*I am aware of [this](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/28431/do-the-catholic-church-ex-cathedra-pronouncements-about-necessity-of-catholicism/28433#28433) previous question where the discussion centered on statements of Pope Francis and the catechism but that is not my interest here. [This](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/30898/has-the-church-stated-any-advantages-or-reasoning-or-prompting-to-re-formulating/30899#30899) question also asks about the reasoning behind these changes but that is also not my question.* From what I understand about Catholic teaching, it is not possible for infallible teachings, either from a pope or an ecumenical council, to contradict each other. However, there seems to be a clear incompatibility between medieval Catholic doctrine and that of Vatican II around the question of salvation outside the church: [Pope Boniface VII, Unam Sanctam (1302)](https://www.papalencyclicals.net/bon08/b8unam.htm) > Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. [Council of Florence, Session 11 (1442)](https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum17.htm) > It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives. Contrast this with two documents from Vatican II in 1964: [Vatican II, Decree on Ecumenism](https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html) > It follows that the separated Churches and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church. [Vatican II, Pope Paul VI, Lumen Gentium](https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html) > But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind. To me it seems fairly clear that the "schismatics" from the council of Florence would correspond to the "separated churches and communities" from Vatican II. Unam Sanctam makes even clearer that the intent of the earlier documents is that "salvation outside the church" does mean communion with the Roman Pontiff, despite Vatican II's discussion of separated communities and Muslims. Admittedly I do not understand the intricacies of Catholic thought on many matters so my question is: How can all of these documents be read together consistently within a Catholic framework? In particular I'm interested in how this can be consistent with the infallibility of ecumenical councils and papal infallibility.

### Background Protestants believe that all scripture is infallible (that it is incapable of error) and that it is inspired by God (that it is God-breathed and the words of God). In 1st Corinthians 7:10-13 (NRSV) Paul gives two commands. In the first command, Paul says that it is "**from the Lord**". In the second command, Paul interestingly says that it comes from himself and "**not [from] the Lord**". > To the married **I give this command—not I but the Lord**—that the wife > should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does separate, let > her remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband) and that > the husband should not divorce his wife. > > **To the rest I say—I and not the Lord**—that if any brother has a wife > who is an unbeliever and she consents to live with him, he should not > divorce her. And if any woman has a husband who is an unbeliever > and he consents to live with her, she should not divorce the husband. ### Question Do Protestants believe that the command that Paul explicitly says is "not from the Lord" is both infallible and inspired? Is this portion of 1st Corinthians considered scripture by Protestants?

This argument from redeemed zoomer 's twitter account. What is the catholic response to it? > How can you infallibly know whether the true church is the Catholic > Church or the Orthodox Church? > > If you can use fallible historical reason to determine that, then I > can use fallible historical reason to determine the canon of Scripture

The International Committee on Biblical Inerrancy has set out two magisterial documents related to an understanding of inerrancy: the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978) and the Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics (1981). Earlier (1959), the Christian Reformed Church of North America settled on a definition and understanding of Biblical infallibility . According to one member of the Council on Infallibility: > The committee discussed at some length the usefulness of the word *inerrant* to describe the Bible. We concluded that it is not the most felicitous term to express the unique character of the Scriptures. We agreed that *infallible* and *trustworthy* fit the nature of the Bible more appropriately. The rest of his article speaks in general terms on why they rejected the term, but I'm looking for more than that. I'd like to understand specifically what about the reliability and authority of the Bible the ICBI affirms and denies that the CRCNA would not affirm and deny, and vice-versa.

I'm curious how, in the context of spiritual teaching and leveraging scripture, religious leaders are balancing the value of the text with questions that scholarship has raised as to the authenticity and originality of various texts such as the Johannine comma, the woman caught in adultery, the end of Mark, etc. Thank you in advance for your thoughts!

My question comes in two parts, the second being a direct result of the first. **Is the Bible infallible?** I have often heard that it is, but the most conclusive proof that I have heard essentially states that, since it is inerrant, it must be infallible. This makes no sense as it is inerrancy is necessary due to infallibility, not the other way around. When bringing into question the infallibility of The Bible. I am not asking about The Canon, or the books selected, but rather the actual content of scripture. **If The Bible is not infallible, then on what grounds do we say it is inerrant?** Assuming that The Bible cannot be proven infallible, can we at least say it is inerrant? The Bible certainly is proven legitimate with historical evidence and its teachings are proven true in practice. This points to the conclusion that it is inerrant, but does it conclusively and certainly prove its inerrancy? Is there any way to show that, without a doubt, The Bible is inerrant? **EDIT:** To clarify what I’m asking further, I am defining - **Infallible**: Without ability to err - **Inerrant**: Without error - **The Bible**: The actual, original content of widely accepted Scripture and its meaning My first question can also be examined as a question of Divine Inspiration. Is every word a product of God’s Will?

I'm catholic and I live in Brazil. I believe in the gift of the infallibility in the New Testament, but i'm trying to understand if Jews, in the old covenant (Old Testament) were infallible too. I found some clues, like: 1 Samuel 9,6 ; John 11,51 ; 2 Peter 1,21 seem to teach infallibility of the prophets of the Old testament. However, it is impossible that the old covenant were TOTALLY infallible, because if it was so, they would in the first place, have recognized Jesus Christ as the true Messiah. So where does all this leave us? Were they "sometimes" infallible? Was there a limit to it? I found your link to an article here, but the link is broken :(https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/65996/the-chair-of-moses-and-jewish-clerical-infallibility) And this is the link you put: https://christiantheorist.weebly.com/basics-of-the-holy-faith/category/01-the-church-of-jesus-the-christ-is-one Could you help me with this, sir? I would love to read your insights about this theme!

As a generalization to the question posed in https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/62450/is-the-catholic-declaration-of-an-extra-biblical-saint-infallible , and in hope of obtaining, perhaps, more definitive answers from a Catholic perspective, I ask: Are Catholic canonizations infallible?

Fundamentally*, an inerrant Bible is one without errors and an infallible Bible is one that cannot have errors, as David Stratton pointed out in his answer . As for the Roman Catholic Church, all of its doctrines are infallible , so presumably, they believe the Bible is infallible as well. My question is: ***when* and *why* was inerrancy/infallibility formally declared?** I'm looking for any combination of these four sources: 1. an Old Testament text declares itself or another OT text to be inerrant/infallible, 2. a New Testament text declares itself or another NT text to be inerrant/infallible, 3. one or more early church authors declare some OT/NT text to be inerrant/infallible, or 4. the closed canon (with or without the Deuterocanon) is declared inerrant/infallible by the Church, before or after the Great Schism. I'm most interested in writings from the early church fathers, and 2 Timothy 3:16 is allowed in the answer only if the link between "God-breathed" and "infallible"/"inerrant" is shown in a clear and direct way. Also, declarations of inerrancy/infallibility should apply to the whole text, not just God's directly-spoken words. --- *[Stealthy](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StealthPun) or [lame](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LamePunReaction) , take your pick.

There are plenty of questions in this site about infallibility (e.g. [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15547/which-roman-catholic-doctrines-are-infallible) , [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2950/list-of-papal-teachings-considered-infallible) , and [here](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/34712/does-the-pope-teach-infallibly-only-when-he-speaks-ex-cathedra)) . All of them take for granted a certain definition of "faith and morals", which is the area upon which doctrines are to be potentially considered infallible. But, **what precisely is meant by faith and morals?** In other words, **which is the precise and demarcated scope of infallibility?** The [Catholic Encyclopedia](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm#IV) on this same topic is far from clear. Faith and morals are words that can be colloquially stretched significantly, so it is essential to me that there is theological clarity on what exactly the Church means. Having a precise demarcation we can then analyse the full range of **potential** areas of infallibility. For example, regarding "moral" issues like paying taxes, polluting the environment, being in the army, gambling, etc; or "faith" issues like the number of wings of angels (if any), the day Moses died (for a potential "Feast of Moses"), whether the rich go to heaven or not, etc.

From this link : > Christians have said Scripture is infallible because they have > believed that God’s Word is incapable of erring and thus contains no > errors The above sentences maybe to everyone else is easy to be understood by the Calvinist, but not for me (especially I'm not a Christian). To me, God's Word is absolutely the truth. So to me it doesn't need to be believed. It's just like there is an ice cube in the fridge, then it doesn't make sense if I say *"I believe that ice cube is cold"*. To me, the chronological order is like this :
Christians have believed that "X" writing is God's Words.
So, Christians believe that "X" writing is Scripture.
Since God's Words is infallible, then Christians believe that "X" writing is infallible. So to me, the "believe" is not on the God's Words, but that "X" writing which is believed God's Words. The chronological order is : *IF there is a writing which is believed God's Words THEN that writing is infallible*. Later on : *Because this writing is believed God's Words then this writing is infallible* Another quote from the same link: > **If God never lies**, His Word never lies either. We can therefore trust > it to be free from all error The same, it's confusing to me as the IF is on "God never lies", while my own chronological order the IF is on "the writing" ---> **IF this X writing is God's Words** THEN there is no lie in this X writing. (Why the "THEN" is like that ? because God never lies). Because to me the IF is : *IF the writing is believed God's Words then the writing does not endorse anything untrue in the point of view whoever believe that writing is God's Words* then it raise a question: *how *"God never lies"* is the IF ?* > *"The Christians have believed that God’s Word is incapable of erring"* So my question is:
how *"God's Words is incapable of erring"* is a believe ? ---------- Please ignore the question if the sentence in the quote is just a circular sentence like this :
*1. Christians have said Scripture is infallible because they have believed that Scripture is incapable of erring and thus contains no errors
2. If Scripture never lies, Scripture never lies either. We can therefore trust it to be free from all error*

**According to Catholicism, did the Apostles enjoy the prerogative of infallibility?** The doctrine of papal infallibility was defined by Pope Pius IX in 1870! Does the Catholic Church recognize that the 12 Apostles of Our Lord enjoyed this privilege also? Are there any other Divine Privileges that the Apostles may have enjoyed, whether defined in principle or simply believed by certain Catholic theologians, Doctors of the Church or Church Fathers?

I know that the Pope can speak infallibly (*ex cathedra*), and that this has officially been done once, as well as three times before Papal infallibility was formally declared. I would assume that any doctrine he talks about or mentions would be infallible, at least with regards to the bits spoken while in *ex cathedra* mode. Additionally, however, I can't immediately think of a reason why *ex cathedra* statements would be the only ones to result in infallible doctrines. Thus, my question is: which doctrines of the Roman Catholic church are infallible? If none, many, or all of Catholic Church doctrines are infallible, then say so. In the case of *many*, a broad classification would be appreciated. If there is a small number of them, then a list would be greatly appreciated.

I am currently researching the Protestant view of the biblical canon and have encountered a variety of perspectives on the infallibility of the canon. For instance, the renowned Reformed theologian R.C. Sproul argues that Scripture is a fallible collection of infallible books. This raises several questions: If the canon is not infallible, how can we be certain about the correct number of canonical books (e.g., 66, 73, or another number)? This ultimately leads to that canon is closed or not problem. Others are those who argue that the canon is infallible, as it was determined by the guidance of the Holy Spirit through the church fathers and councils *(It is seems like saying they were infallible indirectly)* **My question is how these views be reconciled with** ***sola scriptura*** **in protestant context**? *Related : https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/92954/protestants-on-how-the-biblical-canon-came*

I know that a council is ecumenical if a Pope ratifies or confirms it. However, I have not seen any explicit affirmation of this by a pope, saint, theologian, etc. I would like to see a quote from before 1958 if anyone has one. I've already read this answer.

Is an individual bishop in communion with the Church and Supreme Pontiff prevented from teaching/approving heresy via formal acts under the doctrines of Infallibility or Indefectibility?

The Catholic Church's current teaching regarding homosexuality is that homosexual acts are *peccatum contra natura*. More precisely, the New Catholic Encyclopedia (2003) states: > Although the Catholic Church recognizes that homosexual attraction is not chosen, and therefore the orientation in itself is not a sin (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2358), it has been the constant tradition in Church teaching, based on Scripture and natural law, that homosexual activity is morally wrong. ... Magisterial Church teaching states that homosexual genital relations are objectively immoral because they ‘‘lack an essential and indispensable finality,’’ namely, the procreative function of sexuality, the openness to new life (Declaration on Certain Questions concerning Sexual Ethics [Dec. 29, 1975] #8). Homosexual activity annuls the goals and meaning of the Creator’s sexual design. My question: **is this teaching infallible?** I found [this article](https://www.newwaysministry.org/2020/09/01/polish-bishops-claim-church-teaching-on-homosexuality-is-infallible/) debating a claim by Polish bishops who argue positively about infallibility. Yet, the article challenges this position. I have found surprisingly little material about it (at least from some superficial google search).

Many denominations teach that the Bible is the "inspired, inerrant, infallible Word of God." Detractors of Christianity, and even some denominations within Christianity, disagree with all or some of those three descriptions. Quite often, they counter with examples of errors in the Bible, or in various translations that show errors (such as the Wicked Bible's translation of Exodus 20:14 ). Various questions and answers on this site have touched on one or all of these three statements, but we've yet to have an answer that describes how all three of these Biblical statements relate to each other, and to the nature of Scriptures. Granted, there are different understandings, and per the site guidelines, I want to keep this scoped to the classic Fundamentalist understanding of the statement - namely that of the Churches and traditions that hold that the Bible *is* the inspired, inerrant Word of God. I want to have this in layman's terms, in order to address the straw-man arguments leveled against the statement.

In the Catholic tradition, several "apocryphal" books are used in addition to the same Old Testament canon used by Protestants. * What is the origin of these books and how do they differ from from the other books? * Do Catholics view them as infallible? * Are they considered to be on the same level with the rest of the Old Testament or do they have some second rate status such as some form of non-divine wisdom literature?

Biblical **inerrancy** is such a hot topic of debate these days that there is at least one website directly devoted to defending it ([DefendingInerrancy.com](http://defendinginerrancy.com/)) , and of course many multiple Christian Apologetics and Biblical Authority organizations (notably ones like [CARM](https://carm.org/) and [Answers In Genesis](https://answersingenesis.org/)) . **Is there a resource showing a significant number of *contemporary* (e.g. focusing within the last 100-200 years to present day) Bible Scholars who support evangelical inerrancy of the Bible?** I would think *infallibility* comes naturally with inerrancy, but perhaps not for everyone. Any comments on this would be welcome, too. The same may go for Verbal Plenary Inspiration (see related Q&A list, below). Here are a few notable scholars I found who (*AFAIK*) fit the bill (mostly resulting from brief online searches): - Dr. Terry Mortenson - Dr. Gleason Archer - Dr. Norman Geisler - Dr. John Gerstner Here are a few possibly helpful/related StackExchange resources: - [What is verbal plenary inspiration and to what texts does it apply?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/85/what-is-verbal-plenary-inspiration-and-to-what-texts-does-it-apply) - [Which hermeneutical approaches support a literal interpretation of the creation?](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/70/which-hermeneutical-approaches-support-a-literal-interpretation-of-the-creation) - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/9946/from-a-fundamentalist-standpoint-what-does-the-phrase-inspired-infallible-in - https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/34518/what-are-the-main-differences-between-the-catholic-and-protestant-definitions-of (although, contrary to the accepted answer, elsewhere online I have seen Catholics describe Catholic Inerrancy as being *very* different from Christian Protestant Fundamental Inerrancy)