Bible being inspired and inerrant

[laylow]

But as I said earlier, he has blind spots. So he’s not really that open-minded. Only up to a point. He still has it in his head (you might too) that somehow every detail, every word, every letter of the New Testament should be absolutely perfect and infallible. Why? I think the original authors would be horrified at that point of view. When Bart sees a an error or a discrepancy (which he certainly does, as do all scholars), for him it’s all or nothing. If one thing is wrong, everything is wrong. (So if the fox in the fable was a female and not a male, that invalidates the point of the story? Really?) And he ultimately chose nothing–atheism. Meanwhile, as I said, Catholics would say “So what?” and be unperturbed.

I think you’ve missed the point, which I did explain earlier. I’ll take another shot at it. It simply is false, a perversion of history, that doctrines (Hell, etc.) are based solely on the authority of a couple phrases in the New Testament. The oral tradition of the Church has been, and is, equally important. Again, the New Testament did not exist before the existence of the Church; the Church came long (20-60 years) before the existence of the New Testament. The Church decided which books were canonical; it wasn’t the other way around. So if there was something in a Gospel that didn’t fit in with the beliefs of the consensus of the Church, it was not considered legitimate (or canonical). Thus if a Gospel denied the existence of Hell, it would not be considered legitimate. The New Testament simply put into writing some of the consensus beliefs of the early Church. And not all of them either–for example, the immaculate conception of Mary is not in the New Testament at all, and yet it was always a consensus belief. The fact that it wasn’t codified until the 20th c. doesn’t matter; it was there all along.

And of course (as Bart points out in several of his books!) there was a development or refinement of understanding of theology over time. So at first people just said “Christ is God.” But then people began to speculate how Christ was God. And they began to refine the doctrine. And naturally this process went go on and on, refining and refining. It doesn’t mean that a doctrine of the early Church was wrong, it simply means that although it was the truth, it wasn’t the whole truth, or maybe a better way to put it would be that it was a truth that could have been explained better.

The LARGE elephant in the room is “Who” is the “Church?”

 

[Vonsalza]

You don’t find that a bit…murky?

Not particularly.

Do you think every request by the American president is a formal Executive Order?

 

[Vonsalza]

The LARGE elephant in the room is “Who” is the “Church?”

You only have three real claimants if you don’t think the Church can fail. Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox communions. If Chalcedon was a legitimate ecumenical council, that leaves Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.

As Catholics recognize the sacraments of the EO and the EO have never rejected Catholic sacraments at a fully ecumenical level, (remember, they were once the same Church) you’re just about free to pick which one you want. The theological gripes are between the episcopates and both demand submission of the will and intellect.

---

On the other hand, if the Church CAN fail, then Christ’s a liar and lets better spend our Sunday mornings on the lake with plenty of cold beer.

 

[laylow]

Not particularly.

Do you think every request by the American president is a formal Executive Order?

No, but I don’t think that is executive orders are perfect.

 

[laylow]

You only have three real claimants if you don’t think the Church can fail. Catholics, Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox communions. If Chalcedon was a legitimate ecumenical council, that leaves Catholics and Eastern Orthodox.

As Catholics recognize the sacraments of the EO and the EO have never rejected Catholic sacraments at a fully ecumenical level, (remember, they were once the same Church) you’re just about free to pick which one you want. The theological gripes are between the episcopates and both demand submission of the will and intellect.

---

On the other hand, if the Church CAN fail, then Christ’s a liar and lets better spend our Sunday mornings on the lake with plenty of cold beer.

Or Christ’s words were created/changed by the “Church”

 

[Vonsalza]

No, but I don’t think that is executive orders are perfect.

That wasn’t the point.

You were asking about the supposed murkiness of knowing when the pope is speaking infallibly or not. I responded by suggesting that identifying infallible papal statements is as murky as identifying executive orders from the American president.

-So not very murky.

 

[laylow]

That wasn’t the point.

You were asking about the supposed murkiness of knowing when the pope is speaking infallibly or not. I responded by suggesting that identifying infallible papal statements is as murky as identifying executive orders from the American president.

-So not very murky.

So the words coming from his mouth are not inspired, but when he decides he “really means them” that all of the sudden the inspiration begins?

 

[Vonsalza]

Or Christ’s words were created/changed by the “Church”

If you want to indulge the fantasy, feel free. But when we find biblical texts that marginally predate the previously oldest extant biblical texts, there’s generally very little, if any change.

Do you know what the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls did to our understanding of The Book of Isaiah?

Virtually nothing. Aside from suggesting that ancient scribes were actually pretty good at not changing texts.

---

The most troubling part of your paradigm is that you seem to think the Church is inferior to the bible, as if it wasn’t a text that the Church itself wrote, compiled and canonized. Is this so? And if so, why?

 

[Vonsalza]

So the words coming from his mouth are not inspired, but when he decides he “really means them” that all of the sudden the inspiration begins?

No, when he speaks “Ex-Cathedra”. He’ll let you know he’s doing it just like the American president will let you know he’s issuing executive orders.

In both cases they’re not really subject to your purview. Or mine, for that matter.

 

[laylow]

If you want to indulge the fantasy, feel free. But when we find biblical texts that marginally predate the previously oldest extant biblical texts, there’s generally very little, if any change.

Do you know what the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls did to our understanding of The Book of Isaiah?

Virtually nothing. Aside from suggesting that ancient scribes were actually pretty good at not changing texts.

---

The most troubling part of your paradigm is that you seem to think the Church is inferior to the bible, as if it wasn’t a text that the Church itself wrote, compiled and canonized. Is this so? And if so, why?

Inferior? Depends. Based on some of my studies of the councils and how dogma was “decided upon” leaves many questions as to what was actually “given by God or Christ”

 

[Vonsalza]

Inferior? Depends. Based on some of my studies of the councils and how dogma was “decided upon” leaves many questions as to what was actually “given by God or Christ”

Ok, so punt.

Which bible canon do you hold as authoritative and why? Do you include additional texts such as the Protoevangelium of James? Or the Shepherd of Hermas?

 

[laylow]

Ok, so punt.

Which bible canon do you hold as authoritative and why? Do you include additional texts such as the Protoevangelium of James? Or the Shepherd of Hermas?

I don’t know that I hold any of them authoritative. That is what I am currently questioning. I’m not looking for the answer in these forums, I just find it a bit entertaining and hope to meet some “friends” while discussing issues. I have plenty of reading to do, which I’m well aware of. You will not hurt my feelings if you decide not to entertain my questions. The only thing that I would be slightly put off by would be if someone decided that there were not questions to be asked. Of course the Church “answers” the questions. They have already entertained them. I tend to find those answers somewhat lacking.

Of course it can be said that the Church is inspired by God, but the Muslims will say that the Quran is inspired. So then one must dig into historical facts to decide who might be “correct.” I definitely do not expect to find exact evidence, but looking into it I expect to be either fairly convinced, or to feel things are completely questionable.

I do not feel this alone would effect one’s full “faith.” I do think it may call into question for me organized religions, or at least specific churches. I have plenty of work to do…and plenty of time.

 

[Vonsalza]

I don’t know that I hold any of them authoritative. That is what I am currently questioning.

Well, if you’re anything like me, you’ll come to the realization that if the truth exists, it does so objectively. I can disagree with it and be objectively wrong. Moreover, if it exists, it did so before my birth and will persist after my death.

The conclusion that I draw is “Who cares what I think? So what can I best defend objectively?”

In my view, that’s the ancient Churches; Catholic, EO and OO. As I hold Chalcedon to be a valid council, that leaves Catholic and EO. As such, I hold Eastern Orthodox Christians as brothers-in-Christ.

I ultimately went Catholic because the episcopate+executive leadership model is consistent with the entire history of “God’s People” and ultimately works better. You can use scripture to argue it either way, but I think the texts are better at supporting the papacy. Patriarchs effectively had Adam’s heir, the Jews had the High Priest, we have the Papacy.

Of course the Church “answers” the questions. They have already entertained them. I tend to find those answers somewhat lacking.

If so, I’d wager that your consideration has been somewhat superficial. For every dogmatic pronouncement from pope, council, whatever, there is an ocean of literature on what was being debated, why, and what the Church ultimately decided (with the Spirit’s guidance, of course ) and why it was the optimal solution.

Of course it can be said that the Church is inspired by God, but the Muslims will say that the Quran is inspired.

You will need to make some axiomatic decisions concerning religion that you can’t prove. Maybe support, but can’t indubitably prove. “Was Jesus God?” is such a decision.

I have plenty of work to do…and plenty of time.

Regardless how you choose, I wish you well. Just be sure to spend as much time actually trying to do good for yourself and others as you do studying - the theologian’s ultimate challenge.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

If a divorced and remarried person lives in the same place but like a brother and a sister for a good reason, they can recieve communion if the Parish Priest decides there wont be scandal. I am not sure what you mean about the 2nd part of the paragraph do you mean those living as brother and sister.

No. As man and wife. Now I suppose some rogue priest could refuse communion with the excuse of “giving scandal,” but that wouldn’t be the official position of the church.

“…the divorced and remarried members of the faithful could approach Holy Communion in specific cases when they consider themselves authorised according to a judgement of conscience to do so.”

This is not Francis or some liberal cardinal or bishop. This is Cardinal Ratzinger, 1994, speaking officially in the name of the Vatican.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Inferior? Depends. Based on some of my studies of the councils and how dogma was “decided upon” leaves many questions as to what was actually “given by God or Christ”

Another of the current trends I see all through Western culture today is the belief that God only acts directly. In other words, God creates man–“poof.” There is a fully formed man. Although I would never say that God cannot act directly, there is certainly ample evidence that God acts indirectly, through nature (evolution) and through men (Church councils, various Church leaders and saints, etc.).

The question you should ask yourself is this: Where are the Arians today? Where are the Donatists? Where are the Albigensians? Gone. Extinct. Where is the Church (as another poster pointed out, we must include Eastern Orthodox as part of the Church)? Prospering. Of course you could always say it was pure luck, but certainly another valid point of view would be that when Christ spoke of the Church and said “the gates of Hell will not prevail against it” he was guaranteeing its triumph.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

The LARGE elephant in the room is “Who” is the “Church?”

Read Lumen Gentium, a document of Vatican II.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

It tells you exactly what the Church is. It is not just the Pope and cardinals. It is all Catholics (and Orthodox!). Read it. It’s not that long. And yes, a final document of a Church council is “official.”

 

[Erikaspirit16]

So the words coming from his mouth are not inspired, but when he decides he “really means them” that all of the sudden the inspiration begins?

Yes.

But as I said earlier, this has only happened once in 150 years, although some scholars would claim earlier popes spoke infallibly before the doctrine was proclaimed in 1861.

You don’t have to wonder if the pope is speaking infallibly. He will tell you.

 

[laylow]

Another of the current trends I see all through Western culture today is the belief that God only acts directly. In other words, God creates man–“poof.” There is a fully formed man. Although I would never say that God cannot act directly, there is certainly ample evidence that God acts indirectly, through nature (evolution) and through men (Church councils, various Church leaders and saints, etc.).

The question you should ask yourself is this: Where are the Arians today? Where are the Donatists? Where are the Albigensians? Gone. Extinct. Where is the Church (as another poster pointed out, we must include Eastern Orthodox as part of the Church)? Prospering. Of course you could always say it was pure luck, but certainly another valid point of view would be that when Christ spoke of the Church and said “the gates of Hell will not prevail against it” he was guaranteeing its triumph.

I think that is the biggest problem most unbelievers have. If he can intervene, why doesn’t he more? Why does he allow disease, something he clearly could decide to get rid of.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Inferior? Depends. Based on some of my studies of the councils and how dogma was “decided upon” leaves many questions as to what was actually “given by God or Christ”

I don’t think anyone would argue that Church councils are free from politics. But it’s equally true that no doctrine approved by a Church council has ever been cancelled or retracted. Again, as I just said in another short post, God works through men. If you are expecting Christ to come down in glory to make a pronouncement on CNN, you’re going to be disappointed.

If you like Biblical support, you don’t have to look further than “What you bind on earth is bound in Heaven…” Christ explicitly gave the Church the power to make rules or laws. That doesn’t mean the Church can change doctrines–it can’t. But it can change laws: for example, it was long a Church law that you couldn’t eat meat on Friday. Then the Church changed it. Eating meat on Friday was never a doctrine, it was simply a law. And yes, there are other areas (for example women priests) where it’s under debate whether something is a doctrine or a law. But again, the Church would not act on something like that without a consensus of opinion.

 

[rabbitdonkey]

Eating meat on Friday was never a doctrine, it was simply a law. And yes, there are other areas (for example women priests) where it’s under debate whether something is a doctrine or a law. But again, the Church would not act on something like that without a consensus of opinion.

It was changed for the US bishops , in other places it is still in force.