Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Using non-theological dictionary definitions, Frame (2002) insists that infallibility is a stronger term than inerrancy. " 'Inerrant' means there are no errors; 'infallible' means there can be no errors." Yet he agrees that "modern theologians insist on redefining that word also, so that it actually says less than 'inerrancy. ' " [19]
Citing dictionary definitions, Frame (2002) claims "infallibility" is a stronger term than "inerrant": "'Inerrant' means there are no errors; "infallible" means there can be no errors". [13] Yet he acknowledges that "modern theologians insist on redefining that word also, so that it actually says less than 'inerrancy.
The difference between the two, in the Catholic view, ... is inerrant or infallible, etc, or the doctrine of sola scriptura, the Church has said the following: "The ...
For them, the doctrines of the divine inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy, are inseparably tied together. The idea of biblical integrity is a further concept of infallibility, by suggesting that current biblical text is complete and without error, and that the integrity of biblical text has never been corrupted or degraded. [17]
The infallibility of the Church is the belief that the Holy Spirit preserves the Christian Church from errors that would contradict its essential doctrines. It is related to, but not the same as, indefectibility, that is, "she remains and will remain the Institution of Salvation, founded by Christ, until the end of the world ."
The doctrine of papal infallibility adopted at Vatican I (1869–70) was a response to the same liberal or modernizing tendencies to which the original fundamentalists were responding during the first two decades of the 20th century, with papal infallibility corresponding to biblical inerrancy."
Partial inspiration: the Bible is infallible in matters of faith and practice/morals, yet it could have errors in history or science (e.g. the Big Bang could be true, and the Genesis creation account is more allegorical than historical). [15]
Supporters of biblical literalism "deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science. We further deny that scientific hypotheses about earth history may properly be used to overturn the teaching of Scripture on creation and the ...