Infallible

The final adjective in this multifaceted gem located at the beginning of the confession is the word "infallible." In all truth, I struggle to see the difference between the terms infallible and inerrant. The scholars say there is a difference, so I will try my best here to grasp it.

First, let's begin with a statement that displays a modern view and contains the two terms. "Scripture is not inerrant, but it is infallible in matters of faith and morals." Sounds kind of like the first sentence of our confession, but not quite.  In a statement like that, the terms are clearly distinguishing between moral and religious being, and general, factual knowledge. How someone can conclude that the Bible is perfect in one matter when the believe it is imperfect in every other area is beyond me. But hey, isn't that what Catholics ultimately do in regards to papal infallibility? Why shouldn't mainline Protestants follow along?

In any case, the divide here represented is between truth and precision. In our scientific, analytic age, we love and thrive on precision. Example:

"What time is it?""8""No it isn't! It's 7:59 PM."

In this rather simple conversation, the issue can really be seen for what it is. Clock time is an arbitrary set of values we have created in order to organize our day.  If you say that it isn't arbitrary, I live in that section of the country that practices daylight savings.  We adjust the clock for our own means, thereby showing the actual time it displays as arbitrary.  Some of the issues created between the controversy of inerrant and infallible are mere fabrications of our own arbitrary set of circumstances that we then force back into another culture and context that did not thrive on such precision.  An example of this is the issue of time that occurs between the book of John and the Synoptic Gospels.  We are far more precise in our expression of time now.  Can you imagine such precision in that time period? "You are 342 grains of sand late for work.  That's the 5th time this month.  You're fired!"  You could possibly insert the length of a shadow as the other means of telling time.  Maybe that's how a person argued that another persons clock was faster, and that they were on time for work?  I've digressed...

At the root of the issue between inerrant and infallible is, in a sense, the difference between epistemic and ontological.  Inerrant is referring to the facts and knowledge it expresses.  Infallible is more along the lines of its character and being.  An example used by Nettles & Bush in Baptists and the Bible is that of a student taking an exam.  The student could get a 100% on an exam (inerrant) but that doesn't mean he cannot miss a question on an exam (infallible).  In this expression, "infallible" is a much stronger term expressing the incapability to err.

This creates a dilemma for those who hold to the statement above.  How can you say that something, in its being, is incapable of error, but errs in its facts?  They create a false dichotomy between faith & practice and facts attempting to maintain a distinction, but that ultimately is placing cracks and breaks in a foundation.  Our current culture attempts to make such distinctions in regards to our leaders, claiming this one or that one is a superb leader, but they cheated on their wife or stole money from the business.  If a political leader has broken his promise to care for the one person whom he claims he loves and is most intimate with, what makes us ever think he actually cares about the people he is elected to lead?  He errs in the relationship to which he ought to be most committed. Likewise, in claiming that Scripture is incapable of erring (i.e. great and committed leader), yet saying it errs (i.e. unfaithful in observable relationship) is absurd.

You can hold to inerrancy without infallibility, but one cannot hold to infallibility firmly without accepting inerrancy.

The Holy Bible is the "only sufficient, certain, infallible rule" by which our lives ought to be guided.