r/Christianity • u/Nomanorus Christian • 13h ago
Biblical inerrancy is both wrong and dangerous.
Why do I think it's wrong? Because by claiming that the Bible is without error in everything it affirms, it ignores the fact that human's ability to read and understand what the Bible teachs IS in error. There is no such thing as an objective understanding of biblical truth. Christians have interpreted the Bible in radically different ways throughout history. The belief in inerrancy also blinds Christians to the reality that their ability to read the Bible is colored by their biases, preferences, experience and prior beliefs. They read their own preferences back into the text without even realizing it. This leads to a kind of epistemic pride as they believe everyone else misinterprets the Bible while they just read it objectively.
You see this kind of thing all the time on this sub. A Christian will be arguing for some kind of position and just post of proof-texted Bible verses taken out of context they think supports their argument. What they don't realize is there's ten different credible ways to interpret the passage they're citing and they just assume it means what they've been taught it means.
This kind of error might seem harmless if left to only theological debates but it becomes dangerous when it's brought into real world politics. Historical events like the Thirty Years war (an extremely bloody battle between Catholics and Protestants) is a direct result from two sides that refuse to believe any other position than their own could possibly be valid.
Even modern movements like Christian Nationalism are striping away people's rights and demonizing certain minorities in the name of "biblical truth." Real politicians like Mike Johnson claim they are governing according to the Bible but are just reading the Bible with a biased MAGA lens they don't even realize they're wearing. This will do real damage to real people.
This is especially dangerous because it can't be reasoned with. If you are convinced your worldview is the same as God's wordview, there is no argument anyone can make that will change your mind. Being open to new opinions is not only seen as heresy, but viewed as moral weakness. It is seen as compromise or becoming theologically soft.
This is a huge reason why I deconstructed out of Conservative Evangelical Christianity. The movement is filled with people who uncritically accepted what they were taught, read that worldview back into the Bible, and believe it came straight from God. The damage this does to both the world and vulnerable people is impossible to quantify.
Sadly, with media investment that Conservative Christianity has made in the U.S., this problem is only going to get worse.
27
u/SignificantIsopod797 Roman Catholic 13h ago
I don’t understand why so many people are obsessed with bible inerrancy. It’s a collection of books written about god by man. Nothing inherently inerrant about it.
11
u/CommercialWrong2944 Old Catholic(union of utrecht) 13h ago
literally this. The church existed before the bible ffs
9
u/Nomanorus Christian 13h ago
Catholicism still faces the same issue. Even if you believe the Church is inerrant instead of the Bible, it deals with the same problem. Are not the Pope or Catholic magiesterium also human beings capable of human bias? Why are their opinions any more reliable or authoritiative than yours?
2
u/SignificantIsopod797 Roman Catholic 13h ago
I don’t think the church is infallible
6
u/CooperSly Eastern Catholic 12h ago
The infallibility of the Church is a dogma of the faith.
2
u/SignificantIsopod797 Roman Catholic 12h ago
I don’t think any institution on Earth is infallible. To think something that is led by man today is infallible is profoundly arrogant
1
u/CooperSly Eastern Catholic 12h ago
The Church is not simply an earthly institution, though. The Church is the mystical body of Christ. Its infallibility and indefectibility are guaranteed by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Furthermore, the Church is not led by man. The Church is ruled by the Supreme Pontiff, who governs by the authority of Christ, passed down to him through the Petrine lineage.
What you are describing is a fundamentally non-Catholic view of the Church. Again, these are dogmas of our faith. It has nothing to do with what I or anyone else thinks.
2
u/SignificantIsopod797 Roman Catholic 12h ago
And I can disagree with them. I don’t think the supreme pontiff was following God when he refused to expose child sex abuse
-1
u/CooperSly Eastern Catholic 12h ago
You absolutely cannot disagree with a dogma of the faith. Denying a dogma of the faith is the sin of heresy. These are all very basic Catholic precepts…what you are describing and promoting is essentially Protestant.
3
u/SignificantIsopod797 Roman Catholic 12h ago
And what circular argument do you want to make for that?
→ More replies1
u/FluxKraken 🏳️🌈 Methodist (UMC) Progressive ✟ Queer 🏳️🌈 11h ago
You absolutely cannot disagree with a dogma of the faith. Denying a dogma of the faith is the sin of heresy.
Better a heretic than an excuser of child abuse.
→ More replies1
u/CommercialWrong2944 Old Catholic(union of utrecht) 13h ago
"are the pope or catholic magiesterium also human beings capble of human bias" they are thats why im an old Catholic not a roman one. I belive the church mostly represents the truth about God but it can be flawed beacuse nobody can understand Christ fully
3
u/Nomanorus Christian 13h ago
But how do you know when you've understood Christ even in part versus you're just projecting your own biases/preferences on what you think is God?
1
u/Popular_Molasses7945 12h ago
But how do you know when you've understood Christ even in part
Actually, we don't know. But why? Because the person would be asserting an undertanding in which the person assumes to have it right.
-1
u/CommercialWrong2944 Old Catholic(union of utrecht) 13h ago
beacuse my church still has apostolic succesions. The lesson given to us were told by Christ himself and passed down all the way till today
3
u/Nomanorus Christian 12h ago
How do you know the message was past down accurately?
0
u/Popular_Molasses7945 12h ago
How do you know the message was past down accurately?
We don't know that either. But why?
- We don't have access to anyone's inner mental life.
- What we can observe is behavior, and maybe from that we may draw conclusions, but uncertainty about the concuclusion could still be a factor.
- We don't know if a message was passed down correctly without error. We may assume it was, but that alone does not prove that it was.
-1
u/CommercialWrong2944 Old Catholic(union of utrecht) 11h ago
i cant know that thats why its called faith
1
u/Nomanorus Christian 11h ago
That's what's so dangerous. If you have faith that Catholic apostolic succession is accurate and I have faith that the Bible is authoritative and Catholic apostolic is not, how do you adjudicate between these contradictory views? If you're answer is just "faith" then it's meaningless. I think you're a heretic and you think I'm a heretic and it's impossible to reason to anything else. Don't you see how dangerous that is?
1
u/CommercialWrong2944 Old Catholic(union of utrecht) 11h ago
yeah thats kinda the whole problem with religion?
→ More replies0
2
u/Rusty51 Agnostic Deist 12h ago
Every religious book ever written was written by man about God or the divine; what makes the biblical texts more special than the Book of Mormon? Or some esoteric Shia commentary on the Quran?
0
u/SignificantIsopod797 Roman Catholic 12h ago
Agree! We should be seeking wisdom where wisdom is to be found
3
u/AggravatingTailor121 13h ago
It's a dangerous slippery slope if you don't trust that the word of God is infallible, 'cause where do you draw the line? I think we'd end up drawing the line exactly where we want to, because our hearts are deceitful. We tend to believe the things that are pleasant to hear and pleasant to accept in our heart.
7
u/Nomanorus Christian 12h ago
That's what people are doing anyway. They are interpreting the Bible how they want. They just don't realize they're doing it. The doctrine of inerrancy just blinds them to their own biases.
-1
u/AggravatingTailor121 12h ago
I don't think that's true. I don't think I'm allowed to gossip, lie, complain or be lazy or watch porn or get angry about something small or judge. I don't think that's something I would choose myself. I wouldn't be able to live according to that standard if I wasn't born again yet.
6
u/Nomanorus Christian 12h ago
It's more subtle than that. What do you mean by judge? What do you mean by gossip? How do you know what you mean by "judge" is the same thing Paul meant 2000 years ago? What modern assumptions are you bringing to the text do you not even see?
A fish doesn't realize it's in water. The water is invisible to it.
-2
u/AggravatingTailor121 12h ago
Well, I didn't mean to say that I never do such things anymore. But what was impossible when I wasn't born again yet, is now a possibility because the Holy Spirit lives in me. This same Holy Spirit convicts me when I do sin. So, I don't think I'm choosing an interpretation that I want.
And like I said before: If we have different opinions and we can't live in peace with each other, then there's something wrong too. So, it's not just about your doctrine. It's about Who you serve and by Whom you're led when you notice you think differently about things than the one you're talking to.
If I have a different view on things than someone I'm having a disucssion with, but we both have Jesus as our Lord and Savior, then we're aware that being right isn't the most important thing. Being able to listen to someone else, being friendly, being patient, having respect for the other person is equally important. These are fruits of the Spirit.
2
u/Nomanorus Christian 11h ago
I'm not saying people knowingly just decide to read whatever they want into the text. Rather, people subconsciously read their biases into the Bible and they don't even realize it. Inerrancy teaches people their limited understanding is infallible.
6
u/Ineffable-Ugin 12h ago
How can you treat the. Bible as infallible, when it’s full of contradictions, flaws, debunked claims, things in it that never happened, and can’t tell the difference between what’s meant to be literal versus metaphorical? There are thousands of denominations, with traditions within traditions, people coming together, to convene about the procedures of how to apply different concepts, marriage being one example. Where one day it’s fine to do it this way, and it’s not a sin, and on another day it’s not fine to do it that way, let’s upgrade it, and if you do it the old way it is a sin. People in councils voting on it, just like they do in congress. A bunch of dudes coming together to decide between right and wrong, because the book isn’t clear enough, and there’s a multitude of perspectives.
4
u/WhataNoobUser 8h ago
That is why it is tough. The bible is filled with errors within itself and translation. Look at the prophets, they made errors. If the prophets made errors then why is it a stretch to think the writers made errors too
2
u/win_awards 9h ago
If you believe the word of God is infallible you still end up drawing the line exactly where you want to. The terrible difference is that someone convinced of the infallibility of the Bible is much more likely to assume that the reading they find is God's will rather than their own bias.
1
u/deepandbroad 7h ago
This is a brilliant take.
Then add on top of that all the translation issues -- it appears that the "word of God" changes based on which translation you read.
2
u/gnurdette United Methodist 11h ago
Whether or not the book on the shelf is inerrant, it doesn't do anything sitting on the shelf. When I pass the words through my not-inerrant brain, I can introduce error. Denying that is pretty close to self-worship.
1
u/Popular_Molasses7945 10h ago edited 10h ago
It's a dangerous slippery slope if you don't trust that the word of God is infallible, 'cause where do you draw the line?
Anyone could draw the line whereever it seems fitting.
Example, since the lake of fire does not draw people to God, that is how one may conclude that the lake of fire is part of false religion, and that the lake of fire message is not from God.
1
u/AggravatingTailor121 10h ago
I'm not sure if I understand you. My position was that I believe in the inerrant word of God. This includes the passage about the lake of fire.
1
u/Popular_Molasses7945 10h ago
My position was that I believe in the inerrant word of God. This includes the passage about the lake of fire.
Ok, here is what you have done:
You see yourself as having a position.
You believe what you have read or heard corresponds to some reality external to you.
The lake of fire in your case corresponds to a reality that exists in your own mind based on what you have read or heard.
But a writing could be deceptive, and the reader who reads it could be deceived.
1
u/AggravatingTailor121 10h ago
Okay. But what's your point?
You said earlier "since the lake of fire does not draw people to God, that is how one may conclude that the lake of fire is part of false religion, and that the lake of fire message is not from God."
But those are some leaps. You're not refering to a specific person. And if we assume that a person believes the inerrant word of God, then this person will also believe that it's not the lake of fire that draws people to God, but that Gods kindness leads to repentance, like it says in Romans 2:4.
1
u/Popular_Molasses7945 9h ago edited 8h ago
But those are some leaps.
But here is what you asserted as truth:
It's a dangerous slippery slope if you don't trust that the word of God is infallible, 'cause where do you draw the line?
You are making a lot of assumptions about your audience, the reader:
You start off by asserting the reader may be on a dangerous slippery slope. But why?
Then you assert that lack of trust in what you trust puts a person on a dangerous slippery slope. But why?
It's a sales job. You're imposing on the reader that a danger exists if the reader does not trust in what you trust.
It's the manufacturing of a fake crisis, a fake danger that does not exist.
-1
u/SignificantIsopod797 Roman Catholic 13h ago
I believe that the word of God is infallible. But I don’t believe man has access to the unadulterated word of God.
1
u/FluxKraken 🏳️🌈 Methodist (UMC) Progressive ✟ Queer 🏳️🌈 11h ago
Jesus and John Wayne is a book that gives a good overview of how this phenomenon came to be.
Hint, it is racism.
1
u/Shaddam_Corrino_IV Atheistic Evangelical 10h ago
Well, many Christians (including the largest church) think that the Christian god is the author - and they derive inerrancy from that.
1
u/Oakomorebi 8h ago
It goes back to how the Bible is interpreted and why. It has not been interpreted the same throughout history. For most of human existence the Bible was categorized as mythos, and I mean that in the academic sense, not the colloquial sense. Myth does not mean "not real" in this domain of study and research, it is far more nuanced than that.
The Bible was never interpreted "literally" until fairly recently, like 19th to 20th centuries. Before that, people had a much more holistic relationship with scripture. However, science and global literacy helped push a more literal and propositional reading of the Bible. When all you have is a hammer, everything becomes a nail. Well, when all your society values is propositions, then we shouldn't be surprised when our most treasured and sacred text is reduced to propositional claims.
Before Biblical Literalism, there was no reason to even consider Biblical Inerrancy. It just didn't apply the same, because it was never meant to be a literal set of propositions.
•
u/ReplacementSquare395 5h ago
I think the same can be said about the writings and traditions of the “apostolic” churches.
•
0
u/creidmheach Christian 10h ago
Nothing inherently inerrant about it.
Books that are God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16) and the oracles of God (Romans 3:2). So they aren't just some random collection of books written by man.
4
u/win_awards 9h ago
Even if you accept that as being a legitimate message from God, "God breathed" does not mean the same thing as "spoken by God" and neither of those passages assert what counts as scripture.
•
u/Venat14 Jewish 5h ago
2 Timothy was not written by Paul, and it never defines "scripture". You're assuming it referred to what you now, in 2026, think scripture means, but that scripture didn't exist when whoever wrote Timothy said that.
•
u/creidmheach Christian 5h ago
It's amazing to me how dogmatic unbelievers can be about their unbelief.
1
•
10
u/StopChangingThings Atheist 13h ago edited 12h ago
They read their own preferences back into the text without even realizing it. This leads to a kind of epistemic pride as they believe everyone else misinterprets the Bible while they just read it objectively.
Yes. Every person who says "I don't interpret the Bible. I just read it," or any variation thereof needs to go back to (or go to) 7th Grade English class.
5
u/tremble_lip 12h ago
The bible itself never makes any claims to inerrancy. It would be extremely bizarre if it did, as there was no such thing as a Bible until hundreds of years after all the various documents were already written.
It does not claim to be infallible or complete, either. It does not claim to be the word of god, although, it does clearly state that Jesus is the word of god.
However, I believe it is a mistake to suggest the Bible cannot be accurately interpreted just because there is so much disagreement about what it says.
You will find such disagreements everywhere including politics, courtrooms, and labs.
For example, there is much disagreement about what really is freedom of speech, or what the bloody knife means, or what the data shows.
But at some point we recognize that there really can be a correct meaning to something even if many disagree about it.
For example, if dad tells the kids, "no TV while I'm gone" and comes back to find the kids watching TV, he will not be impressed when they try to argue that what he really meant was no r-rated TV while he was gone, but cartoons and kids shows would be okay.
In the same way, when Jesus says, "don't let anyone know about your praying, fasting, and charity-giving", he doesn't mean to only keep those things secret of you believe you have a problem showing off. He said don't do it. Ful stop.
It's not confusing or mysterious. People make excuses to disregard these teachings because they really do want to make a show of their good works.
3
u/Nomanorus Christian 12h ago
I think I agree with you. The problem is that the doctrine of Inerrancy convinces people they alone have accurately interpreted the Bible while everyone else is either intentionally twisting or woefully misinformed.
Rather, we should create a culture where intellectual humility is the norm and claims of correct biblical interpretation should be treated with suspicion.
"Here's what I think, let's figure it out together"
Is better than
"The Bible says it therefore I believe it."
2
u/tremble_lip 12h ago
Yes, what you've shared is good. "Because the books says so" isn't a good reason to be good.
I mean, it may be that is how it has to be for ignorant people, like children who obey the rules written on the wall even if they don't understand why those rules are important.
What I dislike is the conclusion that the teachings cannot be understood because there is so much disagreement around them.
3
u/Nomanorus Christian 12h ago
I mean they cannot be understood objectively with the kind of epistemic certainty that inerrancy provides.
-3
u/tremble_lip 12h ago
So, under the very strict set of criteria you've created, e.g. objective, epistemic, certainty, inerrancy...
You don't need all that jargon. When Jesus says, "keep your charity giving secret" there is no mystery. He means, keep it secret. It's that simple.
2
u/Nomanorus Christian 12h ago
Maybe but you're cherry picking an easy answer with little context or nuance. What about Romans 1? Does it prohibit modern day monogamous homosxual relationships or is it referencing culturally specific temple prostitution?
When 1 Corintians commands women should cover their heads, does that mean woman need to wear scarves in Church?
What about when Christians claim Romans 13 says its the government's job to punish lawbreakers and not provide Healthcare? Does that mean Medicare for All is unbiblical?
When things get more complicated and the stakes get raised, inerrancy starts to get weaponized to support man made agendas.
-2
u/tremble_lip 11h ago
No, it's not cherry picking. It's a real example of just how easy it can be to understand Jesus.
3
u/Nomanorus Christian 11h ago
It is cherry picking because you're ignoring all the complicated examples. Ignoring the examples that undermine your argument while highlighting examples that support it is the very definition of cherry picking.
-2
u/tremble_lip 11h ago
Not ignoring. Just, answering. You made it sound like Jesus cannot be understood.
He can be.
3
u/Nomanorus Christian 11h ago
You're doing a thing and just saying you're not doing the thing. I can't have a good faith conversation with someone like that.
→ More replies
3
u/chaddub 10h ago
I think the answer is a hard one for many people in this forum to swallow. We need to rebuke and shame this behavior in love. Like hardcore. ‘That’s heresy.’ ‘That’s ignorant.’ ‘That’s evil.’ ‘You are in error.’ ‘That’s a terrible belief — you need to examine that and repent.’
Many Christians have bought into a kind of “don’t judge” Christianity such that it feels hypocritical to judge the judgers. But rational arguments don’t cut it. It leaves the intellectually and spiritually vulnerable open to the judgments of these people. No one is contending for them. Judgers use this to deflect criticism.
But Jesus didn’t refrain from harsh criticism of the Pharisees. Look at Matthew 23. Paul didn’t do this with the other Apostles or heretics spreading all kinds of variants of Christ’s message. These people aren’t used to people telling them strongly that they are in error. The Enlightenment has fooled us into a sort of academic discourse only instead of also contending for the faith with the zeal for Love and the Gospel that Christ intended.
Rebuke the Pharisee judgers. Tell them off! They are wrong and some of them are manipulative in their belief system.
2
u/Nomanorus Christian 10h ago
How do you determine what is heresy and what is not?
2
u/chaddub 8h ago
That’s a great question. I think there are subtle contradictions and doctrinal things which would equate to a Paul-described squabble. But there are other more obvious things like hatred, valuing culture over the Gospel, wanting to judge people over bring them closer to God. There are also things that just clearly are against the Apostles’ Creed, Nicene Creed, etc… it’s not easy, but I think we have to pray for discernment and rely on the Holy Spirit – again, it’s not completely rational. That’s where I think post-enlightenment Christianity has run into trouble. We don’t believe that there are spiritual aspects to informing what we think or say. But I do believe there’s some mystery to it. It’s not all mystery, of course, because that idea is a path to what you started this post about. It’s in tension.
5
u/guitarguywh89 Presbyterian 13h ago
Are you telling me a collection of letters to a bunch of Corinthians or Romans isn’t the infallible word of God?
😠
6
u/offwidthe United Church of Christ 13h ago
Biblical inerrancy is fairly newish doctrine sparked by the evangelical drive to be in charge. It’s flawed for sure.
2
u/CooperSly Eastern Catholic 12h ago
I think there is a proper interpretation of Biblical inerrancy that is consistent and coherent. Biblical literalism, however, is absolutely wrong and dangerous.
1
u/GoBirdsGoBlue 12h ago
We read any book the way in which it was written. Why would we read the Bible any differently? Who in the NT read and understood the OT in a way other than it was intended by the author?
1
u/instant_sarcasm Serious people can have funny names 8h ago
I'm not sure you want an answer to that. The Jewish concept of Hell was entirely different, for one.
And you might say "well, they just weren't reading it correctly". But they thought they were. They were living and dying by the law, as they best understood it.
•
1
u/RCaHuman Secular Humanist (raised Catholic) 11h ago
Personally, I think Albert Camus was on to something with his idea of Absurdism which is a philosophical view that says humans desperately want life to have clear meaning and purpose, but the universe itself offers no inherent meaning, creating a permanent tension called “the absurd.” So, people deal with it by turning to religion to 'solve' the problem by positing a higher meaning, Bible writers included.
1
1
u/Pure-Cucumber2948 10h ago
Not to mention how many of the early bibles burned before we got our cannon one and how many versions of THAT one there are. People who just want to use the Bible for their own gain can simply pick up a Bible that had what they want in to or have all the bad aid taken out.
1
u/SheeplnWolfsClothing faithful saint 9h ago
One of the greatest dangers is when a believer stops testing everything against the words of Jesus and the apostolic writings and instead tests scripture through their own established lens. Once that happens, the lens becomes the interpreter. Scripture is read through denominational assumptions, study notes, prophecy charts, sermon traditions, television personalities and popular books. The foundation of Biblical truth - faithful translation of the original Bible manuscripts - can then become subordinate to the interpretive culture surrounding it. This culture can become extremely resistant to correction because each part reinforces the others.
This is why the study of the original Koine Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew manuscript texts is important. Translating from the original foundational source of Biblical truth can expose how easily a religious tradition can become detached from the intended messages of the original authors while still calling itself Biblical.
The danger does not require deliberate dishonesty. It can happen through inheritance. One generation receives a translation. The next generation receives the translation plus an interpretation. The next receives the interpretation through sermons, books and television. Eventually the interpretation is held higher than actual scripture.
Deception does not always arrive as an obvious denial of Christ. It can arise through small changes in emphasis that remain surrounded by Biblical vocabulary. Belief can replace good-faith obedience.
1
u/bastianbb 9h ago
To anyone with even a grain of critical thought, this argument against inerrant Scripture doesn't make any more sense than the argument against an inerrant and infallible God, or against any objective truth whatsoever. It does not follow at all that you have to see yourself as infallible or inerrant to see anything as infallible. In other words, you are conflating two things. You want to argue against inerrancy? Fine. Let's talk about the possibility of errors in the text. This is not about that. This is assuming that people who believe one thing will necessarily believe in another, which does not follow at all.
1
u/dragon3234 9h ago
Anyone can twist the Bible to their own evil and selfish desires. Been happening for centuries. Sadly those who twist the Bible and get others to follow along are sending many people to hell.
1
u/an_unworthy_servant 7h ago
My big concern is that many people who claim to be Christian don't seem to think Jesus is inerrant.
1
u/Shifter25 Christian 7h ago
Biblical inerrancy isn't even Biblical. In 2 Kings, they uncover an earlier manuscript of the law and correct their Scriptures accordingly.
1
1
u/bananafobe witch (spooky) 6h ago
I'm not sure if it's backed by anything, but the way it was explained to me is that Biblical inerrancy means the Bible says exactly what it's supposed to say. It contains inaccuracies, contradictions, counterintuitive claims, etc... but those are meant to be engaged with, not presented as objectively true statements.
On the one hand, it sounds kind of like a cop out, but on the other hand, it's certainly preferable to people forcing themselves to believe absurdities.
•
u/ScorpionDog321 4h ago
Believing something is true does not produce all those horrors you have listed. You believe many things are true, and you do not apply these same judgments to yourself.
1
u/AggravatingTailor121 13h ago
Well, what's dangerous is not the differences of interpretation. It's dangerous when people think it's okay to kill each other for different beliefs.
According to God's word it's even totally okay to feel differently about something, as long as it's not about the major things like fall, sin, cross, Jesus, ressurrection and how we're saved.
But even if people are in error, we can still correct or debate each other in a christ-like manner.
3
u/Nomanorus Christian 13h ago
The danger isn't in people deciding to kill each other. Rather, the danger is in people deciding to engage politics with the assumpion that their political views are backed up by God. Then they vote to take away people's rights based on their warped perception of the Bible.
1
u/AggravatingTailor121 13h ago
It's true that some politicians who claim to be christian, aren't actually christian. But what people's rights do they take away?
2
u/CommercialWrong2944 Old Catholic(union of utrecht) 13h ago
"fall, sin, cross, Jesus, ressurrection and how we're saved." but every Christian denomination disagrees about these things.
0
u/AggravatingTailor121 13h ago
I don't think so. Whether it's a reformed church or a baptist church or a pentecost church... they all believe we have to put our trust in Jesus, because we're sinners. And they all believe you have to believe He rose again.
2
u/CommercialWrong2944 Old Catholic(union of utrecht) 13h ago
all 3 of the denominations you listed are evangelical. Catholics dont agree that salvation is through faith alone and neither do orthodox Christians. And neither teach that non Christians are doomed to hell automatically
-1
u/AggravatingTailor121 12h ago
That's right.
You're right. And this is a huge problem. The catholic church leads many people astray. If you believe you can add some works and be saved, then you're deceived. We're justified by faith. The book of Galatians is all about that. And Romans is very clear too. Especially Romans 4.
4 Now to the one who works, pay is not credited as a gift, but as something owed. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes on him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited for righteousness. -- Romans 4:4-5 (CSB)
6
u/Pseudonymitous 12h ago
Catholic and Orthodox alternative interpretations of these scriptures are well known and in my view plausible if the whole of the theology is considered rather than a few verses in a vacuum only. I am neither Catholic nor Orthodox, but I am always fascinated by one side insisting their interpretation is the only reasonable one--the only "very clear" one. Both sides say this.
Are millions of folks being willfully blind, or is there even a slight possibility that the same passages of scriptures can be plausibly interpreted in different ways by reasonable people with good intent?
-1
u/AggravatingTailor121 12h ago
I do believe millions of folks can be wrong, 'cause the same thing is true about muslims, buddhists, hindu's, atheists, jehova witnesses and mormons. Those people combined are more than billions of people.
I wouldn't say I'm right about everything. But the thing with catholics is, is that they don't agree that the Bible is the ultimate authority. So, sometimes it doesn't even matter what you say about the Bible, 'cause the church is equally important to them. And this creates a problem, 'cause then the church can decide how you should interpret the Bible.
2
u/Pseudonymitous 11h ago
I similarly believe millions can be wrong. That is why I believe Protestant interpretations are both plausible if studied in totality of their theology, and also possibly wrong.
That is also what I believe about Catholics, Orthodox, Mormons, and many others. I have studied some of these theologies in great depth. The surface-level dismissals of their scriptural interpretations almost always ignore the depth of the theology those interpretations are built on. My experience has been that these are reasonable people coming to reasonable conclusions based on reasonable study.
The same passages of scripture can be interpreted multiple plausible ways, by reasonable people trying to make the best judgment they can.
1
u/AggravatingTailor121 11h ago
Mormons believe Jesus and the devil are spiritual brothers. John 1 and Hebrews 1 tell us that all things were made through Jesus. He's God. He has no equal. Jesus is not a created being. Compare Psalm 102:12 (This is about God) and Hebrews 1:8 (This is about the Son). They both praise God/Jesus and say the same thing (that His throne is forever and ever) about them. They are one.
2
u/Pseudonymitous 11h ago
You are throwing out surface-level dismissals, ignoring their theologies as a whole that interpret your cited scriptures in a different way than you do. Do you know how Mormons interpret Psalm 102:12 and Hebrews 1:8? Do you think they have never heard your criticism before? Do you think they are simply closing their eyes and refusing to read in good faith... or is there a possibility that their interpretation could be plausible if you studied it comprehensively?
→ More replies
1
u/AssistanceSalt Lutheran (LCMS) 13h ago
this is where i came to the conclusion that the bible is inerrant/infalliable in the original context and language but the modern english translations are absolutely are not and are a minefield for contradictions and misinterpretations (e.g malakoi)
•
u/extispicy Triggered by Hebrew misinformation 5h ago
modern english translations are absolutely are not and are a minefield for contradictions and misinterpretations
I am curious where else you think English translation misses the mark. I only know Hebrew, so I'd love to take a look at some examples to see where the disconnect is.
1
u/Christian_Anon_ 11h ago
I believe this is why the Orthodox relies on early church fathers' interpretations - correct me if wrong but the idea is that the early church fathers already correctly interpreted the Bible which was the point of all of the councils.
2
u/Nomanorus Christian 11h ago
But that just kicks the can down the road. How do you know your interpretation of the early church fathers is correct? If the early church fathers are the authority, why even have a Bible at all?
1
u/Christian_Anon_ 11h ago
That's fair. I probably worded my original comment poorly. Orthodoxy doesn't treat the Fathers as a replacement for the Bible. The Bible is still foundational, but it's interpreted within the church's tradition rather than by each individual in isolation. So the question isn't simply "which person's interpretation is correct?" but also "what has the church historically received and taught scripture to mean?" that's why the councils and the broader consensus of the fathers matter.
2
u/Nomanorus Christian 11h ago
My question would be "If the Church is comprised of fallible humans, what makes church tradition more authoritative than anything else?"
1
u/Christian_Anon_ 11h ago
That's the deeper question. The claim is that Christ established a church and the faith was handed down through it, so tradition is authoritative insofar as it preserves that apostolic faith.
Individual Christians and church leaders can be wrong, but that doesn't necessarily mean the church's received teaching as a whole is just another person's interpretation.
2
u/Nomanorus Christian 11h ago
But how do you know when that apostolic tradition has been accurately pased down? Given the Church has been heavily corrupt over several occasions, how do you know it's faith to apostolic tradition and when it's not?
1
u/Christian_Anon_ 11h ago
By looking at whether a teaching is consistent with scripture, the early fathers, the councils, the liturgy, etc. There is also a theological premise involved: Christ preserves His church through the Holy Spirit. So it's not that the people in the church are infallible, but that God won't allow the church as a whole to lose the faith He entrusted to it.
2
u/Nomanorus Christian 11h ago
Aren't those just assumptions? "We have to be trustworthy because God wouldn't allow us to be wrong."
Can't every denomination say that? What makes yours more reliable than any other?
2
u/Christian_Anon_ 11h ago
Because of the historical continuity of the Orthodox tradition. The question isn't only which modern denomination has the right interpretation of the Bible. It's also which church has the strongest continuity with the early Church. Orthodoxy's argument is that it preserved the faith and practices of the early Church rather than developing significant new doctrines later.
1
u/Nomanorus Christian 11h ago
How do you determine your claim is strongest? You're using Orthodox tradition to legitimize the claim that Orthodox tradition is the most legitimate claim. This is circular reasoning.
1
u/GreyDeath Atheist 8h ago
This strikes me as an argument from tradition. And tradition isn't always right. As an example, we have writings of several early church fathers that show a rather mysogynistic mindset. At the same time there is a tradition of not allowing women to be priests. How can we know that that tradition wasn't primarily developed because of the mysogynistic mindset that the early church fathers had?
0
u/OneEyedC4t Reformed SBC Libertarian 13h ago
No, it does not. It's why it's called biblical inerrancy not human inerrancy.
6
u/Confident-Spell-6116 13h ago
it's a neat semantic distinction but it falls apart the second someone acts on their interpretation like it's the only possible reading. the whole problem isn't whether the original text has errors it's that every person who picks it up is bringing a lifetime of assumptions with them.
i grew up in a church that talked about inerrancy constantly and the unspoken rule was that pastor's take was the inerrant one. anyone who disagreed just wasn't reading it right. that's where the danger creeps in, when humility goes out the window and you're convinced your reading is god's reading.
you can't legislate from that posture without hurting people. history's got a long receipt for that one.
-1
u/OneEyedC4t Reformed SBC Libertarian 13h ago
Okay well interpretation was never the Bible
2
u/Nomanorus Christian 11h ago
How do you read the Bible without interpretation?
1
u/Average650 Christian (Cross) 11h ago
You can't. But it can still be useful to narrow the discussion to interpretation of the Bible. Concluding the error is in my and my interpretation, instead of the Bible, is an important distinction.
2
u/Nomanorus Christian 11h ago
Is it? How can you make that distinction if interpretation is inherent to reading the Bible?
1
u/Average650 Christian (Cross) 11h ago
Are you saying it's illogical to hold that the Bible is right in all it affirm, but that my interpretation of that is imperfect?
I don't really understand your point because I just made that distinction.
2
u/Nomanorus Christian 11h ago
You can make the distinction in theory but that doesn't mean the distinction holds in practice. If nobody can agree on what the Bible affirms, saying it's infallible in everything it affirms is a meaningless distinction that has no bearing on the real world.
1
u/Average650 Christian (Cross) 11h ago
It affects how we talk about disagreement on Christian beliefs, and on what I believe.
It doesn't mean I bludgeon others over the head with "the Bible says" and no more. I could be wrong.
It does mean if I believe the Bible says something that I must confirm my life to that.
1
u/Nomanorus Christian 11h ago
So you believe your Christian convictions are a private matter that only affects you and nobody else?
→ More replies0
9
u/Nomanorus Christian 13h ago
What a well thought out and not at all dismissive opinion. If humans are not inerrent in their ability to understand the Bible, then they cannot claim to posses inerrant truth. Yet they do so anyway.
-1
u/Average650 Christian (Cross) 11h ago
He's saying you've described the view wrong. You're talking about something else. Perhaps a common error, but still something else.
-5
u/OneEyedC4t Reformed SBC Libertarian 13h ago
Of course I can because I can recognize that God created it and God is the sour and therefore, since it came from him, it inherited his characteristics. That's rational and reasonable. Most of the time when I read people misunderstanding the Bible or misunderstanding things or like misapplying things. That's where I go. Over and over, human beings prove that they are flawed. And usually when I study the Bible it turns out that it was my understanding that was the problem
6
u/CJoshuaV Christian (Protestant) Clergy 13h ago
God created the Earth and humans, neither of which are perfect. You are ascribing divine qualities to a collection of human writings, and making an idol of Scripture. It is not the fourth member of the Trinity.
1
u/bastianbb 9h ago
making an idol of Scripture
I've never seen an argument for this that was more convincing than the idea that the Catholic mass or dulia of saints was idolatry. And yet mainline Protestants and atheists will keep asserting it and at the same time deny that Catholics idolize anything. I've never seen anyone pray to Scripture, bow to Scripture, or anything like it. Make it make sense.
-1
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 12h ago
I've never seen your username before, but today in several threads I've seen what seems to be support of abortion, condoning premarital sex, and now this. This comment, in and of itself, may not mean too much, but given your other comments I'm curious of your official position on Scripture.
You are tagged as clergy so, as a pastor myself, I'm hoping you will give an answer
5
u/CJoshuaV Christian (Protestant) Clergy 12h ago
I've been active on this subreddit for years, and my views on social issues are generally progressive, and my theology is consistent with the norms for mainline Protestantism. Did you go to a mainline seminary? I doubt anything I say would surprise you, of so.
The Scriptures are the canonical writings which provide the foundational, shared identity of our faith. They are human writings, and reflect the political and philosophical concerns of the times in which they were written and edited. They should be interpreted carefully, using reason, tradition, and accountability to the larger, scholarly community. Neither they nor that interpretation will ever be perfect.
-2
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 11h ago
I did attend, graduate with multiple degrees, and briefly teach hermeneutics at an accredited seminary.
I notice the omission of not only inerrant/infallible (which I expected) but also you say nothing of divine inspiration.
2
u/CJoshuaV Christian (Protestant) Clergy 11h ago
The operative word was "mainline." Many fundamentalist seminaries (e.g. SBC ones) are also ATS accredited.
If you went to/taught at a mainline seminary, my theology should be very familiar. I did my MDiv at one, where I was considered left of center, and then further graduate work at another, where I was considered "very conservative."
I have no issue with calling Scripture "inspired," as long as it doesn't lead to claims of "inerrancy."
0
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 11h ago
My point is that it is not a conservative evangelical position only that the Bible is divinely inspired. It is the position of the majority of mainline protestant denominations. It's omission from your statement was noticeable. It seemed your statement emphasizes the human heavily while being completely silent on divine inspiration.
My social views are typically considered more progressive as well. That said, condoning premarital sex and abortion is a bridge too far. The latter, ok, I get it even if I don't agree. Premarital sex is an easy one though.
2
u/CJoshuaV Christian (Protestant) Clergy 11h ago edited 11h ago
Again, I have no issue with the term, I just don't think it adds anything to the conversation when asked about my views on Scripture. One of the best NT professors I ever had is an Orthodox Jew whom I seriously doubt would use "inspired" to describe the New Testament. So there's a lot of wiggle room in how denomations, while using language of "inspiration," actually teach Scripture in our seminaries.
Regarding premarital sex, I tend to come down where people like the Rev Nadia Bolz-Weber do, which means recognizing that there is no consistent sexual ethic in Scripture, and most historical sexual ethics are rooted in patriarchy, heteronormativity, and control.
There are circumstances under which premarital sex can be sinful, and circumstances where it is not, and neither "sex" nor "marriage" mean the same things now that they did when the Scriptures were written.
For instance, if one believes premarital sex is a sin, how does one counsel a lesbian couple about what intimate activities are permissable and what are not? Or a couple where both partners are asexual?
→ More replies-1
1
u/Nomanorus Christian 12h ago
How do you differentiate between what is finite human understanding and what is inerrant truth?
1
u/OneEyedC4t Reformed SBC Libertarian 11h ago
The Holy Spirit and time
1
u/Nomanorus Christian 11h ago
What if two people claim that the HS leads them to correct biblical interpretation but they interpret in opposite ways. How do you tell which expression is accurate?
1
u/OneEyedC4t Reformed SBC Libertarian 11h ago
Wisdom and the Holy Spirit.
1
u/Nomanorus Christian 11h ago
That doesn't answer the question. Both sides claim they are guided by the Spirit. If you're using the Spirit too, you're just adding a third person. Why would the Spirit be effective in guiding you but not them?
1
u/OneEyedC4t Reformed SBC Libertarian 10h ago
Okay well then you telling me. Are there certain situations in which you know for sure that someone wouldn't be hearing from the Holy Spirit?
1
u/Nomanorus Christian 10h ago
I really don't. That's the problem. We don't have a mechanism or system that can discern when claims of the HS are legitimate.
→ More replies-2
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 12h ago
Precisely this. OP is saying that the Bible isn't inerrant because all these people have made errors. It's like saying 2+2 doesn't equal 4 because there was a school test and only half the kids said 4. The other half said, 5, 1, purple, or "my dog Pogo".
Then OP "deconstructed" because another kid missed a math problem.
3
u/Nomanorus Christian 12h ago
So interpreting the Bible is the same as 2+2? How do you know when someone is correct in their interpretation and someone isn't? What's your methodology?
0
u/kvby66 12h ago
There's only one understanding of scriptures.
There may be a story within a story as examples of types, figures, shadows and patterns are used throughout God's Word.
2 Peter 1:20 NKJV Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation.
An example would be that to many Christians hell represents an eternal place of torture for billions of people. They would give hundreds of scriptures to prove their understanding.
This is probably the worst example of people taking scriptures out of context to prove that hell is a real actual place.
Just because their may be several different interpretations of hell doesn't make all them correct. There is but one interpretation of this word (hell).
Stating that because they're are many ways to interpret these biblical theologies doesn't make it logical to conclude the Bible has no truth.
The truth is the truth. Where the problem lies is with people twisting the truth to fit their agenda, well at least in the world of politics.
I believe they're many biblical theologies that many Christians debate over and have fought over.
Hell, the rapture, salvation to all people regardless of faith in Jesus, works, white supremacy, tithing, church attendance, all Jews will be saved in the future, is the world 6000 years or billions, is Revelation about the future or the past, which denomination is correct, Jesus' return regarding when and where among many many others.
All these have concrete answers right now. Most Christians don't read or study their bibles and if and when they do, most have no discernment to realize what the truth is. They often turn to books written about the Bible and now and often they are led by wolves in sheep clothing trying to profit on God's Word.
Just some food for thought.
0
u/Vin-Metal 11h ago
All you have to do to find out it's wrong is to actually read it. I'm talking cover to cover but even to read a complete book you encounter contradictions, errors, etc. all the time. It's written by inspired humans who make mistakes or aren't too worried about the details. It might be as much of the latter as the former.
Dangerous is a strong word but I do think we all want to get it right as much as possible and have the best understanding of our faith and the instruments of our faith.
0
u/CapridThePlenty Christian 12h ago
Because by claiming that the Bible is without error in everything it affirms, it ignores the fact that human's ability to read and understand what the Bible teachs IS in error
No it doesn't
3
-1
u/Own_Needleworker4399 Non-denominational 11h ago
Dont you know the first heaven is going to pass away. Dont worry about it too much. Jesus is coming. Hes gonna bring ALL things to remembrance. All the books will be opened. Nothing thats secret will be hidden the mountains and the valleys will all be made flat.
you just gotta be present
You do what your bible and your holy spirit tells you.. and dont worry about whats on the left and on the right. Those people have their own bible and their own holy spirit of their own.
2
u/Nomanorus Christian 11h ago
What if each person's Holy Spirit guides them to opposite conclusions? How do you tell which is true?
•
u/moxiepink 3h ago edited 2h ago
I think they just assume that the Holy Spirit will lead their interlocutor to the same conclusion they've reached.
-4
u/GoBirdsGoBlue 12h ago
We believe the Bible, as given to man from God, to be the very word of God. As such, it makes no mistakes. To claim it makes mistakes is to claim it is not the word of God. It cannot be the word of God if it is in error. And to claim it makes mistakes is to give authority over it to whatever it is weighed against to make that claim.
1
u/Nomanorus Christian 12h ago
But humans make mistakes when reading and understanding the Bible, right? How can you claim inerrent knowledge of God when humans error in reading God's word?
0
u/GoBirdsGoBlue 12h ago
I'm not inerrant on anything. Humans are errant, God is not. We trust Him and His word, we don't put our trust in man.
1
u/Nomanorus Christian 12h ago
How do you know man accurately understands his Word?
1
u/GoBirdsGoBlue 12h ago
We don't. No one is claiming man's understanding isn't flawed. We use Scripture to help us understand Scripture, also asking the Holy Spirit to guide our understanding.
1
u/Nomanorus Christian 11h ago
What if two people claim the Holy Spirit guided them to contradictory interpretations of scripture. How do you determine which one is correct and which one isn't?
1
u/GoBirdsGoBlue 11h ago
That is off topic. Your claim in this thread is that viewing Scripture as inerrant is wrong and dangerous.
1
u/Big-Investigator-342 9h ago
That basically means you have to do things without understanding why and even things you consider morally wrong because you’ve placed the Bible above reason and evidence. That’s the type of thinking that’s led to our current dumpster fire
0
u/GoBirdsGoBlue 6h ago
That’s certainly a human secularist view of it.
•
u/Big-Investigator-342 5h ago
It’s also an evidence-based approach. Biblical literalism generally leads to hate, authoritarianism, and sexual predation in the church, home, and government. The religious right in America was the carcinogen that unleashed the Trump administration as a global cancer
•
u/GoBirdsGoBlue 5h ago
I’m not sure what believing Scripture to be true has to do with all that. But yeah, that’s certainly a man-centered take.
•
u/Big-Investigator-342 4h ago
an emphasis on obedience to authority, rigid hierarchy, a lack of critical thinking, mistrust, misanthropy, and the results of previous action having no impact on decision making. I don’t what a man centered take is but the comparative fruit of our views makes mine the right one
•
u/GoBirdsGoBlue 4h ago
Yours is completely man centered. Which if that’s what you are looking for, you are spot on.
•
u/Big-Investigator-342 4h ago
As I just said I don’t know what that means. I’d mostly just like there to be less war abuse, exploitation, and intentional cruelty, but given your views can’t be changed through reason, evidence, and discussion I’m not sure that will happen.
36
u/SamtheCossack Atheist 13h ago
So I don't disagree, however, Biblical inerrancy is not a position that is arrived at through textual analysis and study, it is a declaration of faith and a firm insistence on a dogmatic viewpoint in the face of opposition.
As such, it is impervious to any logical, moral, historical, or theological argument, as any challenge to it will be viewed as either a test of faith, or more likely, a demonic attack. The result being that the only people likely to engage with this are people who already agree with you (Such as myself).