, Dr. Jack Cottrell offers the following concerning the meaning of inerrancy. Dr. Cottrell also has some interesting words to say on infallibility at the end. I also recommend Dr. Cottrell's book Solid: The Authority of God's Word
. When one person defends inerrancy and another denies it, exactly what are they arguing about? First we must explain what the issue is not. For one thing, the issue is not terminology. What is at stake is not any particular word (such as "inerrancy"), but the concept of the absolute truth and trustworthiness of the Bible. Once the word "inspired" all by itself conveyed this meaning, as did the word "infallible." But critics have so redefined and watered down these terms that it is now necessary to use the more specific term "inerrancy" to assert what these terms once unambiguously meant. In any case we do not argue from the term to the concept. The concept is the basic point, and the concept is what is found in the Bible even if the term itself is not found there.
Second, the issue is not copies and translations. Those who argue responsibly for inerrancy are not saying that any particular translation is inerrant (e.g., the KJV or the NIV). Inerrancy, like inspiration, applies only to the original text of the Bible as first produced by the authors themselves.
Third, the issue is not laboratory precision in the use of language. To say the Bible is inerrant does not require some artificial, "heavenly" standard of grammar or numerical precision. Inerrancy allows language to be used in ordinary, everyday ways. It is consistent with such things as approximate times, round numbers, paraphrasing, and grammatical freedom.
Fourth, the issue is not literalism in interpreting Scripture. To argue for inerrancy is not to argue that every word, every statement, every prophecy in the Bible must be taken in its most literal sense. Inerrancy takes full account of symbolism in prophecy, of parables, and of figurative use of words.
One distinction should be made here, however. There is a difference between linguistic literalism, which inerrancy does not require, and historical literalism, which inerrancy does require. That is, even though inerrancy does not mean that we must interpret all the words of Scripture in their most literal sense, it does mean that we must accept the literal existence of all the historical characters and events described in the Bible as real (e.g., Adam and Eve, the Fall). Thus the issue is not the nature of the Bible's language, but the historicity of the people and events intentionally affirmed therein.
Fifth, the issue is not a particular theory of the mode of inspiration. Inerrancy does not require a mechanical dictation or mediumistic type of inspiration. To connect the two, as critics often do, is unwarranted and irresponsible. Inerrancy depends on the fact of inspiration, not on any certain mode.
Sixth, the issue is not church history. Whether or not the church through the ages has espoused inerrancy is beside the point. What Augustine, Luther, Calvin, or Campbell said about the subject is not decisive. The only real issue is what the Bible claims about itself.
Finally, the issue is not Christian fellowship. Even though biblical inerrancy is very important, it is wrong to say that those who deny it are for that reason not Christians or do not have a sincere and saving faith in Jesus Christ.
What, then, is the issue regarding inerrancy? It is simply this: are there errors in the Bible that can be traced to the original text itself? When the biblical writers originally wrote the books of the Bible, did they make some assertions that are not true? Did they intent to affirm something as true which is in fact false?
Those who deny inerrancy are saying that, in fact, the Bible in its original text is in error in some of its claims. To affirm inerrancy is to say that whatever the Bible declares to be true is true. It makes no errors or mistakes; it makes no false or misleading statements. As one statement of faith says, "All Scripture, as first written by the authors themselves, was produced under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Scripture is therefore the Word of God in written form, and is infallible and inerrant in its entirety when taken in the original meaning of its authors. Thus it is the sole and sufficient rule of faith and practice."
The terms "infallible" and "inerrant" go together, but they are not synonymous. "Infallible" properly defined means "incapable of error; unable to err, to lie, or to make mistakes." This is a much stronger term than "inerrant," which simply means "absence of error, actually not containing any errors." A statement or document may be inerrant without being infallible, but it can never be infallible without being inerrant. The Bible is inerrant because it is infallible, and it is infallible because it is the inspired Word of God.
