Again, there are 3 categories of people pertaining to the book of life…Stayed tuned… 
Will your written version of this future revelation be fallible or infallible?
Well, if the corrective version comes from me trying to intellectually figure it out ( like the first one) it will be infallible, but it I receive directly from the Holy Spirit it will be infallible. Of course, you always have the right not to accept my corrective version whether fallible or infallible…
Btw, Jim, is this commentary on this link fallible or infallible?
theoperspectives.blogspot.com/20 … eaven.html
That writing of mine, like all of my writings, are fallible (capable of error) while it might be completely accurate. And the Holy Spirit revealed that article to me after much prayer including speaking in tongues and Bible study.
Well, if the Holy Spirit revealed it to you how can it be fallible? The Spirit of truth does not lead anyone to write fallible commentaries… Unless, your unsure if the Holy Spirit inspired your writing…
Revelation from the Holy Spirit is infallible while humans are typically fallible messengers of God’s revelation. The Bible writers are rare examples of infallible messengers from God.
Also, over 99% of all Pentecostal and charismatic churches would reject the teachings from a Christian who claimed to write infallible commentary.
But Jim, I thought that you said that the Holy Spirit revealed it to you? And now you say that revelation from the Holy Spirit is infallible? How can you say that your article is both a) fallible and b) revealed by the Holy Spirit?
QUite Puzzled,
Roofus
Good question. I suppose that I should have said that the Lord revealed to me the message in that article while I’m a fallible messenger. Does that make any sense to you?
Nope… 
It either comes from God or it comes from you… I believe you just revealed the answer to us. 
I’m curious. Do you claim to be an infallible commentator every time you wait to hear confirmation from the Lord? If the answer is yes, then over 90% of charismatic and Pentecostal movement would reject your commentary. Or is the answer no?
I tell you what I don’t do…I don’t claim to be lead by the Holy Spirit to write fallible commentaries. You might want to do some more pondering and pray in tongues some more over your commentary, brother Jim.
Thank you for clarifying that.
But will you ever tell me what you do or will you only tell me what you don’t do?
And can you give me a single modern example of somebody who’s led by God in his or her comments?
And if there is at least one modern person who is led by God in his or her comments, then is that person a infallible commentator?
And is such a person recognized by many Pentecostal churches?
I’ve done extensive studies of the Pentecostal movement and I learned that no respected Pentecostal leader claims to be an infallible commentator.
I don’t even think we can claim that the authors of the bible were special infallible messengers. They were vessels of clay just as we were. But just because the Spirit does use vessels of clay, doesn’t mean that they are therefore perfect.
Consider Jesus’ first miracle. He filled twelve imperfectly shaped clay jars with the most fragrant and tasteful wine there was. Is this not a fitting symbol for what he would do with his disciples? I’m sure they definitely took it as a sign of things to come…
…so, even the messengers who came into contact with the glorified Christ on this sphere of dirt were imperfect in many ways. I don’t think they were ever perfected while here on earth, although it’s possible they came very close. And if you look honestly, you will see mistakes in the words they have written, but no matter, for those very words are filled with Spirit and with life, the Life Eternal, who came down from heaven above, and even those mistakes will be and have been redeemed and use for the Almighty’s glory.
It’s when we claim to be perfect that we stumble. I don’t think it’s even a desirable thing. We’re heavenly creatures in bodies of dust, and that’s the way we were made to be, in order to turn this whole realm into something greater. Doesn’t mean that we don’t make mistakes in the meantime, but if we weren’t fallible, we would miss the whole point - our goal is at the horizon, right between heaven and earth, and not above or below it.
Hi Stellar, perhaps I’ll address biblical infallibilty another day in another post.
Yes, we can and we should, otherwise, everything is up for grabs to the loudest and most persistent voice. That’s Islam right now - claiming a superior vision. 600 years after Christ and copying what they wish - mainly the resurrection.
Don’t be fooled - scripture is not an opinion - it is the Word of God. We have what we need. The veil, the maddening veil, is God saying that you have enough to understand. Enough! What more has been added to pierce that veil and not add to the confusion? Nothing. Otherwise, name it!
My only response, for now, is something penned by the hand of George MacDonald:
Except to add that what’s been consistently told to us through the testimony of the scriptures is that God loves to reveal new things all the time, things wrapped up in the older revelations yet still contained as a mystery, to those who often have no formal training or no natural reason to have these things revealed to them.
The scriptures themselves testify to this.
At the risk of taking things off topic more, this gets back to my recent comment (in another thread) concerning Peter after pentacost.
Is Peter himself infallible or inerrant in his understanding and application of doctrine? No, not even after pentacost. Otherwise:
1.) He wouldn’t have had to be slapped down by God for restricting his evangelism to Jews and avoiding Gentiles (one of the longest single stories in Acts, and just about the last major thing Peter does in Acts for that matter);
2.) He wouldn’t have had to be slapped down by another apostle (namely St. Paul) for insisting that Gentiles had to convert mostly or entirely over to Jewish religious observance to be accepted by God.
It might be suggested that this came about simply because Saint Peter simply didn’t pray first before undertaking such long-term errors. Technically that might be true, I suppose. But that would be reading into Acts (and Galatians, if I recall correctly), not out of it.
At any rate, I await A37’s willingness to apply this principle in following the infallibly inspired post-apostolic teaching of the Magisterium and the Pope, whenever they speak ‘ex cathedra’. (I think that’s the proper term. They aren’t considered particularly infallible or inerrant otherwise, only after heavy preparation in prayer, fasting and other spiritual devotion such as properly taking the sacraments in communion with the inspired Catholic Church.) Remember, it doesn’t matter whether what they say is logically valid, or whether their data is accurate, or whether they have included enough data. They’re infallibly and inerrantly inspired, once they’re prepared! Just like… um… A37 by his own testimony!
(Most of us are Protestants, A. And you’re going to have trouble convincing us to follow you as an apostolic-level inspired source, when we aren’t even willing to follow the Pope and the Magisterium on the same grounds.)
I enjoyed your post, too, Bob. And I agree–it deserves it’s own topic somewhere.
Sonia
I took Bob’s post and created a new topic for it in the Christian Living section (since it seems to have more to do with that than technical philosophy or ecclesiology.)
Link: Inspiration (+Infallibility, Inerrancy) and Christian Living
Further discussion on this important topic (including any replies to previous material in this thread insofar as this topic goes), should go there.
Meanwhile, Aaron37 has now attempted to answer one (out of dozens) of points, in this thread:
My answer is also in that thread.