The Infallibility of Scripture

Having learned that the Bible is inspired by God, is thus true, authoritative, and inerrant, we now move to the infallibility of Scripture. The Bible’s infallibility means it is incapable of leading us to error.  The term “infallible” comes “from the Latin root fallo, which means, among other things, ‘to lead astray’ or ‘to deceive.’”¹ The “in” is negating, so “in-fallo” yields infallible, meaning “unable to lead astray or deceive.” This means the Bible, when properly understood, will always lead us to truth.

If you’ve read the last several articles in this column, you may feel like we’re plowing the same furrow again. We understand inerrancy to mean the Bible is free from error and is thus entirely true. Infallibility also deals with the truthfulness of God’s word. Why distinguish infallibility from inerrancy?

I’ve spent a good deal of time on these doctrines for three reasons: (1) These truths, though related, are distinct and require separate examinations. (2) Inerrancy and infallibility are not well understood and are being compromised by many Christians, both Anabaptists and those in the broader evangelical community. (3) Looking at similar subjects from different angles helps us get a fuller grasp of the character of our Bible, which in turn builds our confidence in it and in the God we know through it.

Infallibility and Inerrancy

Infallibility is close kin to inerrancy. In fact, depending who you ask, they’re one and the same. Though, depending who you ask, they are far from the same. Feinberg observes that, while there are many varying definitions of infallibility, any good definition ends up being very nearly identical to inerrancy.² On the other hand, many liberalizing theologians have taken great care to distinguish between them, affirming infallibility while denying inerrancy. But most conservative theologians place them side-by-side as distinct, yet inseparable, doctrines. And that’s where I find myself as well.

To better understand the distinction between infallibility and inerrancy, let’s first remember what inerrancy means. Biblical inerrancy means the Bible is free from essential error in all its parts. As we discussed, this extends to every subject the Bible touches, not just matters of faith, as some would define it. Simply put, inerrancy means the Bible is true in its content.

Infallibility means that, not only is the Bible true in its content, but it is also true in its purpose. When our thoughts and behaviors are shaped by the Bible, we can be assured that we are being brought closer to the truth. The Bible is true, and it leads us to truth. As said in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, “Scripture, having been given by divine inspiration, is infallible, so that, far from misleading us, it is true and reliable in all the matters it addresses.”³ Because the Bible is true (inerrant), it is reliable as a guide to the true God (infallible). This places inerrancy and infallibility hand-in-hand as successive doctrines, both affirming the total truthfulness of the word of God.

Infallibility without Inerrancy?

But not everyone agrees. An increasing number of Christian theologians have redefined infallibility and have separated it from inerrancy. This is characterized by Stephen T. Davis’ definition of these two terms.

The Bible is inerrant if and only if it makes no false or misleading statements on any topic whatsoever. The Bible is infallible if and only if it makes no false or misleading statements on any matter of faith and practice. In these senses, I personally hold that the Bible is infallible but not inerrant.⁴

While his definition of inerrancy is fine and good, his definition of infallibility is incorrect. It limits the scope of infallibility to only matters of “faith and practice,” excluding historical and scientific matters as infallible. And it’s a deliberate denial that specific Biblical records regarding those issues must be seen as true. This separation compromises the Bible and modifies historic Christian belief to patronize modern scientists and historians.

I’m not anti-science or anti-history, but God’s record of what is and what happened must be trusted over the opinions of even the most educated men. Dividing infallibility from inerrancy most certainly compromises the Bible’s trustworthiness, even on matters of faith. To borrow again from the Chicago Statement, “We deny that it is possible for the Bible to be at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.”⁵ The writers go on to say, “We deny that biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes.”⁶ A definition of infallibility that discards entire inerrancy leaves us with compromised Bible—mostly good, mostly trustworthy, yet no longer reliable as the rule of truth.

Why redefine infallibility and deny inerrancy, then? What advantage could be gained by embracing infallibility while denying inerrancy? We’ve already discussed one reason (relevance with modern science and history), but MacArthur gives us another. “The primary motivation behind the alteration in definition was tied to an effort to deny inerrancy yet maintain an identification with those of an orthodox faith. But biblically speaking, it is not orthodox to affirm infallibility apart from inerrancy. Denial of inerrancy is motivated by an unwillingness to accept all that Scripture declares. Deniers seek to excuse sin and to affirm unbiblical behavior by such efforts.”⁷ More succinctly, inerrancy is denied because men don’t want to bow to the authority of Scripture as God’s inspired word. What’s lacking is not evidence; it is a surrendered heart.

Inerrancy and infallibility belong together. A good biblical definition of both affirms the total truthfulness and trustworthiness of God’s written word; the two are only divided in specific definitions by liberalizing theologians who are opposed to the concept of God’s word being entirely truthful and accurate in every area it touches. This compromise carves out more room in the Bible for man’s scientific theories and historic presumptions, but it weakens the authority and reliability of the Scriptures in the process. Definitions of infallibility and inerrancy that deny the total truthfulness of the Bible in every area are compromised and unbiblical definitions. Rather, we must, with simple faith, trust the God who knows the truth, always speaks the truth, and has perfectly revealed that truth in His word.

Importance of Believing Infallibility

Why is infallibility important for the Christian? First, because what we believe about the Bible reflects what we believe about God. Since the Bible is God’s word, when we say something about it, we are necessarily saying the same thing about God. If we deny that the Bible is accurate in historic and scientific matters, we imply that God Himself was incorrect about these facts. Or, if we say God Himself knows all things, yet deny that those things are correctly communicated in His Word, we deny that the Bible actually came from Him. Dividing inerrancy from infallibility has one of two results: it divides God from His Word, or it denies God’s own perfect character. In short, we’re left with a Bible that isn’t God’s word, or a God who isn’t actually God. The Christian believer must not see either of these options as acceptable.

Second, when we deny the Bible’s entire inerrancy and infallibility, we instead exalt man as the determiner of truth. Maintaining the Bible’s authority subjects us to the text of Scripture, in reverent obedience to the God who penned it. But, if we reject the entire truthfulness of Scripture, man becomes the arbiter of truth. Man—not God—determines what is true and what is not. Any weakening of inerrancy or infallibility is necessarily an exaltation of man. This doesn’t mean we run to fanatical extremes, blindly ignore those apparent issues in the text. We must not expect mechanical precision that is inconsistent with the Bible’s character. Yet we must persistently insist that God’s word is—in its entirety—trustworthy, faithful, and true.

Finally, believing that the Bible is infallible is important because, without it, we have no trustworthy guide to lead us to God. Again, since the Bible is infallible, we can trust that it will always teach us what is true. We hold the Bible up as perfect, not to make much of the Bible itself, but because only an inerrant, infallible Bible can be trusted to lead us to the one true God. And, in fact, the entire purpose of God’s word is to lead us to Him. Scripture is perfect and pure, but it has only accomplished its purpose if it leads us to the living God. The Bible is the supremely trustworthy agent that brings us into a relationship with Him. We can only truly relate to God if we have right knowledge about Him, and the Bible gives us that knowledge.

So, this issue becomes about much more than just terms, squabbles, and technicalities. Infallibility is about worship. If our Bible is not infallible, we can never be sure that we’ve truly come to know God for who He is. We can’t enjoy a relationship with Him if we don’t have a sure Bible. To know God, we need much more than man’s speculations. We need more than subjective experience. We need a pure word, an infallible Bible that we can trust as a faithful guide to lead us to God. God has given us just that in His inerrant, infallible word.

---

1. John S. Feinberg, Light in a Dark Place; The Doctrine of Scripture (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2018), 265.
2. Feinberg, Light in a Dark Place, 273.
3. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (Oakland, CA: The Council, 1978), Article XI.
4. Stephen T. Davis, The Debate About the Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977), 23.
5. The Chicago Statement, Article XI.
6. The Chicago Statement, Article XII.
7. John MacArthur, Biblical Doctrine: A Systematic Summary of Bible Truth (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017), 109.