Article XI: Tying Infallibility and Inerrancy Together—Almost Cleanly

• Core Claim

• Affirms Scripture is infallible (true/reliable in all matters it addresses) because given by divine inspiration.

• Denies any possibility that the Bible could be infallible yet errant in its assertions.

• Adds: infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished, but not separated.

• What Positions It Rejects

• Infallibility-only views (doctrinally/spiritually reliable but factually errant).

• Purpose-centered approaches that reduce Scripture to a spiritual tool irrespective of factual accuracy.

• Scope

• “All the matters it addresses” includes history, science, geography, genealogies, etc.—not only salvation/morality.

• Structural/Nuance Critique

• The sentence “distinguished, but not separated” belongs with the affirmation, not the denial—sloppy placement.

• Asserts the conclusion without defining the terms or showing why one entails the other.

Article XII: Strong Words, Undercut Foundations

• Core Claim

• Scripture in its entirety is inerrant—free from falsehood, fraud, deceit.

• Inerrancy/infallibility are not limited to “spiritual” themes; history and science are included.

• Scientific hypotheses about earth history may not overturn the Bible’s teaching on creation/flood.

• Foundational Tension (from Article X)

• If inerrancy applies only to lost autographs and we now have merely “great accuracy,” practical inerrancy evaporates.

• If it applies to extant copies/translations, textual variants and disputes must be faced head-on.

• Concrete Pressure Points

• Disputed texts (e.g., Mark 16:9–20; John 7:53–8:11): either tradition preserved inspired text that critics now excise, or the church long preserved additions—either way, someone’s “inerrancy” fails.

• Inconsistency in Method

• Condemns scientific hypotheses against Scripture, but tacitly tolerates text-history and source-criticismhypotheses (e.g., Westcott-Hort/Alexandrian preference, documentary theories) that reshape the text itself.

• Bottom Line

• Strong rhetoric resting on Article X’s shaky “autographs-only” footing—functionally inerrant elsewhere, not in hand.

Article XIII: Theological Wordplay or Doctrinal Precision?

• Core Claim

• “Inerrancy” is a theological term for Scripture’s complete truthfulness.

• Denies judging Scripture by “alien” standards of truth/error.

• Denies that phenomena (non-technical precision, grammar irregularities, observational language, reported falsehoods, hyperbole, round numbers, topical order, variant selections, free citations) negate inerrancy.

• Concerns

• Recasting “inerrancy” as a theological label risks insulating it from empirical evaluation.

• “Alien standards” is subjective—can dismiss critiques by fiat instead of answering them.

• The open-ended phenomena list can become a blanket excuse; risks making inerrancy unfalsifiable.

• Net Effect

• Sounds conservative while broadening definitions—more obfuscation than clarity.

Article XIV: Consistency by Default?

• Core Claim

• Affirms Scripture’s unity and internal consistency.

• Denies that unresolved “alleged errors” vitiate the Bible’s truth claims.

• Critique

• Builds a loophole: any problem can be parked as “unresolved” indefinitely—unfalsifiable posture.

• Stronger alternative: assert harmonization via careful grammatical-historical-literary context, then do the work.

• Risk

• Encourages lazy apologetics rather than rigorous explanation.

Article XV: Vague Grounding and Growing Defensiveness

• Core Claim

• Grounds inerrancy in the Bible’s teaching on inspiration.

• Denies dismissing Jesus’ teaching about Scripture via accommodation or limitations of His humanity.

• Ambiguity

• “Grounded in” is unclear: self-witness? logical entailment from inspiration? both?

• Pattern

• Adds to a growing “do-not-object-this-way” list—patchwork feel.

• What Was Needed

• Say plainly: Jesus’ high view of Scripture entails inerrancy; and explain how inspiration → inerrancy.

Article XVI: Historical Legitimacy or Doctrinal Overreach?

• Core Claim

• Inerrancy has been integral to the Church’s faith throughout history.

• Denies it’s a Protestant-scholastic invention or mere reaction to higher criticism.

• Overreach

• Patristic/medieval confidence in Scripture ≠ later precise, verbal-plenary formulation of inerrancy.

• Doctrines often crystallize under controversy—this is normal, not embarrassing.

• Too Soft on Criticism

• “Negative higher criticism” is a weak hedge; many methods presuppose anti-inspiration biases.

• Better Framing

• The Church affirmed Scripture’s authority; precise inerrancy was clarified under modern attacks.

Article XVII: A Mystical Safety Valve?

• Core Claim

• The Holy Spirit bears witness to Scripture, assuring believers of its truth.

• Denies the Spirit’s witness operates against or apart from Scripture.

• Concerns

• Mechanism undefined—invites subjective/experiential appeals that blur sufficiency.

• Redundant after objective claims; risks shifting from public reasons to private reassurance.

• Pastoral problem: what when the “witness” feels absent or conflicted?

• Net Effect

• Adds ambiguity more than assurance.

Article XVIII: A Strong Stand—But Why Not Sooner?

• Core Claim

• Interpretation must be grammatico-historical, attentive to genre/literary devices; Scripture interprets Scripture.

• Denial Targets

• Rejects source-quests and treatments that relativize, dehistoricize, discount teaching, or reject claimed authorship (e.g., JEDP, Q, redactional atomization).

• Strength

• Clear, classical hermeneutic; direct pushback on higher-critical method.

• Question

• Arrives late and jars against earlier ambiguities—should have framed the whole statement.

Article XIX: A Wobbly Finale

• Core Claim

• Confessing full authority/infallibility/inerrancy is vital to sound faith and should foster conformity to Christ.

• Denies such confession is necessary for salvation; warns that rejecting inerrancy has grave consequences.

• Critique

• Vague link from confession to sanctification; straw-man denial on salvation; unspecified “grave consequences.”

• Earlier concessions (autographs-only, phenomena buffers, subjective witness) blunt the warning’s force.

• End-State

• An unsteady conclusion to an already tension-filled document—serious tone, soft definitions.