Does the book of Sirach disprove the inerrancy of scripture?
- Thread starter lopski28
- Start date
BartholomewB
Member
Is it in some way disrespectful to the Protestant churches to state that there are certain theological points about which they disagree among themselves? I don’t think so. Isn’t it simply an observable fact?
In particular, to come back to the OP’s question, do all the Christians who preach the doctrine of “Biblical inerrancy” fully agree among themselves on the meaning of that term? I’m thinking, for instance, of certain passages in the NT where the Gospels are broadly in agreement about the sequence of events on a certain occasion and yet disagree about the timing.
Famously, the cleansing of the Temple is one such case: in Holy Week according to the Synoptics, but much earlier in John, who places it immediately after the wedding in Cana.. The Last Supper is another. In the Synoptics it is a Passover meal, but in John it took place on the day before Passover (references below).
Some, but not all, Protestants use the term “tension” to designate such cases of conflicting testimony between one book in the Bible and another, or even, I think, between one passage and another in the same book. The obvious question that arises is whether, or to what extent, “tensions” of this kind are compatible with “inerrancy”.
References:
Cleansing of the Temple, Matt 21:12-13, Mark 11:15-17, Luke 19:45-46, John 2:13-17
Last Supper, Matt 26:17-19, Mark 14:12-16, Luke 22:7-15, John 18:28, 19:14
The tone of the comment was dismissive. Let's not be coy, it talks about protestant churches as "sects", stating that they are "trying to get their faith from the bible". Your answer is in the least judgmental, if not inaccurate. Can you state that there is more disagreement between reformed Churches than between catholics? We have conservative Catholics calling Pope Francis the anti-christ and promoting a revision of papal infallibility. The hierarchical structure in the Catholic Church, solidified in the council of Trent seeks to unify the many disagreements (for example the Molinist vs Dominican soteriological debate, not solved, but accepted that both could be correct). Despite of this unifying force we have plenty of disagreements (let's not start with the latin mass debate). Many would say that having a diversity of opinions is not bad, God is after all infinite. But the comment goes further stating that protestant churches have in common is "all you have left is the existence of God and a man of some significance called Jesus." That is a disparaging comment, and it is unfair. So let me state once more, it was an offensive comment, and worse, it lack compassion
Last edited:
Read again what I said. I was talking about Freemasonry, not Protestantism, but on second thought, Freemasonry would not even necessarily attach any intrinsic importance to Jesus. Protestants generally agree on much more than just that.
But in saying that Protestants are "trying to get their faith from the Bible", if they don't do that, then from where DO they get their faith? Strictly speaking, yes, their initial encounter with Christ is in a kind of radical acceptance of the Person of Jesus as Lord and Savior (and that's good), but where did they hear about Him to begin with, and how do they seek to learn more about Him and His message? Put another way, do they look to anything besides the Bible?
You Wrote:"Protestants have been trying to "get their faith from the Bible" for 500 years, and the result has been more different Protestant sects than can be counted, all with their own little "take" on things, and often in diametric opposition to one another. I have a pet theory that this is one thing that has fueled Freemasonry --- "there's really not all that much on which we can agree, so let's just focus on the things that we hold in common". Taken to its logical conclusion, all you have left is the existence of God and a man of some significance called Jesus."
1. "trying to get...for 500 years and the results has been...." this means, they tried and failed to establish a coherent theology (and to make things worse, in 500 years they have made no progress) The statement is incorrect. In fact, Calvin is coherent to the point of hobbglobinism (to quote R.W. Emerson) and Martin Luther writes with classical logic. There are many very good evangelical theologians that deserve a better treatment than you have given. It does not diminish your faith nor loyalty to give credit where credit is due.
2. "different Protestant sects: is pejorative, a better expression: Protestant Churches
3. "all with their own little "take" on things, and often in diametric opposition to one another." disparaging, "own little take" does not properly reflect the mass of theological acumen of serious theological seminars of well established denominations. Can you give examples of "diametric opposition" that make sense? How is it different from the differences between the Jesuits vs Opus Dei or Franciscans ? We have quite a variety within the Catholic religion, and most priests I have talked to consider it a richness of the faith.
4. "taken to its logical conclusion, all you have left is the existence of God and a man of some significance called Jesus" can't possibly refer to Freemasonry as they neither belief in Jesus nor our biblical God. Freemasons acknowledge the existence of a supreme being and the immortality of the soul, the belief could overlap with "new Age" believes. More important, how can you jump to a logical conclusion, without enunciating the basic principles from which it derives. In particular, which theological teaching of which protestant denomination would lead one to belief that "Jesus was a man of some significance". How much reform theology do you know?
Although revision is believed to have been under way shortly before Martin Luther's act of nailing the Ninety-five Theses to the door of Castle Church in 1517, the response to the Reformation triggered an internal renewal of the Catholic Church which enriched the faith. The words of John Donne are as beautiful as they are fitting "
No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
Last edited:
Even if Calvin and Luther were coherent in their theology, many Protestants differ from that theology.
I hate to be so blunt, but the Catholic Church does not recognize these as "Churches". In colloquial parlance, the word "church" might be used, but not in formal discourse. Only the historical Churches of apostolic succession (such as the Orthodox) are referred to as "Churches", albeit separated from communion with the See of Rome.
For instance, Anglicans and Lutherans who have a near-identical understanding of the Real Presence as that of the Catholic Church on the one hand, and evangelical denominations who regard the Lord's Supper as a mere symbol and memorial on the other. Another example would be evangelicals and others who rightly regard abortion as murder, as opposed to more liberal confessions that uphold a woman's "right to choose". The list goes on.
All of those groups uphold the same Catholic Faith and the same Creed.
As I said, I was referring to Freemasonry, and in my later comments, I reconsidered and realized that they attach no particular importance to Jesus.
If you want to think of them as Protestants (and it's a real stretch), Unitarian Universalists would fit that description. On second thought, I am going to edit out that section, it's clumsily worded and doesn't reflect my thinking. Of course Protestants agree on far more than that.
A bit, but I'm no expert. I don't judge knowledge of Reformed theology to have anything to do with my attempt to save my own soul, and accordingly, I don't burn much time on it. If it coincides with Catholic doctrine, great, if it doesn't, I only need to have a general academic knowledge of it. I have read a bit of the high points of all religions, just for general knowledge, but I don't look to them for edification.
Last edited:
1. "Even if Calvin and Luther were coherent in their theology, many Protestants differ from that theology." Incorrect. You bundled together a wide arrangement of denominations. Protestants denomination indeed follow Calvin and Luther. Other religions, like Mormons or Unitarians are not protestant but simply "Christian".
2. I am sure that the Pope does not refer to the Anglican or Lutheran Faith as a sect. I can accept that Catholics may write Protestant church in lower case and Catholic Church in upper case, but I doubt they would refuse to recognize that there is an institution, theological differences non-withstanding, which serves a similar role in their faith. For example, see this article: https://www.ncronline.org/news/vati...ay-lutherans-can-take-communion-catholic-mass
3. I will not go into the "pet theory" of freemasons and protestants, that paragraph is so badly written (apologies for being blunt) that there is neither logic nor sense. The tone of superiority (unwarranted, as you say that you do not know much of Reformed theology) does shine through.
How do you define "Protestant denomination"? Baptists (who follow Calvin, more or less, but not Luther, otherwise they'd embrace, inter alia, the Real Presence and the seven sacraments)? Pentecostalists (including Oneness Penecostalists, who deny the Trinity)? Adventists? The various Holiness bodies? And as to Methodists, did Wesley follow Luther, or Calvin for that matter? And of all the confessions that you would group together as "Protestants", can it be said that the things upon which they agree are the important things, while things on which they differ are not central to Christian unity? And if this is the case, do they remain separate because of something that matters, or just accidents of history and different ways of organizing themselves?
He might use another word, such as confession, ecclesial body, and so on. But even Vatican II recognizes the Orthodox Churches as being true and particular Churches, while Protestant bodies are not treated in this fashion.
Agreed, that's why I pulled it. As to a "tone of superiority", that is a matter of perception, but suffice it to say that I do not study other religions in some search for a greater truth, as though Protestants might hit upon something that is lacking from Catholicism, and that a greater "truth" might lie somewhere outside the Catholic Church. If I study them, it is to find points of commonality, points of difference, and to refute their errors where they occur.
1. I do not define Protestant denomination, not my place. Wesleyans come from the Church of England, John Welsey remained in the Church of England until his dead. Wesleyans are Arminians, in that they differ from high Calvinists. A parallel in the Catholic Church would be Molinists (Jesuits) (who consider the possibility of a Divine plan, but with a counterfactual) versus the Dominicans, who considered the Molinists heretical because they would not place enough emphasis on free will (the Council of Trent decided that both views where acceptable). Pentecostalism is part of the wider evangelical wing of Protestant Christians, since the 1960 it has gained acceptance in the main stream, including the Catholic Religion, which has accepted the Catholic Charismatic renewal (and Catholic Priests speaking in tongues). i can go on, but the point is that the Catholic religion has more variety that you seem to recognized. There are as well Jews, who maintain Mosaic law within a Catholic context: The Hebrew Catholics.
2. Church: I gave an example of a Catholic publication referring to the Lutheran church.
3. Protestant and Catholic religions do not have the same relationship that Catholic and Christian Orthodox have. That is natural, the Separation between Roman Catholics and Eastern Christians was one of political geography, while the reformation was a schism which was followed by religious wars.
4. As for the tone of superiority- there are objective signs (this is studied in communication and psychology classes, did you take any in college?). Those signs are easy to miss in a situation in which that one sided view is normalized (like when we live surrounded by people that only think that way). For example, I talked about the relationship between Roman Catholics and Protestants in equal terms, while you talked from the perspective if they could be accepted, that is one sided (you did not considered if they wanted to be accepted), plus, obvious, you are talkiing about acceptance! One group subjugated to the other!!!
At a personal level you have the right complete and undisputed, to consider the religion that you follow the best, however it does not mean that it is the best religion for everybody, nor that the world would be a better place if everybody converts. You are forgetting that the encyclical letter Nostra Aetate ended that attitude. Seriously, you called Protestant theology, which has 500 years of serious seminary training (starting with Luther and Calvin, both Catholic seminarists) a sect! Don't you get that it is an insult?
5. Regarding salvation: I recommend Thomas Merton's "New Seeds of Contemplation". The key idea is that working out our salvation (Phillipians 2: 12-13) means becoming the person that God intended us to be. According to Merton (Chapter on Integrity), true humility "consists in being precisely the person you are before God". True humility is salvation. This is in line with Dilexit Nos, the encyclical letter on the veneration of the blessed sacrament. In Paragraph 18 it states "We see, then, that in the heart of each person there is a mysterious connection between self-knowledge and openness to others......We become ourselves only to the extent that we acquire the ability to acknowledge others, while only those who can acknowledge and accept themselves are then able to encounter others"
Last edited:
I am not clear whether you are a Catholic who seeks to find as much truth among the various Protestant confessions ("sect" is a neutral term that can be used pejoratively or not, though I didn't intend it that way, but since you dislike it, I'll avoid it here for the sake of peace) as can be found, or a Protestant who is seeking to find approval among Catholics for what they believe (as I have found that Protestants so often do). You may have clarified your position somewhere in your writings, but I do not wish to go through all of them to find that information. Simply put, are you a Catholic or a Protestant?
As to believing that Catholicism is the "best" religion (or to be more precise, the one established by Our Lord Jesus Christ which contains the fullness of truth and holiness), and believing that everyone should embrace it, guilty as charged. All other Christian confessions, fine as they may be in this way or that, as much as they may have in common either with each other or with the Catholic Church, fall short of that fullness of truth.
Nostra aetate, to which you refer, deals with non-Christian religions, not Christian ones, and in this declaration, the Church still affirms that all men must follow Christ (and, by implication, His Church):
The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself.
Dictionary entry for sect: "a group of people with somewhat different religious beliefs (typically regarded as heretical) from those of a larger group to which they belong. • often derogatory a group that has separated from an established Church; a nonconformist Church: two of the older sects—the Congregationalists and the Baptists—were able to increase their membership dramatically. • a philosophical or political group, especially one regarded as extreme or dangerous: a sect of anarchists."
The main stream protestants are considered an established church (Anglicans, Presbytarians, Lutherans). There are theologians of great caliber amongst them. Let's give credit where credit is due. Their writings too " though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men." I think we can apply this statement in Nostra Aetate to reform theology.
I propose that we keep conversations in this blog civil, avoiding derogatory language, for the sake of the blog.
Why do you need to ask "I am not clear whether you are a Catholic who seeks to find as much truth among the various Protestant confessions", " You may have clarified your position somewhere in your writings, but I do not wish to go through all of them to find that information. Simply put, are you a Catholic or a Protestant?" So, if I have the openness to learn from other religions, it automatically makes me suspect as a Catholic?
Let's see how it goes with Eastern religions when looking at salvation:
I recommend Thomas Merton's "New Seeds of Contemplation". The key idea is that working out our salvation (Phillipians 2: 12-13) means becoming the person that God intended us to be. According to Merton (Chapter on Integrity), true humility "consists in being precisely the person you are before God". True humility is salvation. This thought, influenced by Zen Buddhism, which Merton studied, is in line with Dilexit Nos, the encyclical letter on the veneration of the blessed sacrament. In Paragraph 18 it states "We see, then, that in the heart of each person there is a mysterious connection between self-knowledge and openness to others......We become ourselves only to the extent that we acquire the ability to acknowledge others, while only those who can acknowledge and accept themselves are then able to encounter others"
po18guy
Well-known member
I constantly hear from bible alone (bible + ego) practitioners that I do not know the "true meaning" of Sola Scriptura - a gnostic mindset.
As to Merton, I avoid his writings, as wonderful as they may be. He was increasingly controversial as time went on, Buddhist thinking seemingly creeping into his thoughts. Fr. John Hardon, S.J. knew Thomas Merton well. He was convinced the Merton had been seduced by Buddhist thought. Merton suffered an enigmatic death in Thailand at an 'ecumenical meeting' with Buddhists. Some are of the opinion that he was called from this life as an act of mercy to prevent him from apostatizing. As for me, I am dying to know.
Last edited:
BartholomewB
Member
Is there a single "true meaning" that they can all agree on?
I suspect — though of course I can’t prove it — that Catholic writers tend, on the whole, to avoid using the term “Biblical inerrancy” for that same reason, that the term means different things to different people. There seem to be degrees of “inerrancy”, with some people applying a stricter standard than others.
po18guy
Well-known member
We are somehow saved/delivered/sanctified/justified by Christ - whatever THAT means. Once you cut the tether, tangents abound.
As to scripture - which is not agreed on! - the definition of "error" is the crux of the matter. Strict fundamentalists believe that God was confined to 24 hour days during creation - apparently failing to note that "days" were not created at first, but only later. I have been taught that "without error" refers to matters of faith and morals. Many geographic features, persons, acts, etc. cannot be independently verified. Some may have been camouflaged to avoid further persecution during times of captivity.
I note that exactly zero Christians actually take the bible literally. I have never seen a fundamentalist or evangelical who has plucked eye out or cut off hand or foot.
As to scripture - which is not agreed on! - the definition of "error" is the crux of the matter. Strict fundamentalists believe that God was confined to 24 hour days during creation - apparently failing to note that "days" were not created at first, but only later. I have been taught that "without error" refers to matters of faith and morals. Many geographic features, persons, acts, etc. cannot be independently verified. Some may have been camouflaged to avoid further persecution during times of captivity.
I note that exactly zero Christians actually take the bible literally. I have never seen a fundamentalist or evangelical who has plucked eye out or cut off hand or foot.
Last edited:
Let me respond with an example. I was introduced to the religious writings of C.S. Lewis by a a book from a Franciscan Friar. I think he might agree with the first part I wrote, since he respected the man. Fr. Scanlan first quotes Lewis and then writes a very inspired passage.
“Courage is not merely one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue, precisely at its testing point, which means at the point of highest reality”
C.S. Lewis
“Every virtue reaches its testing point. As we grow in love, we are eventually called to love the unlovable. As we grow in faith, we reach a point where we must believe when there is no apparent evidence. The virtue of hope grows in us until the time when everything is dark, when circumstances are impossible, when the thought of despair tempts us. We go along steadily in loyalty and faithfulness until the venture collapses, others abandon the work, and point the finger of blame at you.”
from the book, “What does God want?” M. Scanlan, Franciscan friar.
In being so critical of Merton, you are making the point that disagreements amongst Catholics are not less frequent than amongst Protestants. And different groups could in fact be holding views that are "in diametric opposition to one another"
(this is the statement which triggered my reaction- an unfounded take down on reform theology "Protestants have been trying to "get their faith from the Bible" for 500 years, and the result has been more different Protestant sects than can be counted, all with their own little "take" on things, and often in diametric opposition to one another." )
Thank you for validating my effort.
po18guy
Well-known member
No answer. Hidden agenda. Anti-Orthodox/anti-Catholic bias.
PLEASE!!! Be honest with adults!
po18guy
Well-known member
Are you consciously asking to be banned? From yet another forum? Where is Christ in your words? Where is obedience to Philippians 2:1-4?
I joined "Catholic-Questions" very recently, I do not see that you are a staff member, nor a moderator, so this answer is confusing. I am very sorry you feel this way about a conversation with HomeDad, who is a moderator. If it helps, I messaged him directly hours before this posting of yours. He responded and that line of communication is open.