Replies

We're happy to say that the Scriptures are infallible (and they are) but infallible Scriptures are of little use without an infallible interpreter (the Church).

I would suggest the interpreter has never been infallible as is shown in scripture. Peter, James and others were rebuked by Paul for being led astray. Paul and Barnabas got into an argument and so they parted company for a time. Apollos was teaching a "different" gospel, one that wasn't bad but wasn't quite correct. Paul didn't want anything to do with Mark but had a change of heart.

People are fallible as is illustrated by the different interpretation of the gospel. The Corinthians held some strange pagan beliefs mixed with their Christianity. The Galatians held to a strict form of Judaism and were condemned for it. Even within the early second and third century eastern and western church there arose fundamental doctrinal differences.

People are fallible as well as their interpretation. The only thing that has ever remained constant are the scripture. We trust in God to guide our steps to that true and correct path. He leads us besides still waters-not us.

Where you believe God guides through impersonal committees, I believe God guides us individually. Yet isn't this inconsistent with God appearing before saints, directing them to do miracles that have been recognized by the Church over the centuries? Why wouldn't He just speak through the Church cardinals?

You're right that people are fallible. And the examples which you provide from apostolic times are all perfect examples of this. Quarrels and dissensions were breaking out among the apostles while Christ was still on earth and they continued in the years afterwards, such as the Paul/Barnabas spat etc. Apostasy too, has always been with the Church. No argument there.

However, Scripture was written by these same "fallible men" and yet we say "Scripture is infallible". When Paul, John, Matthew, Peter et al., were writing the works which came to be included in the New Testament, their "fallibility" must have put on hold so to speak, as the Holy Spirit inspired them, right?

We could also say the same thing about the process by which the Canon of Scripture came to be assembled in the early Church, couldn't we? It was all accomplished by "fallible men". Yet we say it's "infallible"

So could we not say that in regard to Scripture, God's providence has allowed fallible men to provide us with an infallible work.

My question therefore is this; why should that gift of "infallibility" extend only to the writing and assembly of Scripture and not to its interpretation and transmission?