Fallibility: The Theological Implications

[Bubba_Switzler]

I’ve been pondering the issues surrounding the various claims of infallibility that permeate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.

Several of the threads I started are directly or indirectly related to this issue (see below).

For the most part, the central question remains unanwered: There does not seem to be a good argument for infallibility that does not rest on acceptance of infallibility. And, yet, when I have proposed that belief in infallibliity is a matter of faith I have met only objections.

What I’d like to do here is explore the implications of fallibility. Suppose that the Church and the Bible are not infallible but fallible. What would that imply theologically?

The first implication is that if that is so then they cannot be from God in the sense that Catholics believe. The argument that God would not give us a fallible Church or Bible is certainly a reasonable one. But it is by no means obvious that traditional Chrisitian view here is correct.

It is entirely plausible that the Church arose as a natural consequence of Jesus’ activities and that the Bible is man’s effort to record his interactions with God.

If that were the case, what would it imply theologically?

Some of my previous threads on the subject (in reverse chronological order):

Infallibility: What Does It Mean?

Thank God for Protestantism

The Essence of Catholicism

Apostasy vs. Apostolic Succession

Opinion and Faith

 

[Roman_Army]

I’ve been pondering the issues surrounding the various claims of infallibility that permeate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.

Several of the threads I started are directly or indirectly related to this issue (see below).

For the most part, the central question remains unanwered: There does not seem to be a good argument for infallibility that does not rest on acceptance of infallibility. And, yet, when I have proposed that belief in infallibliity is a matter of faith I have met only objections.

What I’d like to do here is explore the implications of fallibility. Suppose that the Church and the Bible are not infallible but fallible. What would that imply theologically?

The first implication is that if that is so then they cannot be from God in the sense that Catholics believe. The argument that God would not give us a fallible Church or Bible is certainly a reasonable one. But it is by no means obvious that traditional Chrisitian view here is correct.

It is entirely plausible that the Church arose as a natural consequence of Jesus’ activities and that the Bible is man’s effort to record his interactions with God.

If that were the case, what would it imply theologically?

Some of my previous threads on the subject (in reverse chronological order):

Infallibility: What Does It Mean?

Thank God for Protestantism

The Essence of Catholicism

Apostasy vs. Apostolic Succession

Opinion and Faith

The implications would be that theology itself would be a worthless and meaningless hobby. No need to strive for holiness when one is uncertain what holiness is. No need to go to Church, no need to pray or worship, and no need to help your fellow human being in order for you to attain salvation. No need to feel guilty for transgression since it would be all relative. No need for good vs. evil or right vs. wrong. Certainly, that would be the convenient approach wouldn’t it? Though at the same time cause much despair. However, that is not the case. God revealed himself to man and has guided him to write the Scriptures and establish a Church.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The implications would be that theology itself would be a worthless and meaningless hobby. No need to strive for holiness when one is uncertain what holiness is No need to go to Church, no need to pray or worship, and no need to help your fellow human being in order for you to attain salvation. No need to feel guilty for transgression since it would be all relative. No need for good vs. evil or right vs. wrong. Certainly, that would be the convenient approach wouldn’t it? Though at the same time cause much despair.

This strikes me as a complete non-sequitor. Perhaps you could elaborate on your views here as to why you believe that the latter logically follows from the fomer.

To begin with, fallibility doees not imply falsity, not necessarily in detail and certainly not necessarily in aggregate. Further, insofar as we can be certain that God expects us to sort out good and evil, uncertainty does not imply that the task is pointless.

For example, it is entirely plausible that the Church, though fallible, is still the best teacher on matters of good and evil. If it is the best teacher then does infallibility render it impotent? I would think not.

We deal with such uncertainty all the time without throwing up our hands in despair.

However, that is not the case. God revealed himself to man and has guided him to write the Scriptures and establish a Church.

I understand the Catholic view in this regard but have yet to see a solid argument for it that does not rest on circularity. (As noted previously, my suggestion that this is a matter of faith was also rejected.)

If we suppose that God revelaed himself to man but did not guide him to write the scriptures or establish the Church in an infallible manner, then what does that imply for theology? We would not say that faillibility in archeology, say, renders the subject a futile effort.

You seem to be offering a false dichotomy between infallibilty and uselessness which sounds more like a cheap debating trick than a serious argument.

 

[DOShea]

If we suppose that God revelaed himself to man but did not guide him to write the scriptures or establish the Church in an infallible manner, then what does that imply for theology? We would not say that faillibility in archeology, say, renders the subject a futile effort.

The key words here are “if we suppose.” Supposing that there is some element of falsehood somewhere, unknowable where, in Scripture, Teaching, or Tradition. The implications of that are that Jesus, as God, lied. He gave us an empty promise. Further, in doing so, He would have became man, led a sinless life, suffered, died a gruesome death, and rose from the dead for no reason except to sow the seeds of doubt and confusion. Doing so, reasonably, makes God not God, for all the superlatives we relate to His Being would be false. He would no longer be Truth, but false when He felt like it. That means we couldn’t say He is just. A God who is not just cannot be a God of love. It would basically be another circular argument, this time that God is good only to sometimes be bad or mischievous and deceptive. That is why it is rejected.

What if we were to suppose the math behind a physics proof is equally invalid. There’s an error it, we’re not sure where. What does that do to the physics we prove it with? It renders the whole of it in doubt since we can’t know the error or its magnitude.

You seem to be offering a false dichotomy between infallibilty and uselessness which sounds more like a cheap debating trick than a serious argument.

The only serious arguments upon which this is all based are two:

God exists.
God reveals Himself to man and is who He says He is.

If those are both true, you cannot have Him promising truth and delivering anything short of that, no matter what you suppose, no matter who He uses to deliver that Truth or how they deliver it.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

The key words here are “if we suppose.” Supposing that there is some element of falsehood somewhere, unknowable where, in Scripture, Teaching, or Tradition.

To be precise, the supposition is that we are not guaranteed that Scripture is infallibly true. But this supposition is only interesting insofar as there is some element of falsehood somewhere in it. In the previous thread I explored the different meanings beind infallibility and one of the most important is the limited knowledge of the receivers of truth.

The implications of that are that Jesus, as God, lied. He gave us an empty promise.

This seems be a popular non-sequitor, perhaps the key matter to discuss here. It would seem only reasonable for someone making this argument to show that God has promised mankind an infallible understanding of God. Otherwise, this makes no sense. If God hasn’t promised mankind infallible understanding then no promise is broken when God leaves man to his incomple, and imperfect understanding of God.

In favor of the this incomplete and imperfect understanding, we have the evidence of the Bible itself. God did not reveal himself fully to Abraham or to Moses and the Pharisees certainly had a flawed view of God which led (most of) them to reject Jesus.

Further, in doing so, He would have became man, led a sinless life, suffered, died a gruesome death, and rose from the dead for no reason except to sow the seeds of doubt and confusion.

That would only make sense if we believed that there was more doubt and confusion following Jesus than preceding him. But if mankind knew more from Jesus then he did not sow seeds of doubt and confusion but rather revealed more to mankind.

Doing so, reasonably, makes God not God, for all the superlatives we relate to His Being would be false. He would no longer be Truth, but false when He felt like it. That means we couldn’t say He is just. A God who is not just cannot be a God of love. It would basically be another circular argument, this time that God is good only to sometimes be bad or mischievous and deceptive. That is why it is rejected.

But this is the same false dichotomy again. It is not a contradiciton to say that God is perfect truth but mankind is flawed and thus unable to fully comprehend God and thus errs in recording his experience with God and teaching about God.

What if we were to suppose the math behind a physics proof is equally invalid. There’s an error it, we’re not sure where. What does that do to the physics we prove it with? It renders the whole of it in doubt since we can’t know the error or its magnitude.

In fact, science is constantly testing its suppositions and entertaining alternative theories that better fit the facts. Science has a different characteristic from God’s revelation, though, so whether this approach can work in theology is debatable. How do you conduct experiments in theology to test new theories?

The only serious arguments upon which this is all based are two: God exists. God reveals Himself to man and is who He says He is.

If those are both true, you cannot have Him promising truth and delivering anything short of that, no matter what you suppose, no matter who He uses to deliver that Truth or how they deliver it.

You have jumped from God revealing himself to a promise of true understanding which, as I noted above, is not the same thing.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Bubba,

Going back to your “circular argument”, you are correct in saying that one cannot argue for infallibility based on the presumption of infallibility. Our faith rests on the Resurrection of Christ and everything else depends on that, infallibility included. The historical fact of the resurrection has been transmitted to us through some 65 generations, and our faith in Christ, tradition and scripture rests on it. As St. Paul says, if Christ did not resurrrect, then our faith is vain and we are the unhappiest of men.

Verbum

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Going back to your “circular argument”, you are correct in saying that one cannot argue for infallibility based on the presumption of infallibility. Our faith rests on the Resurrection of Christ and everything else depends on that, infallibility included. The historical fact of the resurrection has been transmitted to us through some 65 generations, and our faith in Christ, tradition and scripture rests on it. As St. Paul says, if Christ did not resurrrect, then our faith is vain and we are the unhappiest of men.

So let me be clear, I have no issue with faith, per se, but I do want to know what is faith and what is not. I am entirely comfortable with the fact not everything is directly observable and that some faith is required. But when I have proposed that infallibility is, itself, a matter of faith I meet only with objections.

Now certainly belief (I would argue it is not entirely faith) in the resurection is necessary to the essense of Christianity.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think you are claiming that it is sufficient. It seems entirely plausible to me that the resurection may have occured and, yet, that scriptue and tradition are not infallible. Or, to put it another way, being right about one thing does not imply being right about all things. So what else is required to establish the truth of the claim of infallibility?

 

[Alindawyl]

So let me be clear, I have no issue with faith, per se, but I do want to know what is faith and what is not. I am entirely comfortable with the fact not everything is directly observable and that some faith is required. But when I have proposed that infallibility is, itself, a matter of faith I meet only with objections.

I don’t know why that would be met with objections. We can determine that there is a Creator of the universe, some sort of supreme being we call God, through reason. But we can’t determine anything about the nature of God without faith because we can’t directly observe, measure, or test God. Faith is required to believe that there is only one God but that he is three distinct persons, or to believe that fallible creatures can be infallible in specific situations through the guidance of God.

You simply can’t reason on such matters without bringing faith into the picture.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I don’t know why that would be met with objections. We can determine that there is a Creator of the universe, some sort of supreme being we call God, through reason. But we can’t determine anything about the nature of God without faith because we can’t directly observe, measure, or test God. Faith is required to believe that there is only one God but that he is three distinct persons, or to believe that fallible creatures can be infallible in specific situations through the guidance of God. You simply can’t reason on such matters without bringing faith into the picture.

You’re the first in these forums to take this position. More prevelant is the claim that infallibility is a logical conclusion of God’s nature and revelation to mankind as exemplified in some of the previous posts.

On the other hand, as I’ve noted before, if you begin with faith that God exists (and has the characteristics that we generally ascribe to him) and that God gave us the Church then everything else falls into place.

Still, my sympathy lies with those who seek to minimize the scope of faith. If, for example, it could be shown that the claim of a fallible Church leads to logical contradictions then that would relieve the need for faith and go toward providing a convincing argument for those who are not born into the Catholic faith.

 

[cassini]

I’ve been pondering the issues surrounding the various claims of infallibility that permeate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular.

Several of the threads I started are directly or indirectly related to this issue (see below).

For the most part, the central question remains unanwered: There does not seem to be a good argument for infallibility that does not rest on acceptance of infallibility. And, yet, when I have proposed that belief in infallibliity is a matter of faith I have met only objections.

What I’d like to do here is explore the implications of fallibility. Suppose that the Church and the Bible are not infallible but fallible. What would that imply theologically?

The first implication is that if that is so then they cannot be from God in the sense that Catholics believe. The argument that God would not give us a fallible Church or Bible is certainly a reasonable one. But it is by no means obvious that traditional Chrisitian view here is correct.

It is entirely plausible that the Church arose as a natural consequence of Jesus’ activities and that the Bible is man’s effort to record his interactions with God.

If that were the case, what would it imply theologically?

What a massive question. Indeed books have been written to try to answer these questions. For me, Catholicism is the only religion that has an answer for everything. Thus I can have faith in it as a complete religion. It was structured by god and thus like nature, it has to have certain ingredients to work properly. As He created a massive eco-system that operates in perfect harmony, with every creature necessary to prevent collapse, so too did God include in his religion for salvation all the systems for it to work too. Thus infallible Scriptures are crucial for their viability, and an infallible interpreter crucial for theological understanding and credibility of the faith that derives from the Bible’s teaching. If any ingredient of the Catholic Faith were not there, our ability to believe would be lessened. Indeed, so successful has this structure been that it has survived without ‘infallible’ contradiction throughout the ages.

Scientifically we can view Catholicism so:

Anyone who accepts the teaching of Christ need not fall back on a single arbitrary postulate. If he/she is a philosopher, one starts from the premises dictated by reason. In the world around us we recognises the natural revelation of a Creator, and by logical deductions concluded from the contingency of things created to the Being Uncreated. The same reasoning gives us an understanding of the spirituality and immortality of the soul. From both results combined we concluded further to moral obligations and the existence of the natural law. Thus prepared one can start into any scientific research without the necessity of erecting boundary stakes for the purpose of justifying any prejudices. If one wants to go further and put our faith upon a scientific basis, we may take the books called the Sacred Scriptures as a starting point, apply methodical criticism to their authenticity, and find them just as reliable as any other historical record. Their contents, prophecies, and miracles convince us of the Divinity of Christ, and from the testimony of Jesus Christ we accepts the entire supernatural revelation. We have constructed the science of our faith without any other than scientific premises. Thus the science of the Christian is the only one that gives freedom of research and progress; its boundaries are none but the pale of truth.

 

[anon5216]

I’d say the implications are pretty profound.

Fallibility of scripture and Church leadership would of necessity require much more genuine spiritual development of leaders and followers alike.
Infallibility allows one to rest in comfortable security, believing that professed loyalty to some dozens or perhaps hundreds of text based precepts guarantees everlasting bliss of Heaven after earthly death.

Fallibility leaves you with just enough information to be intrigued by the possibilities of spiritual Truth and the hints at how to achieve it, but still requires you to use all your faculties to discover/experience it directly for yourself.
Infallibility allows you to settle for the ignorance of believing various combinations of human created alphabet symbols are Truth Itself, with the promised reward to come post physical death.

Fallibility requires each individual to master their human nature in the sense that a great musician masters their instrument or a great athlete masters the movement of their body.
Infallibility allows many more people to feel assured that they are spiritually saved, but only in the sense they might believe they’re real musicians just because they’ve memorized a list of conservatory required scales, arpeggios and basic repertoire, or feel assured they are true athletes just because they attended PE classes in school and got a passing grade.

Fallibility can include claims of infallibility within it (after all, those ‘infallible’ claims could simply be ‘fallible’ mistakes), without the Divine Perfection of a Fallible Church being affected in the slightest.
Infallibility, however, is very rigid and brittle. One little proof of any aspect being wrong and the whole house of cards comes crashing down.
(A very good reason, btw, to maintain infallibility claims exclusively for areas that can’t be empirically proven or disproven).

Conclusion:
A fallible Scripture and a fallible Church is far closer to Truth and God, but requires more of a ‘college’ level spiritual student.
Claims of infallibility may be quite appropriate for spiritual ‘kindergarten’ to get people started and feeling some (even if entirely illusory) spiritual confidence;
but Church leadership really should allow the sheep, at some point, to graduate at least beyond spiritual High School.

 

[caolinlin]

thanks for sharing.it is useful and great for me
http://www.photosnag.com/img/4713/n09x0302vnsn/clear.gif

 

[diggerdomer]

Suppose that the Church and the Bible are not infallible but fallible. What would that imply theologically?

It would imply the incarnational aspect of both, i.e. that there are human elements in the Church and human authors cooperated in writing Scripture. Humans are fallible. Not a stunning theological insight imho.

 

[Alindawyl]

You’re the first in these forums to take this position. More prevelant is the claim that infallibility is a logical conclusion of God’s nature and revelation to mankind as exemplified in some of the previous posts.

On the other hand, as I’ve noted before, if you begin with faith that God exists (and has the characteristics that we generally ascribe to him) and that God gave us the Church then everything else falls into place.

Still, my sympathy lies with those who seek to minimize the scope of faith. If, for example, it could be shown that the claim of a fallible Church leads to logical contradictions then that would relieve the need for faith and go toward providing a convincing argument for those who are not born into the Catholic faith.

It’s reasonable to claim infallibility for a Church established by God rather than man. Determining the Catholic Church is such a Church is not something which appears clear to me based on reason alone. Faith that the Church is telling the truth seems to be required.

I admit that I may be mistaken, but that’s my take for whatever it’s worth.

 

[anon5216]

It would imply the incarnational aspect of both, i.e. that there are human elements in the Church and human authors cooperated in writing Scripture. Humans are fallible. Not a stunning theological insight imho.

Sounds like you agree that the Church and the Bible are fallible.
You really don’t think there are in stunning ramifications to that reality?

 

[anon5216]

It’s reasonable to claim infallibility for a Church established by God rather than man. Determining the Catholic Church is such a Church is not something which appears clear to me based on reason alone. Faith that the Church is telling the truth seems to be required.

I admit that I may be mistaken, but that’s my take for whatever it’s worth.

The OP wasn’t referring to whether or not the Church/Scripture are fallible or infallible - as obviously infallibility is a matter of faith, not of objective fact.

The real issue the OP is tackling is:
Assume the Church and Scripture are fallible and errant.
Now, what would be the theological implications of that truth?

 

[diggerdomer]

Sounds like you agree that the Church and the Bible are fallible.
You really don’t think there are in stunning ramifications to that reality?

The Bible is true, and the Church is true.

They both have human elements, too, and people make errors. We know there are differences in translations of Scripture, due to human errors and limitations, and we know the Church has made mistakes.

Still, not stunning to me, really.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

I plan to reply soon to the many interesting posts in this thread but I wanted to avoid the temptation to impose my own opinion before hearing people out on this.

But I do want to reply here:

The OP wasn’t referring to whether or not the Church/Scripture are fallible or infallible - as obviously infallibility is a matter of faith, not of objective fact.

This is certainily a point of dispute. I had thought it would be best to consider it a matter of faith but most Catholics seem to take the view that it is an objectively established fact, i.e. something that can be proven by use of the ordinary senses and reason. (I have yet to see an argument that does not rest on circularity but I am listening hard for one.)

The real issue the OP is tackling is: Assume the Church and Scripture are fallible and errant. Now, what would be the theological implications of that truth?

Yes:

1. This assumption may leads to a contradiction then that would suggest that the assumption is in error.
2. This assumption may lead to no interesting conclusions in which case it is uninteresting.
3. This assumption may lead to interesting insights on God and revelation.

Essentially, fallibility introduces uncertainty. But it’s not at all obvious that uncertainty changes anything. If, for example, we cannot be certain that Mary was a virgin throughout her life such a conclusion might still be the best guess as to the truth of the matter.

For uncertainty to impact theology there must be an alternative competing source of knowledge about God. Otherwise you just end up with the same theology held with a little less certainty.

 

[Roman_Army]

This strikes me as a complete non-sequitor. Perhaps you could elaborate on your views here as to why you believe that the latter logically follows from the fomer.

To begin with, fallibility doees not imply falsity, not necessarily in detail and certainly not necessarily in aggregate. Further, insofar as we can be certain that God expects us to sort out good and evil, uncertainty does not imply that the task is pointless.

For example, it is entirely plausible that the Church, though fallible, is still the best teacher on matters of good and evil. If it is the best teacher then does infallibility render it impotent? I would think not.

We deal with such uncertainty all the time without throwing up our hands in despair.

I understand the Catholic view in this regard but have yet to see a solid argument for it that does not rest on circularity. (As noted previously, my suggestion that this is a matter of faith was also rejected.)

If we suppose that God revelaed himself to man but did not guide him to write the scriptures or establish the Church in an infallible manner, then what does that imply for theology? We would not say that faillibility in archeology, say, renders the subject a futile effort.

You seem to be offering a false dichotomy between infallibilty and uselessness which sounds more like a cheap debating trick than a serious argument.

To restrict theology to mere usefulness ironically renders it useless. Indeed, some have considered murder as useful and rationalize it. Same can be said with the prohibition of all other types of sins. Doctrines and dogmas that is useful to the minority of devout Catholics can just as easily be useless to the vast majority of the world’s population. Indeed, even devout Catholics at times see them as useless. There would be no harmony and consistency in Faith. So, then what would be the point of going to Church when staying home on the couch watching a football game and praying to the football god is just fine since it’s useful. Aborting a fetus or killing off sick patients would also be useful to relieve the burden, etc. Good is not always useful. Indeed, one might say that whenever one makes the hardest choice it is usually the right one. It would certainly be much more difficult to take care of the sick patient than to euthanize them or the raise a child than to abort them, etc. Making the right choices is usually not useful at all, at least not in the earthly sense.

 

[anon5216]

To restrict theology to mere usefulness ironically renders it useless. Indeed, some have considered murder as useful and rationalize it. Same can be said with the prohibition of all other types of sins. Doctrines and dogmas that is useful to the minority of devout Catholics can just as easily be useless to the vast majority of the world’s population. Indeed, even devout Catholics at times see them as useless. There would be no harmony and consistency in Faith. So, then what would be the point of going to Church when staying home on the couch watching a football game and praying to the football god is just fine since it’s useful. Aborting a fetus or killing off sick patients would also be useful to relieve the burden, etc. Good is not always useful. Indeed, one might say that whenever one makes the hardest choice it is usually the right one. It would certainly be much more difficult to take care of the sick patient than to euthanize them or the raise a child than to abort them, etc. Making the right choices is usually not useful at all, at least not in the earthly sense.

The implications would be that theology itself would be a worthless and meaningless hobby. No need to strive for holiness when one is uncertain what holiness is. No need to go to Church, no need to pray or worship, and no need to help your fellow human being in order for you to attain salvation. No need to feel guilty for transgression since it would be all relative. No need for good vs. evil or right vs. wrong. Certainly, that would be the convenient approach wouldn’t it? Though at the same time cause much despair. However, that is not the case. God revealed himself to man and has guided him to write the Scriptures and establish a Church.

Roman_Army,

The only reference to uselessness in Bubba Switzler’s post was in response to your 2nd post above - describing not theology but rather your peculiar understanding of fallibility vs. infallibility.

Your concern seems to be in establishing unquestioned authority - the idea of a fallible Church and a possibly errant scripture clearly threatens that authority.
Truth requires no “authority” and is not in any way threatened by fallible human (including Church) attempts at expressing Truth.