What does it mean that the Bible is infallible? What is biblical infallibility?

It is perfectly right practically to say, the Bible is infallible, but, strictly, revealed truth cannot be infallible; it is simply, perfectly true. A person is fallible or infallible - God alone is so - He, while He acts in, uses a man, is, and makes the man while so exclusively using him, de facto infallible. But the man is not so. The question is not if Mark or Luke are infallible, but whether what is written be "given by inspiration of God" (theopneustos) - a revelation given of God, so that I can rely on it as given of, coming from Him.

I would just remark here, that the word "infallible" is used by Mr. N. in a very loose way, in which, indeed, he is not singular. God alone is infallible; for "infallible" means one who can in no case err. The most perfect truth cannot be called "infallible;" it is the opposite to error, not to fallibility. This word does not apply itself to anything already expressed. The mass of truth to us yet unknown in scripture gives a certain applicability of this word to it (meaning, that we are sure that whatever we do thus find will be truth). But the moral difference of infallibility and perfect truth is very great indeed; because when I judge of the infallibility of scripture, I am pronouncing on an abstract question about the book. When I reject positive truth that is there, I am facing what acts directly on my conscience. I do not discuss infallibility with an infidel. For, in strict logic, none but one who is incapable of erring in what he may pronounce is infallible. But in scripture all is pronounced: it is truth or error. The business of the infidel is, therefore, to pronounce that such and such things are truth or error.

97 Page 218. "A man is infallible, whose words are always true; a rule is infallible, if it is unerring in all its possible applications. An infallible authority is certain in every particular case that may arise; but a man who is certain in some one definite case, is not on that account infallible." "I may be certain that the Church is infallible, while I am myself a fallible mortal; otherwise, I cannot be certain that the Supreme Being is infallible until I am infallible myself. It is a strange objection, then, which is sometimes made to Catholics, that they cannot prove and assent to the Church's infallibility, unless they first believe in their own. Certitude, as I have said, is directed to one or other definite concrete proposition. I am certain of proposition one, two, three, four, five, one by one, each by itself. I may be certain of one of them, without being certain of the rest; that I am certain of the first makes it neither likely nor unlikely that I am certain of the rest; but were I infallible, then I should be certain, not only of one of them, but of all, and of many more besides, which have never come before me as yet. Therefore we may be certain of the infallibility of the Church, while we admit that in many things we are not, and cannot be, certain at all."

Infallibility, as I have remarked elsewhere, is wrongly used. Truth cannot be infallible, nor anything actually revealed. It is simply absolute truth. It is more appropriately applied to Scripture, so far as there is an immense mass of truth there which I have not discovered, and I am sure all is true there with divine authority, but this is only used in a secondary way, as Paul says, "The Scripture foreseeing … preached before." But God is infallible, i.e., cannot be mistaken or deceived. Infallibility is not simply always speaking the truth, but the impossibility of mistaking, or deceiving, or shortcoming. It involves not mistaking in anything, as well as not deceiving. Now this is part of my idea of God, the true God. If He is not infallible, He is not God, He that is true, to whom all things are open.

Authority in rule or appointment, and inspiration which they might share with the prophets, are very different things, neither of which is denied. None but God however is infallible.

But we must not go too fast. The word of God is not a mere narrative of ordinarily truthful men. If inspiration means anything, it means more than this. It means that in God's use of the instruments whom He has chosen to record for us His narrative, no question of inaccuracy or human infirmity such as would be perfectly proper as to human productions, could be allowed as to Him who is holy and true, whose omniscience precludes the thought of imperfection and the essence of whose character is light. We know our Lord; we know the revelation which the Spirit of God has given, how it is "a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart," how it speaks not as men, but with authority, and how we have been compelled to bow to that divine authority in our inmost soul. This precludes the thought of inaccuracy in the Gospel narratives.

But the apostle tells us of more than this supernatural Spirit-given knowledge. In order that they may be enjoyed, the things of God had to be communicated divinely; and here the chosen instruments had to be made, not infallible of course, which is the quality of God alone, but perfectly guided in giving out the truth and guarded from all error for their task. This is inspiration, its permanent fruit being the scriptures we possess in the goodness of God. The principle is stated in verse 13, "which things also we speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in [those] taught by [the] Spirit, communicating spiritual things by spiritual† [words]."

Do the two divines seem to write with enough of reverence? Both forgot, if they seriously knew what it is to believe, that the Holy Spirit inspired Paul. Does He not know better than any when to urge this topic, when that? And as to the inspired writers, I know of no sober believer who holds their omniscience, but that of Him who employed them to communicate the truth. It is common, but incorrect, to speak of their infallibility; whereas evidently none can be said to be infallible but God.

The true statement of inspiration is not that the writer became omniscient or infallible, but that the Holy Ghost so controlled his writing as to convey the truth without admixture of error and perfectly for His own design. Hence He might with perfect consistency withhold absolute recollection on a given point here, or a distinct command from the Lord on another point, as in chapter 7.

Inspiration is not necessarily the conveyance of divine revelation. For example, we have by inspiration the very words that the rebellious Cain spoke to God, words of falsehood and insolence. The inspiration consists in the control of the instrument chosen by the Spirit of God in the communication of that which God desires to convey to His people. Because of this divine control we can rely on all that God has given to us in the Holy Scriptures.

By no means. It is easy, however, to account for them. The explanation lies in the difference between revelation and inspiration. Not all Scripture is direct revelation from God. Some of it is history in which the sayings of evil men and even of Satan are recorded. Again, a book like Ecclesiastes is largely the record of Solomon's thoughts and reasonings and disillusionments while seeking happiness in the gratification of his natural desires. Yet all is given to us by inspiration of God. We have divinely accurate accounts of what was done or said; and Solomon is led to record his mental struggles with such divine fitness as to be profitable for our warning and correction.

Now, not only do we hold the inspiration of the Bible, but also the verbal inspiration of it. If the words are not infallible — that is, the original Greek and Hebrew (in copying, mistakes doubtless have crept in) — then we cannot rest with security on the statements of the Bible. But if the Holy Spirit inspired the men to write what they did, surely we must believe that He inspired the words also: we have seen that the Lord promised that the Spirit should guide them into all truth: the inspiration of superintendence cannot allow verbal inaccuracies. But what has the Bible itself to say on this question? Paul, as we have seen, emphatically states that the words he uses are those given him by the Holy Ghost (1 Cor. 2:13). Then again, the Lord Himself said, "When they deliver you up, be not anxious how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak" (Matt. 10:19). This is the promise of true verbal inspiration, and if in speech, how much more in writing! Again, on the day of Pentecost they "began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance" (Acts 2:4) this is an example of the fulfilment of the promise quoted above.