This is hashtag STRASK. You're listening to Amy Hall. I'm here with Greg Kokel. And today, Greg, we have questions on the Bible. Okay. So we're going to start with one from Jeremy Brown.

What is the definition of Bible inerrancy?

A notable Bible scholar says the Bible is inerrant in what it teaches, but not in what it says.

Trying to wrap my head around that and need help.

Well, there's a couple of terms that in theological circles have, are terms of art.

They have a technical meaning. And when it comes to this discussion, those terms are inerrancy and infallibility.

Now, when you think of the words, it seems like infallibility would be a stronger word than

inerrancy. Inerrancy says a thing isn't mistaken. Infallibility says it's not possible for it to be

mistaken. That's why it isn't mistaken. But actually, in theological terms, that't the way it works out. Okay? What Jeremy just

described is actually the weaker sense of biblical authority called infallibility. And infallibility,

this is the way it's used theologically with people who know how to use the terms.

I qualify that because sometimes people use the terms interchangeably, and they're not aware of the distinction, and they just mean them as synonyms.

But strictly speaking, infallibility is the fuller seminary standard, which says that the Bible speaks

accurately when it talks about theological issues of faith and morality.

And that's what matters.

It doesn't necessarily speak accurately when it comes to historical matters or scientific

matters, but you're asking it to be

reliable in a way that it wasn't intended to be reliable. Faith and practice are what matters.

Now, the trouble with that view is the distinction there is not, that distinction is not made in

the scripture itself, because there's so many theological factors that are tied to historical

verities.

Think, for example, of the resurrection.

...