The PuritanBoard - View Single Post - Do you view your respective confession as functionally infallible?

Davidius · #15 (**permalink**) 12-04-2007, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Infallible means cannot err. Any human writing can err. A better word would be inerrant, which means it does not err. Some clarification would need to be made as to what does not err -- the propositions in and of themselves, or the way in which the propositions have been stated. I don't think there is anyone who could subscribe a confession believing the propositions have been stated perfectly. But as to the propositions themselves, it is a contradiction to suggest a person can confess to believe something to be true whilst believing it errs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SemperFideles

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calvibaptist

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

The word "also" might be taken to mean that I don't believe the confession can be inerrant. To clarify, I believe it can be propositionally inerrant, and I think if a person adopts a "confession" he is declaring it to be true.

Sorry if it sounded like I was putting words in your mouth. Didn't mean to do that. I do wonder, though, how we can make a claim that the entirety of "Confession X" is inerrant. I have no problem believing that it accurately portrays the teaching of Scripture as much as a human document can, which is why I can have no problem subscribing to it. But to say that it is inerrant, that is, wholly without error, is to put it on the same level as Scripture. This I am unwilling to do.

I think you're missing the point.

Let me ask you a question. Is this statement true?

A man is saved in Christ alone on the basis of grace alone through faith alone.

Good point. It is possible for a human/uninspired document to be inerrant, but never can one be infallible.