Inerrancy and Infallibility of the Bible

[sun rise]

What definition of inerrant are you assuming in the OP? This one?

The "doctrine of the inerrancy of scripture"[7] held by the Catholic Church, as expressed by the Second Vatican Council, is that "the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation."[8]

 

[pearl]

Is there any verse in the Bible that clearly states it is inerrant and/or infallible?
​

For some inerrancy means that the original biblical text was composed precisely as God inspired it and intended it to be, not just the thought comes from God, but every word with every inflection, every verse and line, and every tense of the verb, every number of the noun, and every little particle are regarded as coming from God. Scripture is "God-breathed," and God does not breathe falsehood, so the text is faithful and true in all it affirms, including the miracle accounts, the attributed authors, and the historical narratives.
For Roman Catholics, inerrancy is understood as a consequence of biblical inspiration; it has to do more with the truth of the Bible as a whole than with any theory of verbal inerrancy.

 

[Skwim]

The answer to your question must be: no.

However, another, more important, question should be asked.
Such as: is there any verse in the Bible that clearly states it is true?

You got me. As a Christian I would expect you're more familiar with the Bible than I am.

.

 

[Skwim]

For some inerrancy means that the original biblical text was composed precisely as God inspired it and intended it to be, not just the thought comes from God, but every word with every inflection, every verse and line, and every tense of the verb, every number of the noun, and every little particle are regarded as coming from God. Scripture is "God-breathed," and God does not breathe falsehood, so the text is faithful and true in all it affirms, including the miracle accounts, the attributed authors, and the historical narratives.

Which text is this? Not all Bibles have the same text.

For Roman Catholics, inerrancy is understood as a consequence of biblical inspiration; it has to do more with the truth of the Bible as a whole than with any theory of verbal inerrancy.

So it's inferred, and not stated in the Bible.

Thank you for your "No" vote.

.

 

[Glaurung]

Which text is this? Not all Bibles have the same text.

For Catholic and Orthodox Christians, those texts are the texts recognized as such by the authority of their respective churches.

Catholic and Orthodox Christians believe that Christ left a teaching authority, not a book. Over time that teaching authority recognized certain texts as being divinely inspired and thus inerrant in their intended meaning. (As God would not inspire error). We do not believe that an obvious and perfect canon descended from the sky one day. Heck, the Catholic Church did not definitively confirm its canon until Trent. Mostly because Luther was ripping out of the Bible what he didn't like. (And he had the authority do do this because.... he said so.)

 

[Skwim]

For Catholic and Orthodox Christians, those texts are the texts recognized as such by the authority of their respective churches.

Catholic and Orthodox Christians believe that Christ left a teaching authority, not a book. Over time that teaching authority recognized certain texts as being divinely inspired and thus inerrant in their intended meaning. (As God would not inspire error). We do not believe that an obvious and perfect canon descended from the sky one day. Heck, the Catholic Church did not definitively confirm its canon until Trent. Mostly because Luther was ripping out of the Bible what he didn't like. (And he had the authority do do this because.... he said so.)

So why shouldn't one assume that for Catholic and Orthodox Christians their authority to recognize the truth of their texts was the same: they said so.

.

 

[Skwim]

2 Timothy 3:16,17. Says it a different way.

Inspiration is not the same as inerrancy and infallibility.

.

 

[Skwim]

What definition of inerrant are you assuming in the OP?

inerrant
adjective
in·er·rant | \ (ˌ)i-ˈner-ənt

: free from error

.
​

 

[pearl]

teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation."

"That' truth for the sake of salvation does not include all narrative details.

 

[Jeremiah Ames]

You got me. As a Christian I would expect you're more familiar with the Bible than I am.

.

Ok.
It is there. The Bible is true according to the Bible.

 

[Skwim]

Ok.
It is there. The Bible is true according to the Bible.

Fine. Then chapter and verse please.

Thank you.

.

 

[Glaurung]

So why shouldn't one assume that for Catholic and Orthodox Christians their authority to recognize the truth of their texts was the same: they said so.

Catholic and Orthodox churches (not individuals) have the authority of apostolic succession. And while individual bishops may err, the teaching authority of the whole Church is backed by divine guarantee. Matthew 16:18-19.

Martin Luther was a renegade monk who simply declared his authority on the mere assertion of it. So the two claims (while you may reject both) are not identical. One claims the authority of the teaching office of the apostolic Church. The other claims the authority of a single man's interpretation of Scripture.

 

[Skwim]

Catholic and Orthodox churches (not individuals) have the authority of apostolic succession. And while individual bishops may err, the teaching authority of the whole Church is backed by divine guarantee. Matthew 16:18-19.

So what makes you think the Catholic church was the end of the building program? Perhaps the church of Martin Luther was what Jesus had in mind, and the Catholic church was merely a step toward Jesus' ultimate vision of his church:

​

Martin Luther was a renegade monk who simply declared his authority on the mere assertion of it.

So Catholics contend, just like they contend the Pope speaks ex cathedra. Thing is, saying so doesn't make it so.

So the two claims (while you may reject both) are not identical. One claims the authority of the teaching office of the apostolic Church. The other claims the authority of a single man's interpretation of Scripture.

And you're right. Speaking ex cathedra comes with no more inherent validity than speaking from interpretation.


.

 

[Desert Snake]

.

A simple question:​

Is there any verse in the Bible that clearly states it is inerrant and/or infallible?

​

.

I hope not, because there are different Bibles, translations that even include interpretations. The nt for example, is considered by very learned scholars, to have been translated into the greek, therefore that always means some different wording, even translation mistakes. The apostle Paul says examine the texts, what does that mean to you? The greatest thing is that you don't need to know all the texts, anyways, unless you want to.

 

[Skwim]

I hope not, because there are different Bibles, translations that even include interpretations. The nt for example, is considered by very learned scholars, to have been translated into the greek, therefore that always means some different wording, even translation mistakes.

I assume then that the only texts one should pay attention to are those that support your theology.

The apostle Paul says examine the texts, what does that mean to you? The greatest thing is that you don't need to know all the texts, anyways, unless you want to.

So where is one suppose to derive his Christian wisdom from?

.

.

 

[Stevicus]

.

A simple question:​

Is there any verse in the Bible that clearly states it is inerrant and/or infallible?

​

.

I don't think so, although it's a problem easily resolved - just revise the Bible a bit. They can add a special notation to the reader at the end.

"Dear Reader, Everything you have just read in this book is the truth - absolutely perfect, inerrant, and infallible. And I ought to know because I wrote it all. Signed, God"

I mean, who's to say that He didn't write that and authorize its inclusion in the Bible, but there may have been screw-ups with the publisher or something. Maybe some oversight.

It should have been in there, but it may have been sloppy editing.

 

[Desert Snake]

I assume then that the only texts one should pay attention to are those that support your theology.

.

Basically.

 

[Desert Snake]

If your 'sacred texts' contradict every teaching of your church, then one if them is wrong. How do you imagine anyone is going to figure that out, you had better know what the beliefs are.

 

[Glaurung]

So what makes you think the Catholic church was the end of the building program? Perhaps the church of Martin Luther was what Jesus had in mind, and the Catholic church was merely a step toward Jesus' ultimate vision of his church:

The fact that Jesus Himself specifically said that the Church founded on Peter would last until the end of time. I don't buy the notion that God's real plan was to immediately renege on His explicit promise and allow the entirety of the Christian Church fall into one-thousand five hundred years (or more) of error.

I reject Protestantism because no matter what form it takes it always comes with the implicit assertion that God ignored the Church for the bulk of its history. That it was only until [Luther/Calvin/Smith] came along and somehow inspired God to finally act that the true will of God was revealed.

So Catholics contend, just like they contend the Pope speaks ex cathedra. Thing is, saying so doesn't make it so.

The difference is that the prerequisites of ex cathedra are so stringent that it has only happened a few times in all of church history. All it means is that the pope can define what is already believed by the Church with infallibility. He has no power to define his own theology as Martin Luther did. The pope has no say whatsoever on what the doctrines of the Catholic faith actually are. Ultimately, he like every other bishop is a mere custodian. The Church does not belong to the pope. It belongs to Christ.

And you're right. Speaking ex cathedra comes with no more inherent validity than speaking from interpretation.

It is not remotely the same claim. Papal infallibility limits the pope.

Infallibility was defined at Vatican I in part to counter the ultramontanism of certain schools of thought within the Church which exaggerated the prerogatives and powers of the pope. That no, not every thought that pops into the pope's head is divinely revealed truth. The pope can only restate and define. He cannot create.

 

[Skwim]

The fact that Jesus Himself specifically said that the Church founded on Peter would last until the end of time.

So what? What makes you believe that this necessarily refers to the Catholic religion? I know the Catholic church makes the claim, but they've also claimed a lot of other stuff, not all of which was completely sane.

The difference is that the prerequisites of ex cathedra are so stringent that it has only happened a few times in all of church history.

Gee, do you think it could be that it wasn't established as dogma until 150 years ago? Besides do things gain validity the more often they're used? Is that how the Catholic religion works; say it often enough and it will eventually gain validity?

.