The Bible is Infallible

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cair_Paravel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Cair_Paravel

Guest
In the October 2005 issue of This Rock, Karl Keating wrote a column entitled “The Bible Is Not Infallible” in which he argued that the adjectives “fallible” and “infallible” properly apply only to active human agents (catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0510fr.asp)).

With all due respect, Keating is wrong. He begins by comparing a book to a rock or a flower, which is an invalid comparison. True – it makes no sense to call a rock or a flower “fallible” or “infallible,” but neither does it make sense to call a rock or a flower “errant” or “inerrant.” A book is fundamentally different from a rock or a flower in that its primary purpose is to express knowledge. When people say “the Bible is infallible,” they are not saying “the thing comprising binding, paper, and ink is infallible,” but rather “the knowledge expressed through the medium of binding, paper, and ink is infallible.” In fact, the medium is quite inconsequential. Those who say “the Bible is infallible” say it is so, even when the contents of the Bible are stored magnetically and displayed on a computer screen. So the question is this: is it appropriate to use the adjectives “fallible” or “infallible” to describe expressions of knowledge such as the Bible?

Throughout its history, This Rock has frequently used the term “infallible” to describe expressions of knowledge. In the following citations, the words modified by the adjective “infallible” are underlined:

“No ecumenical council’s decrees have ever been considered infallible unless and until they were approved by a pope” (Karl Keating, May 1990).

“the Bible speaks of an infallible Sacred Tradition” (Verse by Verse, June 1995).

“there are infallible statements regarding baptism of desire” (Jimmy Akin, February 2000).

“Nothing a Pope or a council does is irreformable except for infallible definition” (Michael Petek, March 2000).

“Stated in a more general fashion, dogmas are infallible statements of truth given by the Church” (Carl Olson, October 2000).

“Catechisms are not infallible documents” (Karl Keating, January 2001).

“The Church’s decrees on doctrine and morals are infallible” (Greg Krehbiel, February 2001).

“It is included in the three infallible professions of faith—the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed” (Fathers Know Best, January 2003).

“even definitions of dogma, which are infallible, are subordinate to the Bible” (Mark Brumley, November 2003).

“Paul Casually Assumes That His Passed-Down Tradition Is Infallible and Binding” (Dave Armstrong, September 2004).

“but the Catechism is not infallible, so one can disagree with the way the conditions are formulated in the Catechism” (Jimmy Akin, March 2005).

“The Summa Theologiae is a great accomplishment, but it … is not infallible” (Quick Questions, July-August, 2005).

“This is contrary to the clear and infallible teachings of Vatican I and II” (Peggy Frye in Quick Questions, April 2006).

“With infallible doctrine this is an irrevocable assent, corresponding to the absolute certainty with which the Church guarantees its truth” (Fr. Brian W. Harrison, December 2006).

“Canonization by the pope is an infallible statement by the Church” (Michelle Arnold in Quick Questions, February 2008).

So This Rock has used “infallible” to describe decrees, statements, definitions, dogmas, documents, doctrines, professions of faith, teachings, catechisms, canonization, Sacred Tradition, the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and even the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas. None of these things are human agents, but all are expressions of knowledge. (In some of these citations, the work is said to be “not infallible,” but the intent of the author is to say that the work is not exempt from the possibility of expressing error.) Furthermore, This Rock is in good company when it uses the word in this way:

“Only definitive teaching is infallible” (New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm)).

“It effectively prevents the simplistic equation between infallible and solemn or extraordinary (papal or conciliar) teachings” (Our Sunday Visitor’s Catholic Encyclopedia, under “infallibility”).

“In interpreting infallible statements one must distinguish the point of definition from its formulation, which will be conditioned by the historical circumstances at the time” (A Concise Dictionary of Theology, under “infallibility”).

“Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, …when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a ‘definitive manner,’ they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 892).

continued on next post…
 
…

So we see that the word “infallible” is commonly used among Catholics to describe expressions of knowledge. But just because a thing is common doesn’t make it right, so let us examine the definition of the word more closely. In his column, Keating cites the definition “unable to err,” which is found in Our Sunday Visitor’s Catholic Encyclopedia, among other sources. Keating argues that since a book is literally incapable of making a decision, it is improper to say that it is “unable to err”. But such literalism is unwarranted. Fundamentally, Keating is objecting to language that personifies the written word. Shall we also object to phrases like “the Bible says…” or “the Catechism teaches…” on the grounds that a book cannot literally speak or teach? Of course not, because the book is merely the means by which the human agent communicates, so we intuitively transfer the characteristics of the writer to that which is written. But if a book can “speak” and “teach”, then it can also “decide” and “err”. The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia gives us the definition, “exempt or immune from liability to error or failure.” This definition is more satisfying, because it applies equally well to both human agents and their expressions of knowledge.

The common use of “infallible” to describe some expressions of knowledge is evidence of a linguistic need. Within Christianity, the word “infallible” is used in the context of faith and morals, and in such matters, inerrancy is difficult, if not impossible, to verify. Consider the following two statements:
• Elvis Presley died on August 16, 1977.
• The most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin.
Both statements are inerrant, but I can verify the first statement using any number of sources, whereas I cannot verify the second statement at all – I must trust the means by which it came to me. To say that the second statement is merely inerrant is unsatisfying, because there is no way for me to know that the second statement is inerrant unless I know that it is, by some miracle of grace, exempt from the possibility of expressing error. Thus, both statements are inerrant, but only the second statement is “exempt from the possibility of expressing error.” How shall we describe such articulations, if not with the word “infallible”? In all the aforementioned citations, something of the meaning is lost if the word “infallible” is replaced with the word “inerrant”.

Finally, the Bible uses the word “inspired” to describe itself (2 Timothy 3:16). Normally, we don’t describe inanimate objects such as books as “inspired” but John Henry Newman explains: “The books are inspired, because the writers were inspired to write them” (On the Inspiration of Scripture, eds. Holmes and Murray, 1967, 115). This is a clear example of transferring the characteristics of the writer to that which is written. Further, since the Bible is inspired, and since all inspired entities are infallible (but not vice versa), we must conclude that it is also acceptable to call the Bible “infallible”.

Keating’s article was uncharitable, especially given the number of times that This Rock has used the word “infallible” in exactly the same way. Christians who believe that the Bible is infallible ought to be wooed, not condescended. If there is any use of the word “infallible” that ought to be decried, it is the common practice among Catholics of invoking the triple-negative “not infallible.” When describing a person or work that may express error, such as Karl Keating, perhaps we could all just use the word “fallible.”
 
Hi Cair,

I was unable to pull up Keating’s article, but I would agree with his position that “infallible” would not be a correct term to use for the Bible. Among other things, the Bible has books/passages that are allegories (eg Song of Songs), poetical, parables, etc. (In what sense would you say the Song of Songs is infallible?)

The meaning of “infallibility”, as used by the Church, is given in the Catechism (from CCC Glossary):

Infallibility: The gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church whereby the pastors of the Church, the pope and bishops in union with him, can definitively proclaim a doctrine of faith or morals for the belief of the faithful (891).

The Church uses the term “inerrancy” in regards to Scripture:
Inerrancy: The attribute of the books of Scripture whereby they faithfully and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to have confided through the Sacred Scriptures.

Altho similar, there’s a difference. Going back to my example of Song of Songs: the book does not definitively proclaim a doctrine - but it does without error teach truths that God wished to communicate through that book.

Nita
 
Cair,

Give Providentissimus Deus a read if you’ve not already. It’s WONDERFUL!

Google it.
 
I have not read it, but I will check it out. Thanks for the tip.

Cair
 
Cair, I don’t think Keating was trying to be insulting when he contrasted “infallible” with “inerrant” as a description of the Bible.

After all, inspiration and inerrancy are better than Magisterial infallibility, in the sense that the Scriptural writers are believed to have been positively directed by God, whereas infallibility offers only negative protection. The formal definition of the Immaculate Conception does not have God as its author, as even the most doctrine-light of books of Scripture does. We simply have God’s guarantee that the Pope (or the whole Magisterium) would not be allowed to make such a binding, formal definition of an erroneous teaching.

You are correct, though, that Keating may have been coming on a little too strong given the number of times that This Rock refers to documents, statements, and teachings as “infallible.” I would say that that, also, is technically-incorrect shorthand – such things were “proclaimed infallibly” or “taught infallibly,” or even “proclaimed/taught under the charism of infallibility,” rather than strictly being infallible themselves.

Usagi
 
Cair,

You have to understand this in the history of the Bible. Much of the OT was taken from Hebrew spoken history over generations. In the NT, the Gospels are just personal interpretations written 70 or so years after the actual events.

Then you have the councils about the gnostic books of close to the same time the Bible of today was put together. Which books were chosen for what reason was down to human interpretations of the time to include one book and exclude others.

You also have to consider modern interpretations and applications of the books with the history of the time all the books were written in. Our modern age is much different than the times both the OT and NT were written.

Finally we get into the differences in translation from Greek, Aramaic, Hebrew, between those and into Latin, English, and other modern translations. There are no one to one correlations when it comes to language translations. This makes the final product of today something that has been touched by many human hands over centuries with quite a bit of variance/falliblity in it.

Does all this means the Bible has no meaning in today’s world? Of course not, but it needs to be read in relation to how the complete book of today came around and the history behind it.
 
thistle said:
The Bible is not infallible. It is inerrant with regard to religious truths and declaration of the mysteries of faith.
Click to expand...
the bible is infallible. for it is “living and active, sharper than any double-edged sword.”(heb 4:12). a living and active thing can be fallible or infallible. in the bible’s case, it is infallible in the truths in communicates to us about God, His character, our relationship to Him, etc.

the bible is far from “inerrant”.
 
bengal_fan said:
the bible is infallible. for it is “living and active, sharper than any double-edged sword.”(heb 4:12). a living and active thing can be fallible or infallible. in the bible’s case, it is infallible in the truths in communicates to us about God, His character, our relationship to Him, etc.

the bible is far from “inerrant”.
Click to expand...
Here’s the complete verse 12 and verse 13 for further clarification:
12 For the word of God is living and effectual, and more piercing than any two edged sword; and reaching unto the division of the soul and the spirit, of the joints also and the marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
13 Neither is there any creature invisible in his sight: but all things are naked and open to his eyes, to whom our speech is.

The Word of God is Christ.
 
bengal_fan said:
the bible is infallible. for it is “living and active, sharper than any double-edged sword.”(heb 4:12).
Click to expand...
The passage does not say “Bible.” It always amazes me when people read “word of God” and they automatically think: “Bible.” However, this thinking is according to man-made Protestant tradition.

On the contrary, “word of God” is much broader in meaning than merely written Scripture, no matter how inspired, but means more accurately Jesus Christ, and includes the entire “deposit of faith” handed on by Christ to the “holy ones” which Jude wrote about in his letter (Jude 3), having been “once and for all delivered,” presumably BEFORE Jude wrote his letter. The Word of God is Jesus Christ, He is living and active, the two-edge sword. This is plainly seen by reading the very next verse, which still referring to the “word of God” says, “And before HIM no creature is hidden.”
 
Ilroy said:
Here’s the complete verse 12 and verse 13 for further clarification:
12 For the word of God is living and effectual, and more piercing than any two edged sword; and reaching unto the division of the soul and the spirit, of the joints also and the marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
13 Neither is there any creature invisible in his sight: but all things are naked and open to his eyes, to whom our speech is.

The Word of God is Christ.
Click to expand...
it is also scripture. it is both. i would argue that the writer of hebrews believed he was writing of scripture but, in light of what we know, it ALSO means Jesus. it is both/and not either/or.
 
itsjustdave1988 said:
The passage does not say “Bible.” It always amazes me when people read “word of God” and they automatically think: “Bible.” However, this thinking is according to man-made Protestant tradition.
Click to expand...
it is not a “man-made protestant tradition.” the passage speaks of scripture. just like timothy does, just like joshua does. the word “bible” simply means book. it refers to the writings of the OT and the apostles and it is prophetic in knowing that other writings would come (i.e. revelation, etc.). the early church fathers used these passages to refer to scripture AND to Christ.
itsjustdave1988 said:
On the contrary, “word of God” is much broader in meaning than merely written Scripture, no matter how inspired, but means more accurately Jesus Christ, and includes the entire “deposit of faith” handed on by Christ to the “holy ones” which Jude wrote about in his letter (Jude 3), having been “once and for all delivered,” presumably BEFORE Jude wrote his letter. The Word of God is Jesus Christ, He is living and active, the two-edge sword. This is plainly seen by reading the very next verse, which still referring to the “word of God” says, “And before HIM no creature is hidden.”
Click to expand...
it is not “plainly seen” that it only refers to Christ. in fact, it is plain that it refers to both. Jesus Himself spoke about the word of God and was referring to scripture. it is both/and.
 
Hey Bengal fan,

Thanks for pointing out Heb 4:12. I hadn’t considered that.

You’ve gotten a bum rap in these responses. Of course, the “Word of God” does not mean exclusively “Bible,” but “Word of God” most certainly includes “Bible”. In other words, it is entirely correct to say “The Bible is the Word of God,” because it is. No one should accuse the one who says this of saying, “The Bible is the ONLY Word of God.”

Cair
 
the bible is not infallible in all its readings, even in their maths , read 1st. kings, ch.7 verse 23. our lord made it plain that through the holy spirit his church , i repeat HIS CHURCH will not allow any error in his teachings pertaining to faith and morals. the only true church.
 
I had no intention here of starting a debate as to whether or not the bible is inerrant. It is inerrant. For those who are interested in learning more about how we are to understand this statement of faith, there is a great article in the current issue of This Rock on the subject.

When Protestants and Catholics say that an articulation of knowledge (book, statement, doctrine, definition, etc.) is infallible, what they intend to say is that the articulation is not only inerrant but exempt from the possibility of expressing error, or “guaranteed inerrant”. This usage is so common among both Protestants and Catholics (and indeed, in This Rock) that it seemed silly to me for Keating to decry it. But his argument was one of vocabulary, not doctrine. Keating believes the bible to be inerrant. In fact, he believes the bible to be “guaranteed inerrant,” but he would prefer that we not use the word “infallible” to express this.

But if he was going to decry the practice of calling articulations “infallible”, then perhaps he should have begun with an article entitled “Sacred Tradition is not Infallible”

Cair
 
robert_ambrose said:
the bible is not infallible in all its readings, even in their maths , read 1st. kings, ch.7 verse 23.
Click to expand...
The NIV translation of 1 Kings 7:23 reads “He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it.”

I’m not sure how you figure there is an error here. The diameter is 10 cubits. To find the circumference, you multiply the diameter by pi. Pi is an irrational number, so in order to report any result that depends on it, pi must be rounded off at some point. Rounding pi to the nearest whole number gives 3. 10 cubits x 3 = 30 cubits, which is the circumference reported by the author of 1 Kings. In fact, I would say this is a rather outstanding estimate of pi for the time.

Cair
 
Cair_Paravel said:
But if he was going to decry the practice of calling articulations “infallible”, then perhaps he should have begun with an article entitled “Sacred Tradition is not Infallible”
Cair
Click to expand...
The next Synod of Bishops is meeting on… the Word of God! I guess this means that we’ll have an Apostolic Exhortation to follow from Pope Benedict “to take up the richness and variety of the reflections and proposals” as he did with the documents coming out of the last synod. I’m looking forward to it!!! So here are a couple of quotes from the Lineamenta for the XII Ordinary General Assembly:

“The task of ordained ministers is to instruct the faithful in a proper conception of the Word of God by avoiding erroneous or over-simplistic approaches and any ambiguity. Emphasis needs to be placed on the Word of God’s …] infallible confirmation in Sacred Scripture and its transmission in the living Tradition of the Church.”

“[T]he relation between Scripture and Tradition is clearly seen and is translated into real-life experiences. For example, in the early Church, Tradition preceded Scripture and was always a kind of fertile ‘humus’ which ‘makes the Sacred Letters more profoundly understood and continuously active in her.’ On the other hand, ’ “the Word of God is living and active” (Heb 4:12) and “it has power to build you up and give you your heritage among all those who are sanctified” (Acts 20:32; cf. 1 Thess 2:13).’ Both are channels of communication of the Word of God. Therefore, the Word of God finds its completeness of meaning and grace in experiencing both, ‘one inside the other.’ In this way, both can be called, and indeed are, the ‘Word of God’” (Lineamenta for The Word of God in the Life and Mission of the Church).

Have a good night everyone!

“…though it was not I, but the grace of God that was with me” (1 Cor. 15:10).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top