Are there any churches that reject Biblical inerrancy?

[po18guy]

As usual, this is getting silly.

 

[PRmerger]

No.

Absolutely you are. You must rely on the authority of the CC to tell you what is inspired and what is not.

Unless you want to tell us that you examined all of the ancient texts and devised a list of criteria for determining what was* theopneustos* and what was not…

 

[choliks]

"stewstew03:

Are you not also relying on the infallibility of the Church…?

No.

stewstew03:

Oh. So, did you come up with your own canon of scripture?

Gaelic Bard:

Nope.

Sigh.

po18guy:

As usual, this is getting silly.

Indeed. It’s silly to think that they do not rely on the the Christ-given authority of the Church to canonize the books of the Bible, when they wouldn’t be able to hold nor read one without such.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Absolutely you are. You must rely on the authority of the CC to tell you what is inspired and what is not.

Unless you want to tell us that you examined all of the ancient texts and devised a list of criteria for determining what was* theopneustos* and what was not…

No, I don’t. I rely on the authority of the Holy Spirit, who inspired them, is their author, and as such gave them to the church. Again, your argument is circular. You have two presuppositions with which I don’t agree, because they are based on logical fallacies. Can you answer any of the questions I posed earlier?

 

[cath4alltime]

Many Protestants think the Bible fell out of the sky with gold gilded edges and wide margins. They are very afraid to even admit the Church councils had anything to do with the canon

 

[PRmerger]

No, I don’t. I rely on the authority of the Holy Spirit, who inspired them, is their author, and as such gave them to the church.

Exactly.

So you are relying on the Church (which was assisted by the Holy Spirit) to discern for you what was theopneustos and what was not.

2 conclusions:

You believe in the infallibility of the Church.

You believe in Sacred Tradition.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Exactly.

So you are relying on the Church (which was assisted by the Holy Spirit) to discern for you what was theopneustos and what was not.

2 conclusions:

You believe in the infallibility of the Church.

You believe in Sacred Tradition.

No…I am relying on the infallibility of God the Spirit. You do realize that your own church body agrees with this, right? The Roman magesterium has already stated that it receives the canon not because of its own authority but because God gave them. But I am not going to go in pedantic circles with you. Can you answer any of the questions that I posed earlier?

 

[PRmerger]

No…I am relying on the infallibility of God the Spirit.

Sure. But that’s like saying, in response to the question, “Where do babies come from?”

“Babies come from God”

Well, yes. Of course.

But God uses people. Parents.

Similarly, God used the Church to discern for you the canon of Scripture, and each and every time you quote from, say, Hebrews, you are giving tacit submission to the authority of the Catholic Church.

You would have NO OTHER WAY of knowing, with certainty, that Hebrews is inspired…

except through the authority of the CC.

You do realize that your own church body agrees with this, right?

Absolutely she does.

Just like the CC teaches that babies come from God. But they also come from parents.

That’s Catholic, too.

The Roman magesterium has already stated that it receives the canon not because of its own authority but because God gave them.

Indeed.

And you defer to the authority of this Roman magisterium when you profess that the Gospel of Mark is theopneustos.

For you would not know it any other way, Gaelic
.

But I am not going to go in pedantic circles with you.

Yes, this is the typical response when there is no rebuttal.

Can you answer any of the questions that I posed earlier?

I will address them shortly.

 

[pablope]

No, I don’t. I rely on the authority of the Holy Spirit, who inspired them, is their author, and as such gave them to the church. Again, your argument is circular. You have two presuppositions with which I don’t agree, because they are based on logical fallacies. Can you answer any of the questions I posed earlier?

Okay…can you show how/demonstrate how the HS gave the canon to the Church? Did a piece of paper drop from heaven? Through a revelation to someone?

And by the way…which church? And what should the list be…66 books or 73?

And how did the HS write them? Did the HS take pen and paper and personnaly wrote each book?

And how about the Epistle of Clement of Rome to Corinth…this was considered Scirpture in the first two hundred years or so…so how come it is not part of the Canon? Did the HS say it is not…and if so…how did the HS communicate this? And to whom?

 

[PRmerger]

1. What is the infallible interpretation of Matt 16:18?

This is a Protestant paradigm and the CC does not take verses and give “infallible interpretations.”

Rather, Scripture is to be interpreted in light of the entirety of God’s revelation, that is, through the lens of Sacred Tradition.

As such, we understand that Matthew 16 is instituting apostolic primacy in Blessed Peter.

 

[PRmerger]

1. How do you know it’s infallible?
2. How can I know infallibly that the way you know it’s infallible is infallible?
3. How do YOU know infallibly that what the infallible interpreter says is infallible?

Answers to 2-4: Because we interpret the Scriptures through the lens of Tradition, which gave us these Scriptures.

Just like you accept Tradition each and every time you quote, say, 3 John, as being inspired.

1. Since you’re not infallible how can I trust what you say?

You don’t have to trust what I say. You have already trusted what the Catholic Church says, at least when it comes to defining what’s inspired and what’s not.

You trust that the Church got it right in keeping Revelation in the canon, and excluding the Didache.

You have no other reason to believe that Revelation is inspired…

except that the Catholic Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, told you it was.

 

[PRmerger]

1. Since I’m not infallible, how can I interpret infallibly what the infallible interpreter said?

You can’t.

That’s why there’s tens of thousands of Christian denominations, each claiming that their fallible interpretations of Scripture are the correct ones.

1. 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?

You can, and do. Each and every time you proclaim something that is consonant with the teachings of the Apostles, given once for all, as revealed in the Catholic Church, you have infallibly interpreted Jesus’ revelation.

1. If I can do neither, how am I ever going to reap the advantages of the infallible interpreter?

By giving your full acknowledgement of this Church’s authority…rather than just the partial one you give when you quote from, say, Philemon.

1. 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?

Well, you can ex out the Sedevacantists and the latter groups, for they have divorced themselves from the faith of the Apostles.

If you simply submit to any of the first 3 you’ll have submitted to the same infallible teachings, for there is no difference in dogmas in any of those Churches, save the primacy of Peter. And I’ll let you slide on that one, should you choose to submit to the EO or OO on that.

1. How do I infallibly determine which of the above groups is the possesor of infallible apostolic tradition?

See above.

 

[jinc1019]

Not everything in the Bible is true. The O.T states that the earth was the center of the universe. Thats not true. But as a human, we tend to think of Heaven above us and hell below us. So from that point of view, the earth is at the center. Im not trying to say the writers of the O.T didnt know what they were talking about but if a non believer reads the Bible, they will find it and use it to dicredit our beliefs.

I tend to agree that not everything in the Bible should be taken literally, and certainly not out of context. I also think parts of the Old Testament are likely not historically true…but who knows!

 

[jinc1019]

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.

Very interesting! Thanks for sharing!

 

[jinc1019]

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.

The Catholic view on scripture is, at least modern Catholic thought, more open to looking at the Bible in a non-literal way than conservative Protestants are. So I agree with your assessment.

 

[jinc1019]

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.

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.

First of all, excellent point about Paul as an apostle.

Second of all, your second point is rather weak. I don’t think Paul was simply using hyperbole…I believe he was making the point clear that the Word of Jesus is really what matters, nothing else, at least not in a purely authoritative sense.

Third, I am not AT ALL undermining my own position because you are making the assumption, reasonably so, that I believe the Catholic Church has infallibility, which I don’t, in any capacity.

 

[jinc1019]

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).

The quote so often used from Timothy is referencing the Old Testament. The New Testament was not yet founded.

 

[jinc1019]

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.

Again, I don’t believe in Papal infallibility or in Church infallibility…which, being a Catholic, has created a lot of problems for myself, especially on these forums.

 

[jinc1019]

What does “biblical Christianity” say about these books (regarded as canonical by early Christians):

1 & 2 Maccabees
Sirach
Wisdom
Baruch
Tobit; and
Judith

??

In fairness, even Catholics must submit that even the Jews didn’t have a clear canon of their own Old Testament works.

 

[aragonjohn1]

I realize this only applies to conservative Protestants. Why do they believe the Bible is inerrant, especially the things not attributed to Jesus, such as Paul’s letters? I realize the Church does because of tradition and Church infallibility.

Because their Catholic forefathers and ancestors told y’all of them so.

God bless Y’all