Does the book of Sirach disprove the inerrancy of scripture?

[BartholomewB]

We strive to keep communication respectful in this forum, I think that extent to the way we speak of other denominations

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

 

[HomeschoolDad]

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

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?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

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.

Even if Calvin and Luther were coherent in their theology, many Protestants differ from that theology.

2. "different Protestant sects: is pejorative, a better expression: Protestant Churches

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.

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?

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.

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.

All of those groups uphold the same Catholic Faith and the same Creed.

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.

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.

In particular, which theological teaching of which protestant denomination would lead one to belief that "Jesus was a man of some significance".

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.

How much reform theology do you know?
The reformation triggered profound soul searching in the Catholic Church, which emerged renewed and enriched.

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.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

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".

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

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?

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.

 

[po18guy]

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

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.

 

[BartholomewB]

I constantly hear from bible alone (bible + ego) practitioners that I do not know the "true meaning" of Sola Scriptura - a gnostic mindset.

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]

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.

 

[po18guy]

A: No, it does not. What is your purpose/agenda? A college paper?

No answer. Hidden agenda. Anti-Orthodox/anti-Catholic bias.
PLEASE!!! Be honest with adults!

 

[po18guy]

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.

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?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Here is what Karl Keating of Catholic Answers has to say about the use of the term "Church" versus "ecclesial communities" and so on:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/offshoots-of-offshoots

Also, the Vatican II document on Christian unity refers over and over again to the "Eastern Churches", but as to the West, the word "Churches" is used in tandem with "ecclesial communities", and presumably refers to the Church of Utrecht (Old Catholic) which, while schismatic, retains apostolic succession, as well as similar bodies with the fullness of the seven valid sacraments:

https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist...ecree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The Vatican uses official titles, which includes Church, such as "Most Reverend Hosam Naoum, Primate of the Episcopal Church in Jerusalem and the Middle East" (an attendee to the funeral mass of Pope Francis)
Moreover, if you browse through the many documents produced in the common dialogue, you will see that they refer to protestant denominations individually as churches. For example: https://www.christianunity.va/conte...go/documenti-di-dialogo/testo-in-inglese.html
under "Response to these Challenges and our Shared Beliefs"
"12. Finally, in this introduction it is important to note that the Evangelical movement itself constitutes a highly differentiated ecumenical network. The World Evangelical Alliance brings together Evangelical Christians from Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed, Anabaptist and Pentecostal traditions, This diversity has significant consequences particularly for ecclesiology – that is, questions pertaining to ministry, authority and ecclesial structures, sacraments, and the nature of the church. These Churches differ greatly in their relationship to the Catholic Church. In view of the doctrinal issues raised in our dialogue, such differences were clearly in evidence. The challenge is made more complex when considering that the Evangelical movement has chosen not to address ecclesiological differences among the members of the WEA, but rather, to focus on cooperation in common prayer, evangelism, and witness.[5]"
More important than the small details, is the spirit of the ecumenical effort and I think, that spirit should be present in a Catholic forum. We are called to treat people with dignity and fairness.

It's worth noting that this is a joint statement, and will thus reflect the sensibilities of all parties involved. It is not a teaching document of the magisterium of the Catholic Church.

 

[po18guy]

It is not well publicized, but in the 1500s, a delegation from the "reformers" were sent to the Greek Orthodox with the intent of forming an alliance to defeat the Pope. After several years and 400-some pages of written communication, the Orthodox flatly rejected any alliance as they determined that the "reform" had discarded crucial and foundational aspects of Christianity. Thus, the "reformers" no longer constituted a Christian Church. Based on this lack, the "ecclesial community" status was born, to describe what validly baptized "reformers" now constituted. Thus, the only two established Christian authorities in existence in the 16th century (Orthodox and Catholic) independently examined and independently condemned the reform.

What did the reformers think about the Eastern Orthodox Church? - Christianity Today

What was the attitude of the reformers (Martin Luther in particular) toward the Eastern Orthodox Church? Was the idea of becoming part of the Eastern

www.christianitytoday.com

And very illuminating is this 54 minute talk by former Luther scholar Dr. William Marshner:

 

[vz71]

Mormons or Unitarians are not protestant but simply "Christian".

Mormons are not Christian.
Perhaps that is what you meant with the quotes around the word Christian?

Just looking for clarification.

 

[vz71]

They consider themselves Christians.

One can consider oneself anything at all.

It does not make it so.

They deny Jesus as God.
Their belief of Jesus is that he was the first born and thus has the first "spirit body" (whatever that is).
Point being, Jesus is just another part of creation and therefore cannot be God.

This disqualifies them from being Christian.