and the Bible is finite. Also, some people try to say that this doctrine of inerrancy is something that ⁓ evangelicals came up with in the last 50 years or something. That's just not true. While the term inerrancy may not be used very often in church history, this is the way people have treated the Bible. They treat the Bible as the Word of God. That's the way the church has historically treated the Bible, and that it doesn't contain errors. So that's pretty basic. Others will say that the doctrine of inerrancy is inferred from scripture, not directly stated. Well, I mean it's a pretty good inference, to be honest. If God wrote the Bible and God does not lie, then the Bible's without error. It's a pretty good inference, I would say. And a lot of doctrines are not directly stated per se. We kind of call together a grouping of text to infer an organized summary of thought. I don't think it's too far of a stretch to say the Bible's without error. That's the way it works. Other people say don't squabble about terms here. It doesn't matter if you use infallibility or inerrancy, they kind of mean the same thing. Well, you're right. They do kind of mean the same thing in the dictionary, but they certainly don't mean the same thing in the mouths of people who use them. And you you know, especially if you're a layman and you're learning to listen closely to various pastors, you ought to listen carefully to how pastors talk about the Bible. Do they say the Bible contains the word of God? Well, that might tip your hand that they don't think it all the Bible is the Word of God. It just contains the Word of God here and there. Or do you listen to the pastor when he says the Bible is the word of God? And don't just listen to what he says. Notice how the pastor uses the Bible in his preaching. So I actually think we need the word inerrancy because it really kind of clarifies the Bible is true not only in matters of faith and practice, but every area that it touches. I actually think that is helpful. You say, Rusty, what's the big pushback about this? It sounds like you're squabbling about words. I don't think so. I actually think what's going on here. Is when we make a claim that the Bible is true in all areas that it touches, what the Bible says about many areas, if it is speaking authoritatively, and I certainly think it does, is a devastating critique of so many of the ideologies of our day. For example, there are ideologies such as people try to say, you know, God does not exist. The Bible says, well, no, he does. Or people say we'll find our ultimate salvation through scientific progress and technology. The Bible says, no, we won't. We'll find it in the God man Jesus who'll come back to redeem the whole creation. Or some people say, you know, I think all roads lead to God. The Bible says, no. Jesus says, I'm the way and the truth and life. No one comes to the Father but by me. Or historians say, you know, I can use a method, a historical critical method, and get to what really happened. And the Bible says, no, the Bible actually provides a God's eye point of view that's greater than any historian. You get it from God's perspective. And so I think the reason that inerrancy is so hotly debated is because it's connected to authority. You know, you have an authority. Who has the final say so? Many people, the final say so is them. But a Christian who says, No, God has the final say so. Well then you say, Well, where has God spoken? If you say his word, then you say, Well, is his word without error? You say, Yes. Is it true and authoritative in all areas that it touches? Yes. Then the Bible is not just a book to be studied, but is a book that studies us and challenges us to live and conform our life to the commands of God. Think that's the reason that this is such a hotly debated topic, because it calls for more than our mind to just learn, it calls for our heart to obey. And I think especially at that point, ⁓ it is our human condition to push back rather than to say, Word of God, speak. Thank you for listening to the You Ask Podcast. This is a ministry of Liberty Baptist Church, and we pray this podcast enables you. more faithfully live out your Christian life.