Inerrancy is a doctrine of Faith

[liamconnor]

A good many Christian fundamentalists (I say Christian because there are, after all, many kinds of fundamentalists, both theistic and atheistic) argue that the doctrine of inerrancy is verifiable. I have tried (in vain) to demonstrate to them by logic that it is a matter of faith. In theory, even if every statement made in the Bible can, TODAY, be verified (obviously a questionable assertion); still, knowledge grows; we cannot be sure what evidence might turn up or what lines of reasoning might develop tomorrow which cast doubt on what we previously held to be a certainty. Thus to say that the Bible is totally without error presupposes facts about the future. But surely beliefs about the future are just that, beliefs, which belong to the sphere of faith...?


Are there any here who hold to the doctrine of inerrancy? If so, how would you respond to my argument?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

A good many Christian fundamentalists (I say Christian because there are, after all, many kinds of fundamentalists, both theistic and atheistic) argue that the doctrine of inerrancy is verifiable. I have tried (in vain) to demonstrate to them by logic that it is a matter of faith. In theory, even if every statement made in the Bible can, TODAY, be verified (obviously a questionable assertion); still, knowledge grows; we cannot be sure what evidence might turn up or what lines of reasoning might develop tomorrow which cast doubt on what we previously held to be a certainty. Thus to say that the Bible is totally without error presupposes facts about the future. But surely beliefs about the future are just that, beliefs, which belong to the sphere of faith...?


Are there any here who hold to the doctrine of inerrancy? If so, how would you respond to my argument?

Inerrancy is a doctrine based on gullibility. It's a test of just how gullible someone is willing to be to sustain a belief in a claim, even though the claim has every appearance of being utter nonsense. To overcome this inherent problem Christians often seek to make gullibility into a virtue. Essentially the virtue of ignorance. The virtue of gullibility works fine in any discussion with others who have chosen to maintain ignorance as an asset. It falls completely apart in any discussion with an informed individual, however.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

argue that the doctrine of inerrancy is verifiable. I have tried (in vain) to demonstrate to them by logic that it is a matter of faith.

Explain please how something that is 'verifiable' (the supposed inerrancy of a certain book) can instead be shown to be true through 'faith'.

Here's Rikuo's book. It has five lines

1) Rikuo is a man
2) Donald Trump is President of the US starting in 2017
3) Airplanes carry passengers around the world
4) Britain is exiting the EU
5) Rikuo's favourite author is Stephen King

Now let's say that Tom wants people to believe Rikuo's Book, and he wants people to believe that Rikuo's Book is inerrant. How should Tom go about getting people to believe that Rikuo's Book is inerrant?
I'd imagine he'd do it by gathering evidence that is verifiable.
What about Jack? Jack says that the inerrancy of Rikuo's Book is a matter of faith.

[OnceConvinced]

I would say it would have to be a matter of faith (if not gullibility ) I grew up in a Christian home where I was told that the bible was the infallible word of God and even if things in it appeared to be untrue or contrary, you still had to believe it anyway. Thus you were expected to have faith that it was infallible and that there was some logical explanation for those things you couldn't corroborate. Maybe God would even reveal the answer to you later on.

As I grew older and started to learn to think for myself, I could on longer accept that it was infallible. Even as a Christian I began to question it sometimes and wonder to myself that perhaps at best the bible is simply inspired by God and thus human errors could be there.

However once you get to that point, it opens up a can of worms, because from there you have to ask yourself, what else is there in the bible that I believed for so long, that is not actually true? What else is human error?

[Elijah John]

Interesting that no supporters of the doctrine of inerrancy have stepped up to the plate so far.

Could it be the reason for this is that in order to shatter the edifice of inerrancy, all that is needed is to demonstrate just one significant Bible error?

This has been done many times over on these boards. The basic response from literalists amounts to "that's not an error", "that's not a contradiction", "where science seems to contradict the Bible, then the science is faulty" etc.

In other words, they retreat into simple denial.