Talk:Biblical infallibility

Subject
Wait, isn't the document in discussion nothing more than a work of human fiction? Shouldn't notes like the mistakes made in the document be in with its main page? I don't understand the significance of this article, can someone start an effort to clean this place up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.102.128.133 (talk) 03:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

New Article
This article is my first "from scratch" type article. I recognise my own weakness as an opinionated poorly organised human. :) Please help where ever you see the need. Thanks! --DjSamwise 00:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Historical Perspective in Theology
I can't find my old compilations of articles from Bible school on the "great debate"in the 70's and 80's so I need experts to help me fill in the blanks. I'm especially looking for an expert on the incidents at Fuller and with the Lutheran church seeing as how that sparked it for our society. I tried to throw a small frame work up on the page in which, if you feel comfortable, I hope you will expound. --DjSamwise 00:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

This part of the article is too superficial, and I especially do not agree with bishop Spongs assertion about the scripture as the "lutheran pope". In spite of Luthers focus on scriptural authority, he was absolutly not an early representative for the modern thoughts of biblical infallibility. While Luther used the term "claritas scripturae" in the light of Christ the original Word of God. It was after Luthers time this was changed to perspective on the scripture as "perspicuitas scripturae". Master of studies in christianity, Bjoern Ole Hovda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.208.95.195 (talk) 09:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Conservative Position
Regarding the historical perspective of Conservatives if there's anymore question, just follow the provided link http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/chicago.htm .. probably one of the most well known docrinal statemtns on the subject. It clearly outlines the stance on biblical inerrency that is maintained by conservative christian denominations and institutions. That isnot to say that all conservative Christians believe that. But virtually all Christian organizations that identify with conservative Christian doctrine affirm inerreny as documented in the Chicago statement. Peace. --Home Computer 22:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

In Practice
Is there a way to use a different example than homosexuality? The LCMS is not a hate group, and does not hate those who choose various lifestyles. This section also appears to be biased towards the ELCA, rather than providing a neutral stance. Thanks, Dulcimerist 22:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I chose those examples because of thier prominence in the public forums and because it was themost obvious example of where the small change in doctrines led them. The Lutheran Church was at the forefront of the inerrency debate and nowthat each group has gone thier own way, the ELC is now at the forefront of the debate on whether or not to ordain homnosexuals since they no longer affirm that it's wrong to be one. I find it very pertinent to the discussion.

Side note, agreeing with what the Bible says on Homosexuality doesn't make one hateful. Quite the contrary, Jesus would hang out with what the Bible called "sexually immoral" claiming that they were the ones that really needed him, he wound up dying for them (and all of us sinners). Peace. :) --Home Computer 22:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the value of Pi would make a better example. 24.252.195.3 (talk) 06:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have appended the following warning to the section In Practice: The present contents of this section is neither an illustration nor an example of the definition of "Biblical Infallibility" at the top of the article: "Biblical infallibility is the theological term to describe the belief that the Bible is free from errors on issues of faith and practice, while minor possible contradictions in history (or geography, science etc.) can be overlooked as insignificant to its spiritual purpose." Miguel de Servet (talk) 10:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Dulcimerist
Tags and overall appearance look great! Thanks for helping this article out. --Home Computer 22:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Term
Is this actually a widely used term? From my understanding "infallibility" is something else. Str1977 (smile back) 19:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you are correct, Str. I belive that the term meant is Biblical inerrancy, not infallibility.  I think a merge would be in order.  -- Pastordavid 03:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The current opening paragraph compares and contrasts Biblical infallibility with Biblical inerrancy, and cites two sources. Do you have another source that provides a different view? -- Cat Whisperer 11:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The definitions of 'infallible' and 'inerrant' given in this article pertain only to a redefining of the terms in the 70's. The word 'inerrant' actually means "without error".  The word 'infallible' means incapable of error.  'Infallible', by definition, is actually a stronger term than 'inerrant'.  Indeed, if something is infallible then it must be inerrant. -- As for sources, look it up in the dictionary. Jgompert 18:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The way i am reading this, Jgompert is correct here. Inerrancy and infallibility are virtual synonyms though with the shade of meaning that he outlines. When mainstream theologians have used the term "infallible" to describe the truthof the Bible, they usually have qualified this e g "with regard to matters of faith and the things necessary for salvation." The term has not really acquired the stand-alone use that this article claims for it. Frankly, this article is aload of cobblers. The problem is likely to be the sheer amounrt of spare time enjoyed by theology professors in small American universities.Benny the wayfarer (talk) 15:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that infallibility is a subset of inerrancy. In other words, if you believe in inerrancy you will believe in infallibility, but not necessarily vice versa. See for instance http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Chicago_Statement_on_Biblical_Inerrancy Article XI, (an inerrantist statement): "Infallibility and inerrancy may be distinguished but not separated. The article (i.e. this WP article) says that infallibility is another term for limited inerrancy. By my understanding (and I claim the Chicago statement as one of several sources) that is definitely wrong and should change. Peter Ballard (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This article is confused
Real Biblical Infallibility is simply a flip side of the same thing that inerrancy describes. The difference between the two is NOT how many or what kind of mistakes they think the Bible might have. Instead, Biblical Infallibility refers to the authority of the truthfulness of the Bible in a sensus literalis, Historical-Grammatical interpretation, while Inerrancy, a mathematical term, refers to the non-contradictedness of the Bible and the absolute truth of it all, also provided a sensus literalis, Historical-Grammatical interpretation. Infallibility is NOT inerrancy lite. Heterodox professors have redefined both the terms of Infallibility & Inerranncy as they please, but the redefinition by a few in order to attempt to meet doctrinal requirements for their respective church-bodies for professorship does not alter the objective and historical meaning of the terms in Systematics.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added this as a second, alternative, meaning of the word. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge
Should be merged with Biblical inerrancy. Somebody be bold. -- Secisek (talk) 22:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't actually do a merge, but I moved almost all material to Biblical inerrancy, leaving this article to only contain two alternative definitions of Biblical infallibility. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Catholic Church controversy
Regarding biblical infalliblity, there was a controversy in the Roman Catholic Church on whether the Church taught infallibility or inerrancy. Some have interpreted Dei Verbum as teaching the infallibility position, while others note that the conciliar document often quotes previous documents such as Providentissimus Deus and Divino Afflante Spiritu that clearly teach inerrancy. In any even, it would be a good idea to examine what exactly the Church teaches. ADM (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Inerrant and infallible
The text now reads"Biblical infallibility is the belief that what the Bible says regarding matters of faith and Christian practice are wholly useful and true. By comparison, 'infallible' is a stronger term than 'inerrant.' 'Inerrant' means there are no errors; 'infallible' means there can be no errors. Some denominations that teach infallibility hold that the historical or scientific details, which may be irrelevant to matters of faith and Christian practice, may contain errors." Logical nonsense. The same editor has done something similar in Biblical inerrancy. Myrvin (talk) 12:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Inerrant and infallible
The text now reads"Biblical infallibility is the belief that what the Bible says regarding matters of faith and Christian practice are wholly useful and true. By comparison, 'infallible' is a stronger term than 'inerrant.' 'Inerrant' means there are no errors; 'infallible' means there can be no errors. Some denominations that teach infallibility hold that the historical or scientific details, which may be irrelevant to matters of faith and Christian practice, may contain errors." Logical nonsense. The same editor has done something similar in Biblical inerrancy. Myrvin (talk) 12:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Inerrant and infallible
The text now reads"Biblical infallibility is the belief that what the Bible says regarding matters of faith and Christian practice are wholly useful and true. By comparison, 'infallible' is a stronger term than 'inerrant.' 'Inerrant' means there are no errors; 'infallible' means there can be no errors. Some denominations that teach infallibility hold that the historical or scientific details, which may be irrelevant to matters of faith and Christian practice, may contain errors." Logical nonsense. The same editor has done something similar in Biblical inerrancy. Myrvin (talk) 12:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Not clear why the comment above has to appear three times. The amusing thing about the "inerrancy" vs "infallibility" discussion is that it highlights a characteristic of language - that words are used for different purposes by different communities at different times. The only way the original meaning of a text can be retrieved is by a historical/linguistic study of the use of the terms by something resembling historical-scientific techniques (eg to unpack the complex meanings and associations of a word such as "gnosis"). So there is no escaping science, folks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.41.167 (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Emil Brunner
I grant that the new material is now properly referenced, but I'm afraid I don't see the significance to this article. It's not really about Biblical infallibility as such, but about a specific (Reformed) viewpoint of a different Catholic doctrine (Papal infallibility). As such, it entangles two separate things unnecessarily, and in reference to one point of view, opening the need for further discussion (in the article) of alternate points of view. I don't see that this side topic has sufficient significance to be covered in this article. Evensteven (talk) 21:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This Brunner (who seems to have had some importance) stuff may not belong in that section, but to an outsider like me, it is of interest that someone like him draws the parallel between Papal and Biblical infallibility. Something that seems obvious now that I have read it, but wasn't before. Perhaps it should go in Catholicism. Myrvin (talk) 06:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If others agree as to significance, I have no objection to its inclusion. I do agree that it belongs outside the lead paragraphs. And I was even thinking it might be put into a new section on something like "comparative views", as it's not strictly about Catholicism itself either. I believe it would represent an expansion of topic within the article, so a new section would better clarify its place in the subject. Evensteven (talk) 07:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * How about a section on Christian infallibility. Using, there is Biblical, Papal, and Councils of the Church. It would show how the Biblical is a part of a larger idea. Myrvin (talk) 08:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is necessarily accepted that it is part of a larger idea. That is the author's opinion, but as far as I know, that is as far as the idea goes. And if farther, then certainly only one view. That is not the approach I would take. Evensteven (talk) 09:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There is also this, which says "Nevertheless there are some notable ‘family resemblances’. The doctrine of papal infallibility adopted at Vatican I (1869–70) was a response to the same liberal or modernizing tendencies to which the original fundamentalists were responding during the first two decades of the 20th century, with papal infallibility corresponding to biblical inerrancy." Also this and this p.19. This is all happening at about the same time as a reaction to modern liberal ideas.Myrvin (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, nicely done. As far as I'm concerned, that certainly seems to be enough to indicate that the idea goes well beyond just one author, and that it has a wider significance. So I would think that's plenty to meet the inclusion criteria in the article, and you've got sources for the entry. I still think the right principle for the organization of the article would be to put it into a separate section, as it is not strictly about Biblical infallibility itself but about its relation to other doctrines of infallibility. I also think some care should be taken in wording to be explicit in expressing the idea as a comparison between fundamentalism and Catholicism, since it doesn't apply to other Christian groups who speak of Biblical infallibility (such as the Orthodox). Prominent enough it may be, but (in my opinion) not especially enlightening. Evensteven (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Biblical infallibility. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140531175312/http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html to http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
 * Added tag to http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?ptid=1&mid=1649

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:06, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Biblical infallibility. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120508175506/http://www.scotthahn.com/download/attachment/2516 to http://www.scotthahn.com/download/attachment/2516

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:41, 19 July 2017 (UTC)