The debate surrounding the trustworthiness of the Bible has flared up again with something of a vengeance. It has been triggered by the recent publication of two books by professors in well-known theological institutions with Reformed credentials. Each in their own way has raised questions about the doctrine of inerrancy. Not surprisingly, the said institutions have been caught up in the fallout from views that have been stated on this subject.
It is all too easy to rush into taking sides in a debate like this for the wrong reasons. For some, the words themselves have become a kind of shibboleth: ‘Do you believe in a Bible that is “inerrant”, or just “infallible”?’ Before you answer that question for yourself, maybe there is merit in stepping back for a moment and asking just what they mean. All too often the debate over this issue (as often in theological arguments) has been muddied by semantics — not simply the meaning of words in themselves, but also the way they are used by particular individuals in different situations.
The terminology
In current usage, the term ‘infallible’ conveys the sense of the Bible’s being free from error in matters pertaining to faith and practice; but on other issues (such as geography, history or science) it may be less than accurate. It is a definition that has sometimes been expressed as ‘limited inerrancy’. Inerrancy, by contrast, is taken to mean quite simply ‘free from error’.
