/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>Can we just agree that biblical infallibility is just a philosophy of the church, and not reality.

No.

If the Bible is not inerrant, then it is irrelevant and God is ostensibly a liar. You cannot in good faith be a Christian if you do not believe in the inerrancy of Scirpture, because by doing so you render the Word of God suspect.

The Church, by the inspiration and guidance of the Holy Spirit, defined the Canon.

>>668938

I just don't think bible has more weight then it is given by the church. The Canon is constructed through arbitrary rules, and your opinion on it's divine inspiration is not a hindrance to salvation.

>>668938

Also, God is only a liar if you believe that he proposed the position to begin with.

>>668940

But if you don't trust it then what is your basis for Faith?

Are you arguing that things like the non-canonical Gospels are just as valid as those in the Canon or that they were only disqualified arbritrarily?

>>668941

>Also, God is only a liar if you believe that he proposed the position to begin with.

Since He was acting through His Church to proclaim the Canon in the first place, I think it's fair to say it has His approval.

Doesn't matter. It's all the same story anyway with different encoded lessons that survived millennia of natural selection. That's why we should only use pre world war versions, before Christianity and the white race began to decline.

>>668936

The Old Testament happened, get over it.

>>668936

It depends what you mean by inerrancy. For example, is Psalm 107 inerrant? As a Christological Psalm, clearly! As a reference to the flood and Jonah, yes! But I don't think you can separate it from its context as a recounting of a unique event. This is consistent with a small-o orthodox understanding - if Christ is the word made flesh, then there is a single logic of creation - nothing is just itself, there's a pattern there. So this is why I find the issue of inerrancy a rather odd question.

>>668943

>Are you arguing that things like the non-canonical Gospels are just as valid as those in the Canon or that they were only disqualified arbritrarily?

Yes, I should have that I think that church has the final say on what is canon, but that there is no divinely inherited canon.

>>668936

The philosophy of the true church, is that of the word of God. In all the books of the bible, the holy spirit works through each speaker in order to proclaim the word of God. Therefore everything in it is infallible as it is the word of God. However, it is not everything God has said, but it is definitely every needed to sufficiently understand the Gospel that is Jesus Christ is the son of God, he became human in order to fufill the law which humans are incapable of doing in order to be the righteous sacrifice needed to truly to cover the sin of the world. Thats why his blood was spilled, and the fact that he rose again from the third day, not only shows us that since God is the only one who can be righteous, he must be God and therefore the sacrifice was sufficient merit to redeem sin, and through the faith in him and the longing to obey the commands of Jesus, therefore loving God, our saving faith is verified through the fruit of the spirit which the redeemed produce as a result of having faith and faith alone, but not faith that is alone, in Jesus. And that Gospel is infallible and everything in that book is sufficient to the understanding of the Gospel. And if anyone thinks that the Gospel isnt infallible, he is damned.

>>668936

I'd like to think any lie or inconsistency in the Bible is benevolently there put by God for people to figure out a greater truth.