From
Theopedia article:
Some scholars see infallibility as a less restrictive term than "inerrancy" in discussing the reliability of the Bible. For example, Davis suggests
Quote:
|
"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." Stephen T Davis, The Debate about the Bible: Inerrancy versus Infallibility (Westminster Press, 1977).
|
Thus Davis argues that infallibility does not necessitate a doctrine of inerrancy. In this sense, infallibility is seen as a nuanced and less-restrictive view of the Bible's reliability.
However, others see it the other way around, i.e. infallibility is the stronger term and specifically implies inerrancy. In article XI, the
Chicago Statement (on Biblical Inerrancy) says,
Quote:
|
"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."
|
This then is contrary to Davis' view above.
Further, in article XII, the Chicago statement says,
Quote:
|
"We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science."
|
Adding to the potential confusion is the layman's tendency to use the terms interchangeably.