The Bible is NOT infallible

[c0achmcguirk]

Shari:

Please now lets not forget all of the non-denominational churches. Each one is a seperate denomination and believe something different, even though they claim not to be a denomination. We have probably at least 10 of them in Green Bay alone. I have been to quite a few of them and most are not in agreement with the others. So no 30,000 doesn’t seem like to much.

Non-denominational churches typically have very little defined doctrinally…basically Scripture is our only infallible guide, their beliefs on baptism, the belief in the Trinity…that’s pretty much it.

You can’t just say that non-denominatioal churches are different denominations, since their doctrinal beliefs are most likely almost identical.

Again, let’s be fair here. If you don’t want the different rites within the Catholic Church to be counted as different denominations, then allow for minor differences between churches without breaking them into different denominations. I’ll bet if you look into it, you’ll find that there are probably no more than 15 or 20 meaningful denominations among those who adhere to sola Scriptura.

My main point in posting to this thread is to try to quelch the “30,000 denominations” number. I haven’t moved onto the “but even 2 denominations is one too many” argument. I simply want intellectual integrity from my Catholic friends.

How about it…can we move on to a different argument and drop the number “30,000”?

God bless,
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

JoaoMachado:

OK Tough guy (That’s JOAO) OK, my brother, now tell me how many of those are in communion with the Bishop Of Rome?

You tell me…it’s hard to tell these days.

Sorry about spelling your name incorrectly. It was unintentional.

coach, if I may quote from your site:
“jurisdiction rather than differing beliefs”? coach, coach, we are not talking cities or counties, we are talking Faith, the foundational beliefs are the difference in denominations.

Yeah, that’s why I have a problem with the 30,000 denominations argument too. Barrett is very nitpicky about what different denominations are, and considers every Baptist Church a different denomination because of the Baptist view on church independence–even though the Baptist Churches would agree with each other on every area of doctrine.

If you want to convince me that Rome is the true Church, be honest with numbers. I would allow that are many different denominations, but 30,000 is inflated and fallacious. If Catholics find that they need to resort to shady numbers to prove their point, maybe they should reconsider if they are right or not.

The Catholic Church is not just a US Church, it is a world wide Church. All the different peoples from different countries worshiping the same GOD the same Savior as one body, the BODY of Christ. It is not separated by property lines…

But it is not unified. Look at the Traditionalists vs. the Neo-Conservatives. The inclusivists vs. the Feeneyites. The Thomists vs. the Molinists. Some Bishops refuse communion to politicians who support abortion, others do. Some bishops give communion to those who are openly gay and politicize the mass, while others refuse. Some believe the Bible is inerrant while others, like Fitzmyer and Brown would say it is only inerrant in matters of faith and morals.

You could say, but c0ach, we have one teaching, one magisterium, and those who are not in communion with Rome know they are not in communion.

But is it really that clear?

In the end we are all left to our fallible interpretations. You can put 100 different people in a room with the Catechism of the Catholic Church and you’d have 100 different interpretations of what it means.

If all the disagreements among those who call themselves Protestant disprove sola Scriptura, then don’t the disagreements among those who call themselves Catholic disprove the Roman Catholic magisterium?

God bless,
c0ach

 

[ralphinal]

c0achmcguirk:

If all the disagreements among those who call themselves Protestant disprove sola Scriptura, then don’t the disagreements among those who call themselves Catholic disprove the Roman Catholic magisterium?

I do not care if there are two denominations or 2 billion. Jesus founded One church, there is one truth, he prayed that we be one, and there is One Body of Christ. I work with a man who seriously tries to be a good CHristian. He studies his Bible several times a day and he prays often. He has bounced around churches and feels that none of them reflect how he feels about Jesus. As far as I am concerned, he is his own denomination. Know what? He agrees because he is trying to start his own church.

I rarely use the number of denominations to disprove sola scriptura because as a theological position, sola scriptura fails on face value alone: if Scriptures are the only source needed, it should say so in the Bible and not just once but more than once! All of the different denominations and even the divisions with in the Catholic church do not disprove the validity of the magisterium, no this proves the need of it even more. The real problem is that we do not internalize our faith and follow as we should. CAll is part of our fallen nature. We try to pick and choose what matters to us or ignore what we do not like. At some point all of us must suspend our own personal issues and say “hey, this is what I am supposed to believe. I do not know why and I may not understand, but Lord please help me.” Ascent of will and all of that. We need the magisterium to help us see the unbroken line of faith from 33 AD to now.

No, what divisions prove is that by filling his chruch with people, Jesus filled it with sinners.

 

[RJS]

c0achmcguirk:

Yes, a fallacious argument is a fallacious argument. You may say “many” denominations, but you may not use a number that lies.

I never use 30000 or 33000 I always say that the Protestant Churches number in the thousands.

How can there be different rites? Is Jesus happy about the different rites–I mean shouldn’t there be ONE rite? Are all the rites equally right?

God bless,
c0ach

The difference between rites are hardly anything. I being of the Roman Catholic rite would have no problem (other than understanding the language) going to another rite for Church if I were in another country because they are loyal to Rome.

A Rite represents an ecclesiastical, or church, tradition about how the sacraments are to be celebrated. Each of the sacraments has at its core an essential nature which must be satisfied for the sacrament to be confected or realized. This essence - of matter, form and intention - derives from the divinely revealed nature of the particular sacrament. It cannot be changed by the Church. Scripture and Sacred Tradition, as interpreted by the Magisterium, tells us what is essential in each of the sacraments (2 Thes. 2:15).

ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm

 

[JoaoMachado]

c0ach, I for one will concede this debate to you, for it really depends on how you slice the watermelon. (that actually sounds gooood today, with a high 97) anyway, I understand your point. There was a “Protestant” book, from Europe that listed all the denominations, I heard them talking about it on TBN, I think. I have been trying to find it, but I can’t.

So I will swing around to your side and will give you only 1000 denominations. All these teaching different doctrine. Is this what Christ meant when He said, He would BUILD His Church, and He would be the cornerstone?

Joao

 

[Richard_Lamb]

JoaoMachado:

I have a question for Ric, or anyone else that professes that the Bible is Infallable. What did Christ found, a Church or a Book?
Please use Scripture if necessary.

Joao

Read the Mark it say “Go and write…” oh wait it say “Go and **teach…” **

 

[Sanosuke]

1,000 is too many, anyway. It does just as much to illustrate the Catholic point of view.

 

[Karl_Keating]

In my May 27, 2003 E-Letter I said I used to refrain from stating there were X number of Protestant denominations because I hadn’t found sufficient support for a particular number. But there does seem to be such support:

The “World Christian Encyclopedia” states that there are 33,830 Christian denominations in the world. Subtract the Catholic Church and the Eastern churches, and you are left with about 33,800 other churches, those descended from the Protestant Reformation.

No doubt one could quibble about how the compilers of the encyclopedia decided what was to be thought of as a distinct denomination and what was not. Even if one dismissed nine-tenths of the listed groups, saying that most of them should be regarded as internal variants (somewhat along the lines of the Benedictines, Franciscans, and Jesuits not being separate churches but separate “emphases” within the single Catholic Church), that still would leave 3,380 separate–and separated–Protestant denominations.

 

[Chief]

c0achmcguirk:

And with his keyboard still warm from chastising Protestants for misusing a term, he trots out the ol’ 30,000 denominations argument. :tsktsk:

Mr. Keating, with all due respect, this argument has been proven again and again to be fallacious and I’m surprised its still being used. Especially by a man with your knowledge and experience. In the spirit of intellectual integrity will you call upon your listeners to stop using the argument?

ntrmin.org/30000denominations.htm
ntrmin.org/30000denominationsrevisited.htm

God bless,
c0ach

Your link extrapolates some 8000 Roman Catholic denominations, when, in fact, there is only one. Now if you had said simply ‘Catholic’ you could list several (I don’t know the precise number) but since you go to great pains to single out the Roman Catholic Church (Latin Rite), there is only one. A diocese is an organizational unit, like a parish, but there is only one Roman Catholic faith. Moreover, all the Catholic ‘denominations’ are in union with the Magisterium, they just have different cultural habits and a different liturgy. The faith is the same.

Protestantism - That is, one of the many denominations that cropped up as a result of the reformation, has no such central core faith. We can bicker on the precise number, but the point is, each of them is free to hold its own dogma or doctrine. There is no central authority to inform the individual pastors what their faith is. I would argue, every Protestant minister is an individual denomination.

 

[New_Life]

Adding a Protestant touch to this discussion, Paul D. Feinberg, in an essay titled “The Meaning of Inerrancy” in the book Inerrancy (edited by Norman L. Geisler, pp. 287-288) makes the following comments below on defining the inerrancy of Scripture. Some might find this helpful.

“…we must begin with a search for appropriate terminology. A number of terms have been suggested. The most common are: inspiration, indefectibility, infallibility, indeceivability, and inerrant, or without error. Let’s now turn to an examination of these terms…”

"Another possibility is infallibility, which has a long history of theological use. Most likely the best place to begin a discussion of the term is with a definition from the Oxford English Dictionary. Infallibility means “the quality or fact of being infallible or exempt from liability to err” or “the quality of being unfailing or not liable to fail; unfailing certainty.” [Oxford English Dictionary, p. 1426] With the adjective infallible when predicated of things, this dictionary equates “not liable to fail, unfailing,” “not liable to prove false, erroneous, or mistaken; that unfailingly holds good,” or “not liable to fail in its action or operation.” [Ibid.] Merely from the standpoint of definition, it would be difficult to maintain a clear distinction between this term and inerrancy, although it would always be possible to stipulate a distinction.

“However, when we turn to the question of usage, the picture is more complex. Within Roman Catholic theology, inerrant is normally used when discussing the Bible, while infallibility is used to designate the authority of the church, particularly with respect to the teaching function of the pope and the magisterium. Protestants, of course, do not claim infallibility for the church, and, more and more, infallibility has become associated with the Scriptures…Because of differing usages of infallibility, Stephen T. Davis in his recent book gives a stipulative definition reflecting this tendency. He says, “The Bible is infallible if and only if it makes no false or misleading statements on any matter of faith and practice.” Debate about the Bible, p. 23] At any rate, infallibility can and should properly be used of the Bible. In its lexical meaning it is not far from inerrancy.”

In Christ,
NL

 

[c0achmcguirk]

JoaoMachado:

c0ach, I for one will concede this debate to you, for it really depends on how you slice the watermelon. (that actually sounds gooood today, with a high 97) anyway, I understand your point.

Joao, you are quite the gentleman–I just gave you some “reputation points” for that. 97 in Northern California??? :bigyikes:

So I will swing around to your side and will give you only 1000 denominations.

Well, still I think the number is very high because fairness dictates that you allow for minor differences between denominations. As Barrett points out (in the work the 30,000 number comes from), there are only 21 “ecclesiastical traditions” within Protestantism which is what we would normally call denominations.

All these teaching different doctrine. Is this what Christ meant when He said, He would BUILD His Church, and He would be the cornerstone?

Right now I’m focusing on educating people about the fallacious 30,000 denominations argument. Someday, hopefully, we can tackle that good question on another thread.

God bless you Joao!
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

1,000 is too many, anyway. It does just as much to illustrate the Catholic point of view.

Agreed 1000 is too big…more like 15 or 20.

Anyway, what’s important is that we strive for true figures and arguments on both sides of the Catholic-Protestant debate. Only then will truth prevail.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

Karl Keating:

The “World Christian Encyclopedia” states that there are 33,830 Christian denominations in the world. Subtract the Catholic Church and the Eastern churches, and you are left with about 33,800 other churches, those descended from the Protestant Reformation.

Hi Karl, thanks for responding

To quote our current president “You’re using fuzzy math.” The links I posted earlier directly deal with the World Christian Encyclopedia and show that the number 33,830 includes 8,000 Roman Catholic denominations (and thousands of non-Protestant denominations). Barrett uses the word “denominations” differently than you or I use the term, and so the number is grossly inflated.

No doubt one could quibble about how the compilers of the encyclopedia decided what was to be thought of as a distinct denomination and what was not.

Indeed we should make sure we use our sources with integrity and verify that we are using correct information when we argue our points.

Christ isn’t glorified with fallacious arguments.

that still would leave 3,380 separate–and separated–Protestant denominations.

Okay, you’re getting closer to the actual number. As I’ve said earlier, there are probably only 15 or 20 meaningful denominations–if you would be charitable enough to allow for minor differences between denominations.

God bless you Mr. Keating,
c0ach

 

[c0achmcguirk]

Chief:

Your link extrapolates some 8000 Roman Catholic denominations, when, in fact, there is only one. Now if you had said simply ‘Catholic’ you could list several (I don’t know the precise number) but since you go to great pains to single out the Roman Catholic Church (Latin Rite), there is only one.

Hi Chief, hope you are well.

Your argument isn’t with me, but it is with Barrett, the guy who compiled the numbers for the World Christian Encyclopedia. The source for the 33,000 denominations argument. Again, my only point is to (hopefully) show Catholic apologists that the number is grossly distorted.

Another day, when I have more time, I will move on to your next point–are these Protestant denominations proof that sola Scriptura has failed?

God bless,
c0ach

 

[Shibboleth]

I dug out all of my lexicons last night and tried to piece together if “infallible” was not proper to use when referring to inanimate objects such as the Bible. What I finally concluded was that there was not enough difference between “inerrant” and “infallible” to make a distinction. In fact, the largest difference that I could find was that one had on “Old French” root and the other a “Latin” root.

Some definitions of “inerrant” actually included the word (ability) while some definitions of “infallible” included the statement (without error.)

When denotation is not sufficient we must then rely on connotation, so using the word “infallible” when referring to the Bible should be considered acceptable.

We must keep in mind that a Dictionary does not define words but simply lists the many ways that they have been used throughout history. It does list the current and most popular uses of the words, but it does not confine a person to using it in such a fashion.

For instance, we all understand the word “awe” and its contemporary meaning, but for some odd reason “awful” does not mean “full of awe” in contemporary English. – This is O.K. and acceptable because we understand the difference in meanings by the context or connotation in which they are used.

 

[Shibboleth]

I forgot to mention why I think that there is the confusion. I think that people are incorrectly assuming that the suffix (-ible) or (-able) means that it is putting an action or an ability into something and therefore must require an animate target – this is not the case.

The suffix (-able) is Latin from (abilis) and means – “capable of or worthy of”

Imperishable – not capable of perishing
Infallible – not capable of being fallacious

 

[Pax]

c0achmcguirk:

Hi Chief, hope you are well.

Your argument isn’t with me, but it is with Barrett, the guy who compiled the numbers for the World Christian Encyclopedia. The source for the 33,000 denominations argument. Again, my only point is to (hopefully) show Catholic apologists that the number is grossly distorted.

Another day, when I have more time, I will move on to your next point–are these Protestant denominations proof that sola Scriptura has failed?

God bless,
c0ach

You cannot diffuse the issue of division with semantics. The Ecclesial communities argument is nonsense in terms of the problem. Look squarely at the problem. The many churches in protestantism all have differences and these differences are significant.

In John 17:11-22, Jesus prays that we may all be one as He and the Father are one. Nothing you can say with semantics and numerical gymnastics can alter the fact that christianity is severely divided in teaching and practice. The figure of thirty thousand more than adequately describes the chaos and is not inaccurate for that purpose. If you want to use the ecclesial community gambit, you still fail to address the real issues. We need to cut to the chase. The problem is disunity and it is rampant.

 

[Apologia100]

Every dictionary I’ve referenced regarding infallibility indicates that it is a quality of being incapable of making an error or of failing. The bible is an inanimate object, paper and leather and ink. It doesn’t actually DO anything. If a bible sat on the desk for 1000 years, it wold never do anything wrong, it would not do anything right either. It wouldn’t do anything but collect dust. To be infallible, it must be capable of activity. I believe the word that they are looking for is inerrant, which means “containing no errors”.

 

[c0achmcguirk]

Pax:

The figure of thirty thousand more than adequately describes the chaos and is not inaccurate for that purpose.

Look, its been demonstrated that the number is fallacious clearly and irrefutably. Now you can claim there are 30,000 denominations from now on, but at least include the disclaimer that you have no source that backs it up, this is a number you’ve arrived at which you thing “adequately describes the chaos.”

Remember though, you will lose legitimacy in the eyes of those who check facts.

As Mr. Keating mentioned earlier:

I said I used to refrain from stating there were X number of Protestant denominations because I hadn’t found sufficient support for a particular number. But there does seem to be such support

Now that there is no such support, at least not from the World Christian Encyclopedia, perhaps we should take Mr. Keating’s advice again. Refrain from using the number because there isn’t sufficient evidence for it.

This is separate from the second argument you brought up–that there are too many Protestant denominations. Just because you think there are too many Protestant denominations doesn’t give you the right to make up a number and misrepresent your opponent.

God bless,
c0ach

 

[Shibboleth]

Apologia100:

Every dictionary I’ve referenced regarding infallibility indicates that it is a quality of being incapable of making an error or of failing.

Every dictionary will likely include that definition, so yes you are correct in that assumption, but the dictionaries also include a definition when it is applied to an inanimate agent. In addition the inanimate definition usually takes the first and second position in the list of accepted uses, which means that it is the most relevant.

American Heritage

1. Incapable of erring: *an infallible guide; an infallible source of information.*2. Incapable of failing; certain: an infallible antidote; an infallible rule.

Merriam-Webster

1. incapable of error : UNERRING

The primary reason for this is because the word “fallible” comes from the Latin word “fallere” which means (to deceive)

in- or im- : not
fallere : to deceive
-able or –ible : not capable

infallible – not capable of deceiving

Mr. Keating if you do not mind me asking, do you know the linguist in which you got your initial information. I would very much like to write him because I would like to see how he came about his conclusions.