Explaining Biblical Inerrancy

ARTICLE XI: INFALLIBILITY
We affirm that 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.
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.
The central affirmation of Article XI is the infallibility of Scripture. Infallibility is defined in this
context in positive terms as implying the truthfulness and reliability of all matters that Scripture
addresses. Negatively, infallibility is defined as the quality of that which does not mislead.
The denial of Article XI touches a very important point of controversy, particularly in the
modern era. There are those who maintain that the Bible is infallible but not inerrant. Thus,
infallibility is separated from inerrancy. The denial argues that it is not possible to maintain with
consistency that something is at the same time infallible and errant in its assertions. To maintain
such a disjunction between infallibility and inerrancy would involve a glaring contradiction.
Though the words infallible and inerrant have often been used interchangeably and
virtually as synonyms in our language, nevertheless there remains a historic, technical distinction
between the two words. Infallibility has to do with the question of ability or potential. That
which is infallible is said to be unable to make mistakes or to err. The distinction here between
that definition of infallible and the definition of inerrant is the distinction between the potential
and the actual, the hypothetical and the real. That which is inerrant is that which in fact does not
err. Again, theoretically, something may be fallible and at the same time inerrant. That is, it
would be possible for someone to err who in fact does not err. However, the reverse is not true. If
someone is infallible, that means he cannot err and if he cannot err, then he does not err. To
assert that something is infallible yet at the same time errant is either to distort the meaning of
“infallible” and/or “errant,” or else to be in a state of confusion. Thus, infallibility and inerrancy
in this sense cannot be separated though they may indeed be distinguished in terms of meaning.
43