0
What else can I help you with?
Is the Bible considered inerrant or infallible by most Christian denominations?
Most Christian denominations consider the Bible to be infallible, meaning it is free from error in matters of faith and practice, but not necessarily inerrant, meaning without any mistakes in all aspects.
Is the Bible considered inerrant or infallible?
The Bible is considered inerrant, meaning it is without error in its original form, by some religious traditions. It is also considered infallible, meaning it is incapable of leading people astray in matters of faith and practice.
What is the difference of an errant and infallible?
Inerrant is synonomous with infallible. The major difference is that infallible additionally means dependable, reliable, and trustworthy. Inerrant merely means without erring; making no mistakes.
What is the difference between infallible and inerrant?
"Infallible" means incapable of making mistakes or being wrong, while "inerrant" means free from errors or mistakes. In other words, something that is infallible cannot make mistakes, while something that is inerrant does not contain mistakes.
Is the Catechism of the Council of Trent infallible?
The only thing that we know of that is defined as infallible is the Pope, he is infallible (preserved from error) when teaching to the entire Church on matters of faith and morals. In this light, the Catechism of the Council of Trent would indeed be considered infallible as it was the teaching of several Popes. However, it is not considered inerrant in the way the Bible is.
What do the Gideons believe about the Bible?
The Gideons believe that the Bible is the inspired, infallible, inerrant word of God.
What do you mean when you say the Bible is infallible and inerrant?
Although normally considered a synonym for inerrant, some say that calling the Bible infallible means that it can never mislead or deceive, but that this does not necessarily mean that it is inerrant - without error. This should mean that misunderstandings or contradictions should never be found in the Bible and that, for example, Matthew's use of the Book of Isaiah to show that the virgin birth was prophesied is not misleading.Calling the Bible inerrant means that the Bible contains no error of fact or transcription. This means that if any historical error or other error of fact is found in the Bible, then the entire belief in its inerrancy must be called into question. If the belief in the Bible's inerrancy is applied to an English translation of the Bible, this applies even to errors of translation.Some say that the above rule for inerrancy is too broad and that the bible contains exactly what God intends to convey, but the absence of error does not necessarily apply to the incidental, scientific, geographical, or historical statements in Scripture.Professor Alley of the University of Richmond is quoted as saying, "While some persons may continue to hold that the historic Christian belief in biblical infallibility and inerrancy is the only valid starting point and framework for a theology of revelation, such contentions should be heard with a smile and incorporated into the bylaws of the Flat Earth Society."
What scripture says Bible is inspired infallible inerrant word.?
INSPIRED AS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD IS IN 2 TIMOTHY 3:16 AND SINCE GOD IS PERFECT INERRANT AND INFALLIBLE GOES WITHOUT SAYING,BECAUSE SINCE MAN WROTE WHAT GOD INSPIRED,IF THEY WOULD HAVE WRITTEN SOMETHING DIFFERENT OR CHANGED OR ADDED TO WHAT HE TOLD THEM TO WRITE...GOD BEING OMNIPENT AND ALL POWER Would than have spoken into existance,like he did the world a NEW BIBLE IF AND ONLY IF they would have not been GODS WORDS as he wanted them to be.cause GOD can do anything ..ANYTHING THAT IS that is of his CHARACTER..I mean GOD cannot LIE..or do anything just is UNHOLY OR AGAINST HIS NATURE OR CHARACTER..So that is my answer
Does religion need to be changed?
John Shelby Spong wrote a whole book, titled Why Christianity Must Change or Die. He says that with Christians now better informed and more sceptical, religion must cast off its superstitious elements and accept that the Bible is neither infallible nor inerrant. So, Bishop Spong certainly believes religion needs to be changed if it is to survive.
Is the Holy Bible inerrant?
Some regard the Bible as inerrant - totally without error or contradiction. Others, more practically regard the Bible as infallible - containing possible errors or contradictions on matters of history and the natural world, but not on matters of faith. Calling the Bible inerrant means that the Bible contains no error of fact or transcription. This means that if any historical error or other error of fact is found in the Bible, then the entire belief in its inerrancy must be called into question. If the belief in the Bible's inerrancy is applied to an English translation of the Bible, this applies even to errors of translation. Some say that this rule for inerrancy is too broad and that the Bible contains exactly what God intends to convey, but the absence of error does not necessarily apply to the incidental, scientific, geographical, or historical statements in Scripture. Professor Alley of the University of Richmond is quoted as saying, "While some persons may continue to hold that the historic Christian belief in biblical infallibility and inerrancy is the only valid starting point and framework for a theology of revelation, such contentions should be heard with a smile and incorporated into the bylaws of the Flat Earth Society."
If the Bible is inerrant then why are there many historical and archaeological errors?
A:Yes, there are numerous historical and archaeological errors in the Bible. We therefore have to decide whether to continue to believe it is inerrant and, if so, what we mean by this. Some would say the Bible is inerrant on matters of faith, but not necessarily on history. Others would say if we find apparent errors in the Bile, then we have misunderstood the text, possibly for many centuries, and must reinterpret it. Of course, others would say that the Bible is the truly inerrant word of God and can not contain errors, and that if we read the Bible with total faith then those errors will just disappear.
How is the teaching of the church infallible?
A:Most Protestant denominations say that what they teach from the Bible is infallible, because the Bible is inerrant. Scholars have identified many errors in the Bible, but they accept that it is not their role to challenge religious teachings. The Catholic Church also relies on the Bible to be inerrant, but adds and emphasises that when the pope speaks ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals, his teaching is infallible. This is based on the decision of the First Vatican Council in 1870, documented in Pastor Aeternalis, chapter 6:9. Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable. [My emphasis in bold]Bishop Geoffrey Robinson (Confronting Power and Sex in the Catholic Church) asks how a council can infallibly declare the infallibility of the pope unless we assume in advance that the council was itself infallible. In the absence of infallibility on the part of the First Vatican Council, the pronouncement in Pastor Aeternalis is no more than an opinion..In the same document, the council appears to have limited that infallibility, by limiting the pope to jealously guarding and explaining what was handed down through the apostles, and not the ability to disclose a new doctrine by revelation (chapter 4):6. For the Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of Peter not so that they might, by his revelation, make known some new doctrine, but that, by his assistance, they might religiously guard and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith transmitted by the apostles.The council may not have intended to have one clause limit the other in this way. The pope's pronouncement on the Assumption of the virgin Mary was certainly not handed down through the apostles, so even if the pope is indeed infallible on certain matters Robinson believes this clause means that the pope was assuming an infallibility he did not have in this case.In summary: (i) the Bible is generally regarded as containing infallible teachings (ii) there is reasonable doubt whether Catholics really ought to hold the pope to be infallible; and (iii) there is further doubt as to whether the pope ought to be regarded as infallible when making pronouncements such as on the Assumption of Mary.
