Inffalibility of Scripture

[Bulldog]

DO ANglicans believe the Bible to be infallible and inerrent?

[PaladinValer]

Like the Early Church, we believe that the Holy Bible contains everything necessary for salvation and is authoritative in matters of faith and doctrine. Anything within the realms of history, science, or otherwise said within the Bible isn't authoritative. We hold that the Bible is a book of faith, salvation, doctrine, and theology, not a $50 textbook for your 101 World History course. Taking it as a textbook diminishes it and takes it completely out of context as taught historically and traditionally.

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

DO ANglicans believe the Bible to be infallible and inerrent?
Some believe it is neither of these things.

Some believe it is infallible, but not inerrant.

Some believe it is neither.

[benedictine]

In agreement with Karl - Liberal Backslider, like most things, there are many different beilefs on a pairticular subject. ---Pax Deo.

[Yahweh Nissi]

Personally I believe it to be infallible but not inerrant.

[garydench]

It would probably depend on which Anglican tradition you were raised in. Many High Anglicans would argue that the Bible is simply trying to put God's feelings and thoughts into words. But of course, the error or fallibility comes because we are too ignorant to comprehend what God is.

The history of the creation of the Bible itself also provides evidence against its infallibility and that it should be treated as a guide and not a dictation from God.

[Polycarp1]

Infallibility or inerrancy as defined by the Fundamentalist movement is contrary to the Anglican tradition. However, Anglicans, with the intellectual freedom within a common spirit that has graced our tradition since the days of Elizabeth I, have a variety of ideas regarding what God's inspiration of Scripture means and to what extent it is infallible or inerrant. I'd reflect for general informational purposes that the original Five Fundamentals on which Fundamentalism is founded made reference to doctrinal inerrancy, i.e., that Scripture was inerrant when used to found dogma or doctrine -- as opposed to plenary verbal inerrancy.

Most Anglicans are inclined to interpret Scripture guided by the remainder of Scripture, extra-Biblical knowledge of language used, the cultural context of writer and intended audience, the genre in which written, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, reason, tradition, personal experience, and a host of other considerations that are not always pleasing to the more conservative Christian hearing them.

[TomUK]

Like the Early Church, we believe that the Holy Bible contains everything necessary for salvation and is authoritative in matters of faith and doctrine. Anything within the realms of history, science, or otherwise said within the Bible isn't authoritative. We hold that the Bible is a book of faith, salvation, doctrine, and theology, not a $50 textbook for your 101 World History course. Taking it as a textbook diminishes it and takes it completely out of context as taught historically and traditionally.

Scriptural inerrancy is one of those issues which i continually sway backwards and fowards between. Currently i lean towards sharing PV's view, but i'm still not sure whether it is possible to distinguish between using the bible as a source doctrine, and a source of historical truth. Can they be viewed separatley, or perhaps even should they be seperated? When you begin to view the bible as purely an authority on faith and doctrine, doesn't it perhaps dilute the truth of the bible?

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Scriptural inerrancy is one of those issues which i continually sway backwards and fowards between. Currently i lean towards sharing PV's view, but i'm still not sure whether it is possible to distinguish between using the bible as a source doctrine, and a source of historical truth. Can they be viewed separatley, or perhaps even should they be seperated? When you begin to view the bible as purely an authority on faith and doctrine, doesn't it perhaps dilute the truth of the bible?

Au contraire

I would suggest, rather, that if you tie the truth of the Bible in doctrinal matters to its historical or scientific accuracy (which are extremely questionable, especially the latter), you risk damaging the former by association with the latter.

[Rising_Suns]

This is interesting; so as I understand it, Anglicans can hold the Bible in different light to one another? is there no doctrine that defines the Bible as anything?

a side question; anglicans believe in Tradition do they not? would the writings of the early Church fathers have any weight in the eyes of the Anglican Church?

[Rilian]

Infallibility or inerrancy as defined by the Fundamentalist movement is contrary to the Anglican tradition.

What about the famous exchange between Wilberforce and Huxley or the trial of Bishop Colenso?

[Polycarp1]

This is interesting; so as I understand it, Anglicans can hold the Bible in different light to one another? is there no doctrine that defines the Bible as anything?

a side question; anglicans believe in Tradition do they not? would the writings of the early Church fathers have any weight in the eyes of the Anglican Church?
We are very strongly supportive of the "three-legged stool" -- note the forum name! Scripture, Tradition, and Reason are all vital to the Anglican understanding of Christian belief -- and each influences the other two. Remember that in the last analysis, we started out as a separate denominational unit, rather than a national church within the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, through rebellion against the abuse of Papal authority. But our understanding of inspiration and the authority of Scripture is intentionally held broad enough to allow inclusivity and the richness of persons joined in love in one church helping to shape each other's views and accept each other's differing views. Yes, Scripture is primary and foundational -- but rejecting the longstanding tradition of the Church because it cannot be proven from Scripture (or from one's own interpretation of Scripture, which is usually what the rejector means by "in Scripture") is contrary to the Anglican way. Likewise we honor Tradition -- but when a tradition becomes the tool of those wishing to use it abusively, we feel free to reject that tradition. (To quote an old witticism, Anglicans have never had a problem with Darwinian evolution -- Wilberforce to one side -- because with married bishops and archbishops, it was obvious to anyone that some good Anglicans were clearly descended from Primates! :D)