Historic Christianity has always maintained that the Bible is inerrant and infallible.

What's the difference between those two terms?

I've taken spelling tests where we had 20 questions and I got all of them right.

My test was inerrant. I didn't require the inspiration of the Holy Ghost to do that.

And of course to be inerrant for a small period of time did not make me infallible

as subsequent spelling tests would verify.

Welcome to renewing your mind, I'm Lee Webb.

Thank you for being with us on this Saturday.

You know among the many things I admired about Dr. Sproul was his recognition of matters of first importance.

Not everything that theology falls into that category.

In other words, we're not called to die on every hill.

But today's message reflects one hill on which RC was willing to die.

In fact throughout his ministry he was on the front lines of this all-important battle

to defend the inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture.

Any discussion of the nature of sacred Scripture that includes the concern about its inspiration

has to tackle in our day and age at least the issues of the infallibility and the inerrancy of Scriptures.

We know that throughout church history the classic and traditional view of the Bible

is that having come by way of divine inspiration, the Bible has been recognized

and by the church and all ages as being infallible and inerrant.

But with the rise of higher criticism particularly in the 19th and 20th centuries

not only has the inspiration of Scripture come under widespread attack

but specifically these concepts of infallibility and inerrancy have been sharply criticized.

...