Why argue the bible is infallible?

[bluebell]

Where is the teaching found that says that the bible is infallible?  I've always wondered where that idea comes from.

[Kevin Christensen]

If the Bible is complete, inerrant, and sufficient, then you don't need Priesthood, or Popes, or Cardinals or ongoing Revelation, and you can launch a Protestant Reformation confident that all you need is in hand.  If on the other hand, the Bible is incomplete, has errors, and is not sufficient, then it's difficult to justify a Protestant Reformation.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[bluebell]

From a protestant perspective, is there nothing else that supports that concept?  Did it not exist until the reformation?

[Jane_Doe]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Where is the teaching found that says that the bible is infallible?  I've always wondered where that idea comes from.

The keyword here is "infallible" and hence it needs to be specifically defined.  For example, if it's defined as "all the content is correct, when understood from the correct lens", I totally agree.  The problem is that lens isn't man's eyes, but God's, hence the need for His continual presence and guidance.  Even amongst Creedal Christianity, people will highlight a very specific definition of "infallible" and how it's different than "inerrant".  

But to actually address your question: the most commonly cited scripture for this idea is 2 Tim. 3:16-17.  To get from there to different Protestant interpretations of the verse you need specific lens (different ones for different Protestant takes).  

9 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

If the Bible is complete, inerrant, and sufficient, then you don't need Priesthood, or Popes, or Cardinals or ongoing Revelation, and you can launch a Protestant Reformation confident that all you need is in hand.  If on the other hand, the Bible is incomplete, has errors, and is not sufficient, then it's difficult to justify a Protestant Reformation.

I find this to be uncharitable and inaccurate.  There were plenty of different branches in Christianity before the Reformation.   Second, not all Protestants reject traditional statements or are Sola Sciptura.  There's also diverse opinions on Biblical infallibility and what it means within Protestantism.  

[Jane_Doe]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

From a protestant perspective, is there nothing else that supports that concept?  Did it not exist until the reformation?

Again, they point largely to 2 Tim. 3:16-17.  The most commonly found "Biblical infalliabity" idea was popularized by certain Protestant reformers (such as Calvin) while rejected by others (for example Luther held to some ideas from Catholic Tradition). 

Edited October 24, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[bluebell]

2 Timothy 3: 16-17 says 

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:  That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

So the idea is that something can't be profitable "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" unless it is infallible?

[Jane_Doe]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

2 Timothy 3: 16-17 says 

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:  That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

So the idea is that something can't be profitable "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" unless it is infallible?

Correct.

[bluebell]

Just now, Jane_Doe said:

Correct.

So the idea of biblical infallibility is actually an interpretation of scripture and not scripture itself?

[Jane_Doe]

Here's a site expressing that view: https://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-infallible.html

Obviously I totally disagree with it, but in the effort of interfaith understanding I like to let people get things from first-hand sources (like getting LDS beliefs from LDS sites, Catholic from Catholic, etc). 

[Jane_Doe]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So the idea of biblical infallibility is actually an interpretation of scripture and not scripture itself?

(Speaking from LDS perspective here)  Yes.  

Obviously a person who endorses this view will say otherwise and point straight to those verses. 

Edited October 24, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[bluebell]

9 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

(Speaking from LDS perspective here)  Yes.  

Obviously a person who endorses this view will say otherwise and point straight to those verses. 

But those verses do not say "something can't be profitable "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" unless it is infallible."  That is an interpretation that is not stated in the text.

I get what you are saying though.

[hope_for_things]

53 minutes ago, bluebell said:

From a protestant perspective, is there nothing else that supports that concept?  Did it not exist until the reformation?

That is my understanding, this developed in the protestant reformation.  Think about it, regular people didn't have access to the scriptures before this time period.  Gutenberg and Luther played large roles in the history of this concept.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

[hope_for_things]

23 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So the idea of biblical infallibility is actually an interpretation of scripture and not scripture itself?

You can't have scripture without interpretation of scripture.  Everyone interprets scripture.  

[JAHS]

If you use Bible scripture to prove that the Bible is infallible, what if such statements from the Bible supporting the claim are not correct? 

Circular reasoning:
The Bible is the infallible Word of God.
How do you know this?
Because the Bible says it is.
How do you know the Bible is right about that?
Because the Bible is the infallible Word of God.

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Where is the teaching found that says that the bible is infallible?  I've always wondered where that idea comes from.

It comes from Neoplatonism where God is perfect and unchanging and therefore His Words are perfect and unchanging.

And of course they do not come through a human being- they are directly dictated with all their contradictions etc.

Of course if the bible is infallible, that assumes there is no need for prophets who are human, nor does it account for the idea that times change and today we need things like the Proclamation to set us straight.  It is the whole presumption for the need for individual inspiration.  If the bible is perfect, you don't need to question or get a "testimony" because you can robotically just do what you are told.  

Spiffy, huh?

 

[mfbukowski]

22 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

That is my understanding, this developed in the protestant reformation.  Think about it, regular people didn't have access to the scriptures before this time period.  Gutenberg and Luther played large roles in the history of this concept.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura

You may have a point- Catholics believe also in "Tradition" as a source of truth especially in areas of practice, like how to administer the Eucharist, etc which of course is not Biblical.

So Catholics are not sola scriptura

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Kevin Christensen said:

If the Bible is complete, inerrant, and sufficient, then you don't need Priesthood, or Popes, or Cardinals or ongoing Revelation, and you can launch a Protestant Reformation confident that all you need is in hand.  If on the other hand, the Bible is incomplete, has errors, and is not sufficient, then it's difficult to justify a Protestant Reformation.

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

Dang.

That's what I get for reading the thread from the bottom up.

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

2 Timothy 3: 16-17 says 

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:  That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

So the idea is that something can't be profitable "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" unless it is infallible?

Interesting reference to "good works" there as well, which seems odd for a scripture alleged to support the Reformation.  Clearly the idea is that the Bible teaches what is needed morally etc for a person to be able to have the tools available ("thoroughly furnished") to take ACTION to perform good works.  And then we have the idea that such teaching is "profitable" - that is a very pragmatic idea.  

In fact this is a lot like Alma 32 to me- "true" principles yield good fruit (here, "are profitable") in our lives and actions.  Nope- nothing there about infallibility at all!

To me that is LDS ORTHOPRAXIS rather than infallible orthodoxy. 

We are talking about good advice to learn how to live well- THAT is what that says to me.

[Jane_Doe]

54 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But those verses do not say "something can't be profitable "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" unless it is infallible."  That is an interpretation that is not stated in the text.

Oh I totally agree with you on that.  Other people don't, but that's them.

[bluebell]

I would love to have some Bible infallible Christians participating in this thread.  It's really easy to win points against silent opponents and I don't want this thread to be an echo chamber where everyone is patting each on the back for not being deceived like the poor protestants.

[mfbukowski]

7 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I would love to have some Bible infallible Christians participating in this thread.  It's really easy to win points against silent opponents and I don't want this thread to be an echo chamber where everyone is patting each on the back for not being deceived like the poor protestants.

Honestly I think it is two different paradigms.  You accept one or the other and there is nothing more about it which is can be discussed.  It is kind of like evolution or anything else- it's the way we see reality which is "obviously true" to each of us and largely uncontestable.

I hope there would be something to discuss but I don't think there is.

Edited October 24, 2017 by mfbukowski

[Gray]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

Where is the teaching found that says that the bible is infallible?  I've always wondered where that idea comes from.

It comes from the fundamentalist movement at the turn of the 20th century. Or maybe that's when the idea started to become so pervasive 

Edited October 24, 2017 by Gray

[Robert F. Smith]

57 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You may have a point- Catholics believe also in "Tradition" as a source of truth especially in areas of practice, like how to administer the Eucharist, etc which of course is not Biblical.

So Catholics are not sola scriptura

Yes, and Pius XII blamed the Reformation for getting it wrong, "when many of the Christian family separated themselves from the infallible teaching of the church."  Paul Johnson, History of Christianity, 461, online at http://cnqzu.com/library/Philosophy/neoreaction/_extra authors/Johnson, Paul/A History Of Christianity.pdf .

[stemelbow]

It seems to me, in practice most Christians who come from the sola scriptura camp view the Bible pretty close to the same as most Mormons view their scriptures--with a mix of reverence, authoritative, and irrelevance. 

Sometimes putting a name to belief means very little.  We say the scriptures aren't infallible, but at times treat them as they are.  They say that scriptures are infallible but at times treat them like they aren't.  In the end, it feels to me like we're all in the same pot. 

[bluebell]

23 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Honestly I think it is two different paradigms.  You accept one or the other and there is nothing more about it which is can be discussed.  It is kind of like evolution or anything else- it's the way we see reality which is "obviously true" to each of us and largely uncontestable.

I hope there would be something to discuss but I don't think there is.

I don't know about that.  My views of evolution have changed a lot over the years through discussion and learning for example.