In previous posts (HERE and HERE), I formulated the following argument against the Bible being a fallible collection of infallible books:
- If a collection of books is fallible, then it can be the case that something that one of the books in the collection teaches is wrong (since at least one of the books could be fallible).
- If a collection of books is a collection of infallible books, then all of the books in the collection are infallible.
- If a book is infallible, then it cannot be the case that something it teaches is wrong.
- Therefore, if a collection of books is a collection of infallible books, then all of the books in the collection are such that it cannot be the case that something that one of the books in the collection teaches is wrong (2, 3).
- Therefore, if a collection of books is a collection of infallible books, then it is not the case that the collection of books is fallible (1, 4).
- Assume for reductio that Sacred Scripture is a fallible collection of infallible books.
- Then, Sacred Scripture is not a fallible collection of infallible books (5, 6).
- Contradiction (6, 7). Therefore, Sacred Scripture is not a fallible collection of infallible books.
After recently receiving some friendly pushback on this argument in the form of private correspondence, I would like to clarify some of the fundamental principles and assumptions at play in the argument which were left implicit in previous presentations.
