Are there any churches that reject Biblical inerrancy?

[Gaelic_Bard]

This is clear in Paul’s case, but who says that those writings were Paul’s? What about James, Jude and the Letter to the Hebrews? All of these had to be tested. Let’s flip the question: What about what is not in the bible? It is apparent that someone with authority had to investigate all available scriptures for authenticity before including them in the canon, right? There are no stone tablets stating the Sacred Table of Contents of the bible. Not a single original document exists anywhere, and if they did, there is no one to attest to that fact. Every available manuscript is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy. This includes canonical, apocryphal and pseudographical documents. From the mountain of writings considered in the 4th century, most of them had to be eliminated. Someone with the guidance of the Holy Spirit had to test and eliminate them, otherwise pollution would have crept into the bible. Conversely, inspired documents may have been left out. So, now what?

Your question speaks to an epistemological one regarding the canon and our knowledge of it. I wasn’t addressing this question. I was addressing the issue of how we know what we have in the canin currently is inerrant.

You raise a few good points on the issue of the canon but many of your questions are answerable through scholarship, logic, archarology, etc. Your alternative is good prima faciae, but is ultimately circular and would lead to many of the same questions you’ve asked.

 

[stewstew03]

Your question speaks to an epistemological one regarding the canon and our knowledge of it. I wasn’t addressing this question. I was addressing the issue of how we know what we have in the canin currently is inerrant.

You raise a few good points on the issue of the canon but many of your questions are answerable through scholarship, logic, archarology, etc. Your alternative is good prima faciae, but is ultimately circular and would lead to many of the same questions you’ve asked.

po18guy is getting to the heart of the matter. In order to examine the inerrancy of a document, one must consider the authenticity of the document itself, no?

 

[po18guy]

Your question speaks to an epistemological one regarding the canon and our knowledge of it. I wasn’t addressing this question. I was addressing the issue of how we know what we have in the canin currently is inerrant.

You raise a few good points on the issue of the canon but many of your questions are answerable through scholarship, logic, archarology, etc. Your alternative is good prima faciae, but is ultimately circular and would lead to many of the same questions you’ve asked.

Rather, the argument we often see that states the bible is inerrant because it is the bible is absolutely circular. I am proposing a linear argument: Apostolic succession. Without it, the bible’s inerrancy is suspect.

What assurance do we have the “scholarship, logic, archaeology” and whatever else are inerrant? Zero. They are fallible, human sources and they all disagree. We must have a Church to settle the issue. A Church like Paul went to in order to settle the circumcision question (Acts 15). The scriptures were no help to Paul. All available post-Abrahamic scriptures said that circumcision was required. It was the Apostles of the Church, lead by that Pentecostal Holy Spirit, who decided all truth for all time. Praise God!

 

[gnosisofthomas]

I believe there is strong evidence to suggest that Biblical inerrancy is wrong in the sense that everything written in the Bible is definitely 100% true, even in the original manuscripts.

The Catholic Church even recognizes that errors can creep in due to scribal errors… The addition to the Our Father and the Johannine Comma are good examples. There are no two ancient manuscripts that are exactly the same, and as scholarship improves, Catholics have been able to accept new insight into the scriptures.

From my own religious perspective, expressing eternal truths can be difficult with the limitations of language… But it doesn’t change the truth behind it. Each author (and scribe, and translator) could only try his best to describe something ineffable. Just as God isn’t limited to space and time, neither is He limited by language!

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Rather, the argument we often see that states the bible is inerrant because it is the bible is absolutely circular. I am proposing a linear argument: Apostolic succession. Without, it the bible is suspect.

Yes, that would be a circular argument. Hence why I don’t use it.

What assurance do we have the “scholarship, logic, archaeology” and whatever else are inerrant? Zero. They are fallible, human sources and they all disagree. We must have a Church to settle the issue. A Church like Paul went to in order to settle the circumcision question (Acts 15). The scriptures were no help to Paul. All available post-Abrahamic scriptures said that circumcision was required. It was the Apostles of the Church, lead by that Pentecostal Holy Spirit, who decided all truth for all time. Praise God!

To your first question, no one piece of evidence is going to provide 100% assurance of what we possess as being correct. Combine them altogether, however, and we can be reasonably certain. Unless we live in a Cartesian worldview that demands we have infallible knowledge of everything in order to function on a day to day basis. Central to this, of course, is that the Creator of all things, who does know the canon, is capable of insuribg His church received what He inspired (note I don’t discount the church in this equation).

Secondly, as to circularity. Here is what you’re proposing as the solution:

How we do know the Bible is infallible and we have the right canon?
“the church is infallible and has said so.”
How do we know the church is infallible?
“Because the Bible says so”
How do we know the Bible says so
“the infallible church has said so” etc.

As to your last statement, are we still in a period of continuing revelation?

 

[roselily]

We can start with an examination of the New Testament as if it were a purely human work that is, to the best of our knowledge, an accurate biographical account of the life of Christ and his teachings. Even most secular scholars will acknowledge this.

Jesus clearly indicated in various ways that the Old Testament was the word of God (his confrontation with Satan, his statements that he fulfilled OT prophecy, etc.). By definition the speech of God is inerrant and infallible. Jesus also claimed to be God. Through historical research and the reliability of the gospeks, we can conclude that Jesus rose from the dead and backed up his claim to be God. This would make his statements regarding Scripture to be true statements.

We can apply this to Jesus’ words to the apostles that they would have all of Jesus’ words brought to memory by the Spirit etc., and thus apply inerrancy and infallibility to the NT.

I have believed the bible is Truth and infallible.

And Instruction.

Sola scriptura is not correct.

**John 21:24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. 25But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.

1Corinthians 11: 1Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.
2 I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you.**



Interpret scripture out of context is not correct.
I like this page, JesusChrist Savior!
facebook.com/JesusChrist.Savior

31 December 2012
God wants nothing more than to bring healing into your life. Click on the link below and check out these verses that will remind you of His faithfulness in your life.

r.beliefnet.com/healingjcs

771Like · · Share
9,686 people like this.
52 of 94
View previous comments

Roselily -I know that Christ is our life and our healing, but in the link healing words , second 5/7 Psalm 73:4-5 “They have no struggles; their bodies are healthy and strong. They are free from the burdens common to man; they are not plagued by human ills.” Psalm 73:4-5, I read that have not mean healing, if you read Psalm 73: 1-3, 6-9 you know Psalm 73:4-5 mean healing not.
31 December 2012 at 23:01 · Edited · Like

 

[po18guy]

Central to this, of course, is that the Creator of all things, who does know the canon, is capable of insuribg His church received what He inspired (note I don’t discount the church in this equation).

Good. But, how could you exclude the Church, since Jesus clearly and explicitly founded a Church (Matthew 16:18) after writing exactly zero scripture. He declared that “He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16) and declared the Church to be the final authority in all matters (Matthew 18:15-17). Paul clearly believed this, as he made the arduous journey in Acts 15 to ask the Church’s determination on the circumcision question. Again, Jesus wrote no scripture and scripture did not help Paul. Jesus founded a Church and the Church helped Paul.

Secondly, as to circularity. Here is what you’re proposing as the solution:

How we do know the Bible is infallible and we have the right canon?
“the church is infallible and has said so.”
How do we know the church is infallible?
“Because the Bible says so”
How do we know the Bible says so
“the infallible church has said so” etc.

That is not at all what I proposed. However, to a bible believer, point 4 answers point 3 and makes the rest moot. You viewpoint, being absolutely dependent upon bible alone, has made a linear argument circular. Christ founded a Church, > giving it all authority, binding and loosing, even over sin. > The members of the Church, both eyewitnesses and others, wrote scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. > The continuing authority of the Church tested those scriptures hundreds of years later and handed them on > to you and I. This is a straight line, not a circle.

As to your last statement, are we still in a period of continuing revelation?

Public revelation? NO! But scripture needs authoritative interpretation in each generation, being lead by the Holy Spirit. The lack of an authoritative Church is why much of Christianity is so severely fractured and continues to fracture. I pray for the return of the prodigal sons.

 

[Indifferently]

If the Bible was completely infallible, why does it include contradictions,such as the presumably contradictory accounts of something as important as the fate of Judas Iscariot?

I don’t think it is vital to believe this in order to be a faithful Christian. The Bible doesn’t have to bee seen as a Christian Koran.

 

[AbideWithMe]

If the Bible was completely infallible, why does it include contradictions,such as the presumably contradictory accounts of something as important as the fate of Judas Iscariot?

I don’t think it is vital to believe this in order to be a faithful Christian. The Bible doesn’t have to bee seen as a Christian Koran.

I don’t believe in Biblical inerrancy, either, and I haven’t believed in it for about 15 years. I’m an Evangelical Christian, and I used to believe it was inerrant, but I became unable to reconcile the contradictions without doing major mental gymnastics. I had/have no pet sin that I wanted to excuse, and no moral reason to stop believing in Biblically inerrancy; indeed, for years I tried very, very hard to continue to seek out apologetic efforts to reconcile the contradictions.

Borrowing Indifferently’s words, I don’t believe it’s vital, either, to believe in Biblical inerrancy in order to be a faithful Christian. If some one does believe in it, good for them. I won’t try to dissuade them. My reason for posting is not to argue for Biblical errors, but just to say I’ve been on both sides of the issues and became a more faithful, less doubt-plagued Christian, by ceasing to demand Biblical inerrancy from God.

I’m still Evangelical, and I’ve talked this over with my pastors. They’re fine with it.

 

[RebeccaJ]

My understanding is that the infallibility of the scriptures is in relation to the truth it teaches. From the CCC

107 The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”

The Bible teaches the truth of our Salvation, God’s work in the world. It has never been intended as a science book. It isn’t a cookbook that contains a recipe on “how to make a religion”. The Johannine comma does not change the truth of our Salvation.

 

[SonCatcher]

If the Bible was completely infallible, why does it include contradictions,such as the presumably contradictory accounts of something as important as the fate of Judas Iscariot?

I don’t think it is vital to believe this in order to be a faithful Christian. The Bible doesn’t have to bee seen as a Christian Koran.

How is the fate of Judas Iscatiot important? It doesn’t affect the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus. (EDIT: Well, it’s certainly important for Judas whether he is saved or damned but the cause of his death is more of a footnote than a teaching required for belief)

 

[SonCatcher]

I was referring to Christian denominations yes, but still very interesting.

They professed to be followers of Jesus, which is why I thought it relevant to your query. (the Church of Scientology, in contradistinction, does not profess to follow Jesus, which is why they don’t consider the Bible inerrant - so they are actually out of scope).

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Good. But, how could you exclude the Church, since Jesus clearly and explicitly founded a Church (Matthew 16:18) after writing exactly zero scripture. He declared that “He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16) and declared the Church to be the final authority in all matters (Matthew 18:15-17). Paul clearly believed this, as he made the arduous journey in Acts 15 to ask the Church’s determination on the circumcision question. Again, Jesus wrote no scripture and scripture did not help Paul. Jesus founded a Church and the Church helped Paul.

That is not at all what I proposed. However, to a bible believer, point 4 answers point 3 and makes the rest moot. You viewpoint, being absolutely dependent upon bible alone, has made a linear argument circular. Christ founded a Church, > giving it all authority, binding and loosing, even over sin. > The members of the Church, both eyewitnesses and others, wrote scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. > The continuing authority of the Church tested those scriptures hundreds of years later and handed them on > to you and I. This is a straight line, not a circle.
Public revelation? NO! But scripture needs authoritative interpretation in each generation, being lead by the Holy Spirit. The lack of an authoritative Church is why much of Christianity is so severely fractured and continues to fracture. I pray for the return of the prodigal sons.

1. What is the infallible interpretation of Matt 16:18?
2. How do you know it’s infallible?
3. How can I know infallibly that the way you know it’s infallible is infallible?
4. How do YOU know infallibly that what the infallible interpreter says is infallible?
5. Since you’re not infallible how can I trust what you say?
6. Since I’m not infallible, how can I interpret infallibly what the infallible interpreter said?
7. If I am somehow able to interpret the words of the infallible interpreter correctly, why is it that I can’t do so with the words of Jesus?
8. If I can do neither, how am I ever going to reap the advantages of the infallible interpreter?
9. How do I infallibly know which competing infallible interpreter is the actual infallible one - Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Sedevacantists, Pope Michaelists, Old Catholics, PNCC?
10. How do I infallibly determine which of the above groups is the possesor of infallible apostolic tradition?

 

[stewstew03]

1. What is the infallible interpretation of Matt 16:18?
2. How do you know it’s infallible?
3. How can I know infallibly that the way you know it’s infallible is infallible?
4. How do YOU know infallibly that what the infallible interpreter says is infallible?
5. Since you’re not infallible how can I trust what you say?
6. Since I’m not infallible, how can I interpret infallibly what the infallible interpreter said?
7. If I am somehow able to interpret the words of the infallible interpreter correctly, why is it that I can’t do so with the words of Jesus?
8. If I can do neither, how am I ever going to reap the advantages of the infallible interpreter?
9. How do I infallibly know which competing infallible interpreter is the actual infallible one - Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Sedevacantists, Pope Michaelists, Old Catholics, PNCC?
10. How do I infallibly determine which of the above groups is the possesor of infallible apostolic tradition?

Clearly you have a dizzying intellect (quote from Princess Bride).

 

[po18guy]

1. What is the infallible interpretation of Matt 16:18?
2. How do you know it’s infallible?
3. How can I know infallibly that the way you know it’s infallible is infallible?
4. How do YOU know infallibly that what the infallible interpreter says is infallible?
5. Since you’re not infallible how can I trust what you say?
6. Since I’m not infallible, how can I interpret infallibly what the infallible interpreter said?
7. If I am somehow able to interpret the words of the infallible interpreter correctly, why is it that I can’t do so with the words of Jesus?
8. If I can do neither, how am I ever going to reap the advantages of the infallible interpreter?
9. How do I infallibly know which competing infallible interpreter is the actual infallible one - Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Sedevacantists, Pope Michaelists, Old Catholics, PNCC?
10. How do I infallibly determine which of the above groups is the possesor of infallible apostolic tradition?

We are both on a life-long search for the fullness of God’s revealed truth, are we not? We are brothers in Christ, who have a sharp disagreement on numerous issues. Your answers, if indeed there are any to satisfy you, may be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You clearly misunderstand infallibility, Papal or otherwise, yet you rely on it for each and every book and letter in your bible. God gave us the bible via the Holy Spirit acting through the Church. Rhetorically, this is something to seriously ponder in times ahead.

As well, a perusing of Catholicism for Dummies will help to allay many concerns that you may have about the Catholic Church. I learn something each time I read my copy. Excellent resource and all Christians should read it, to promote understanding and a
furtherance of Christian unity - which the devil hates.

 

[zz912]

Just off the top of my head some problems you have without a Church to declare the canon of Scripture:

1. Why are the letters of 2 John and 3 John included since they were written by John the Presbyter, who was not an Apostle?
2. The authorship of Hebrews is in question, why is it included in the canon?
3. Why is the Protoevangelium of James not included in the canon?
4. Why is the Didache not included in the canon?
5. Why is 1st Clement not included in the canon?

 

[Tx3bro]

2 Tim 3:16 “All scripture is God-breathed…”

That’s why.

In the KJV I have it says:

2 Tim 3:16 “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction is righteousness,”
it goes on to say “that the man of god may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

 

[jinc1019]

If the Bible was completely infallible, why does it include contradictions,such as the presumably contradictory accounts of something as important as the fate of Judas Iscariot?

I don’t think it is vital to believe this in order to be a faithful Christian. The Bible doesn’t have to bee seen as a Christian Koran.

Putting the second comment aside, I tend to agree with you that the gospels do give slightly different accounts of what happened and shouldn’t be read as if everything that occurred in all four gospels actually happened in real life. It’s better to think of them as four authoritative traditions of what actually happened that we should listen to and follow because it is the best we have and it’s what God wants us to know. To say the birth narratives, for instance, or Jesus pointing out Judas at supper, are the same stories in all gospel accounts is wrong.

 

[jinc1019]

They professed to be followers of Jesus, which is why I thought it relevant to your query. (the Church of Scientology, in contradistinction, does not profess to follow Jesus, which is why they don’t consider the Bible inerrant - so they are actually out of scope).

It is relevant yes! Thank you for posting.

 

[jinc1019]

Why would we assume the same promise of guidance by the Spirit did not apply to Paul, especially given his direct appointment as an apostle by the risen Christ, who instructed him? The objective nature of his apostleship is available from his report regarding his visit to Jerusalem prior to his mission to the Gentiles (Gal. 1–2). After examining him, Peter and James did two things. First, they “added nothing to me” (Gal. 2:6). In other words, they recognized that Paul knew everything they knew even though he had not walked with them as one of the original Twelve; Paul had no need for other apostles to “fill in the blanks” in what he knew. Second, “they gave me … the right hand of fellowship” (2:9). They saw nothing in what the risen Jesus had revealed to him that needed correction. Thus, the original apostles confirmed Paul’s true apostleship. Peter also confirms the writings of Paul. As to any other writers, assuming here you mean Luke and Mark…both accounts are based on eyewitness testimony of the apostolic college.T

The reason I wouldn’t assume guidance from the Holy Spirit is because it is nowhere suggested that Paul had this guidance or was promised this protection. Further, in 1 Galatians 8 (or 5), Paul says “Even if we or the angels in heaven” teach something that contradicts the gospel he had already given them, don’t listen. Why would he say that if he knew he had infallible protection from the Holy Spirit? If he knew he couldn’t teach error, why teach the Galatians that it is possible he could?