Are there any churches that reject Biblical inerrancy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jinc1019
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tx3bro said:
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.”
Click to expand...
The problem is that it does not define which writings are scripture and which are not. Only the Church can do that. It also does not say that scripture is all.
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
Yes, that would be a circular argument. Hence why I don’t use it.

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?
Click to expand...
Precisely right on this issue. Ultimately, the Church, including many in the Early Church, have relied on scripture to affirm that infallibility exists, all while relying on their infallibility to assert the claim of scripture.

I also agree that in totality, we can be reasonably certain on many things…But the issue still remains whether letters like those written by Paul should be treated as if Jesus Himself spoke them.
 
Tx3bro said:
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.”
Click to expand...
When this was written, it was in reference to the Old Testament.
 
jinc1019 said:
When this was written, it was in reference to the Old Testament.
Click to expand...
And, scripture did not help Paul at all to answer the circumcision question in Acts 15. He had to set the scriptures aside and seek an answer from the Church. The Church, for her part, settled the debate for all time. The action of the first Church council caused the writing of Acts 15.
 
po18guy said:
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.
Click to expand...
It is a circle because as soon as someone asks the question, “How do we know the scriptures are really from God?” The Church immediately says authority. When one asks, “How do we know the Church as authority?” The Church immediately points to scripture, namely Mathew.
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
  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?
Click to expand...
I really enjoyed this.

But in fairness, how do we know the Bible is infallible if the Bible was compiled by fallible humans? For Catholics, the answer to this is simple. I don’t know how Protestants address this issue.
 
jinc1019 said:
It is a circle because as soon as someone asks the question, “How do we know the scriptures are really from God?” The Church immediately says authority. When one asks, “How do we know the Church as authority?” The Church immediately points to scripture, namely Mathew.
Click to expand...
It is their question that is circular. This is why scripture begins with “In the beginning” Is that circular? The circularity refers to their incredulity or lack of belief alone, and reflects not one whit on the truthfulness of the assertion.
 
jinc1019 said:
Ok thanks for pointing that out. Admittedly, I know almost nothing about Gnosticism. Is there an official website for a large denomination or something I could look through?
Click to expand...
Jinc,

Gnosisofthomas is speaking of a group formed by a Liberal Catholic not necessarily ancient gnositicism that is not part of the OHCAC and never was.
 
jinc1019 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Understandable. However, you would then have to make the argument that Jesus selected Paul to his apostle to the Gentiles, instructed him for three years, conferred the power to work miracles - and yet failed to bless his apostolate with the same authority to priclaim divine revelation. I dont think thats a tenable position.
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?
Click to expand...
Paul is using hyperbole here. Be that as it may, if you’re stating that Paul could teach error, then you undermine your own position as well since it would indicate the apostokic witbess could be erroneous; which by extension woukd mean the magesterium can teach error.
 
jinc1019 said:
I realize this only applies to conservative Protestants. Why do they believe the Bible is inerrant, especially the things not attributed to Jesus
Click to expand...
Adherents of biblical Christianity believe the Bible is inerrant because God , who cannot lie (Num 23:19, Heb 6:18) has declared it to be so (2 Tim 3:16).
 
jinc1019 said:
I really enjoyed this.

But in fairness, how do we know the Bible is infallible if the Bible was compiled by fallible humans? For Catholics, the answer to this is simple. I don’t know how Protestants address this issue.
Click to expand...
I did address it. But to be sure I am not discounting the witness of the church to the reliability of the canon. However, that your epistemic gives you no advantage over the Protestant position is demonstrated by the fact that if you are relying solely on the infallibility of the church to know that the Bible is inspired, you have to first determine that the church is infallible; which you can only determine by referring to inspired Scripture; which still doesnt tell you WHICH church that claims to be the truly infallible possesor of sacred apostolic tradition is the right one.
 
CopticChristian said:
Jinc,

Gnosisofthomas is speaking of a group formed by a Liberal Catholic not necessarily ancient gnositicism that is not part of the OHCAC and never was.
Click to expand...
We base our theology solidly on the writings of the ancient Gnostics themselves… I offered the site because it contains a large collection of primary source material (e.g. the Gnostic scriptures), and because jinc1019 asked for the website of a Gnostic denomination. Ours is one of the largest and oldest in the US… I was just trying to be helpful.

We see ourselves as part of the OHCAC, just as many other Christian denominations do.
 
Arizona_Samson said:
Adherents of biblical Christianity believe the Bible is inerrant because God , who cannot lie (Num 23:19, Heb 6:18) has declared it to be so (2 Tim 3:16).
Click to expand...
What does “biblical Christianity” say about these books (regarded as canonical by early Christians):

1 & 2 Maccabees
Sirach
Wisdom
Baruch
Tobit; and
Judith

??
 
katholikos12 said:
am i thinking of the council of Trent? the one that happened right after the reformation…

but i was taught about the nicean council, but the CC was left out entirely. it wasn’t even mentioned.
Click to expand...
Yes, the Council of Trent was in response to the Reformation.

That’s interesting that you were taught about the Council of Nicaea but no mention of the Catholic Church. That’s like learning about the Colosseum with no mention of the Romans.
 
Gaelic_Bard said:
…However, that your epistemic gives you no advantage over the Protestant position is demonstrated by the fact that if you are relying solely on the infallibility of the church to know that the Bible is inspired, you have to first determine that the church is infallible; which you can only determine by referring to inspired Scripture; which still doesnt tell you WHICH church that claims to be the truly infallible possesor of sacred apostolic tradition is the right one.
Click to expand...
Are you not also relying on the infallibility of the Church…?
 
SteveVH said:
Yes, the Council of Trent was in response to the Reformation.

That’s interesting that you were taught about the Council of Nicaea but no mention of the Catholic Church. That’s like learning about the Colosseum with no mention of the Romans.
Click to expand...
Its like they were hiding something.

Just fyi the curriculum I got this from was from the Pensacola Christian Academy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top