S
SyCarl
Guest
Don’t be mistaken. I think that Protestants are just as guilty of over defining and trying to explain too much.
- Status
B
Being_Brave
Guest
…This post makes me think of my friend who just joined the Bible Baptist Church. They told her she had to start wearing long skirts and couldn’t cut her hair short anymore (I thought she was joking, but she said, “No, really. Just out of respect, so bye-bye short hair, no coloring it anymore either.” ). They don’t wear head coverings though
, and she just told me the other day that they won’t be celebrating any traditions (including her 2 year old’s birthday) that aren’t in the Bible.
I was raised Baptist, but never like that! The Bible says to follow written and spoken traditions, just like the Apostles did! The sola scriptura I was raised with pushed me to investigate my faith to the point that I found Catholicism, so I can’t complain…but what she’s doing just seems nuts to me.
, and she just told me the other day that they won’t be celebrating any traditions (including her 2 year old’s birthday) that aren’t in the Bible.I was raised Baptist, but never like that! The Bible says to follow written and spoken traditions, just like the Apostles did! The sola scriptura I was raised with pushed me to investigate my faith to the point that I found Catholicism, so I can’t complain…but what she’s doing just seems nuts to me.
I was once here corrected, rightly so, for using the term “infallible” in regards the scripture. Instead, it is inerrant.Hey tester…Jon, could you get in on this too and help me out…
I gave it some serious thought and came to the conclusion that you could be right friend, which got me thinking about the infallibility of the holy Bible. Based on that same reasoning, who is to say that the fallible apostles infallibly taught and infallibly interpreted scripture all of the time? Perhaps the fallible apostles taught fallibly at times and misinterpreted scripture at times, as they were teaching and preaching, and those fallible teachings and fallible interpretations of the fallible apostles, could have eventually made there way into their writings, which were eventually compiled and codified and called the bible, by the fallible successors of the apostles in the 4th century.
In other words, there is a chance that the bible is not infallible after all, based on your logic. Like you said: The answer could be the same for the Old testament teachers and the New Testament teachers, which were the apostles - correct?
However, after further examination, I had to ask myself: Jesus did provide the holy spirit to His fledgling apostolic church who then proceeded to teach the people of the 1st century, infallibly, via the guidance of the holy spirit. Why would Jesus provide the 1st century followers (members of Jesus’ church) - with His infallible truths taught by His fallible apostles, and then fail to do the same for the rest of His church followers (members of Jesus’ church) - in the later centuries, via the fallible successors of the fallible apostles???
My thoughts are as I’ve said before. When we had the early undivided Church using councils to determine doctrine, thatwas authoritative. To my of thinking, this is lacking today. Does that mean that there isn’t infallible teaching? Perhaps so, perhaps not.
But certainly, the intention of sola scriptura is to hold teachings accountable to scripture, which Lutherans would consider inerrant regarding articles of faith.
Jon
T
tester
Guest
Joe370,
You seem to be offering two arguments regarding an infallible interpreter of inerrant scripture:
“If God provided inerrant scripture
Then God must provide an infallible interpreter.”
So when it is correctly pointed out that there was no infallible interpreter of the Hebrew Scriptures you state.
“If God did not provide an infallible interpreter
Then there must not be inerrant scripture.”
I find both of these statements to be logically flawed. (It has been many decades since my college philosophy/logic class so I cannot give the official name of the flaw).
If you can connect the logical truth or fill in the “why” you think it true please do so.
A quick review of some of the well-known apologetic web sites discussing the inerrancy of scripture fail to mention the requirement of an infallible interpreter.
We believe that the God who created the universe is capable of writing a book. And the God who is perfect is capable of writing a perfect book. The issue is not simply “Does the Bible have a mistake?” but “Can God make a mistake?”
So Joe370 who is the true author of Scripture, infallible God or fallible man?
Consider this: Peter wrote 2 inerrant books in the our New Testament; an without a doubt , Peter was infallible with what we wrote in those books.
HOWEVER, on subjects that Peter did NOT write about, he most certainly was fallible and had to be corrected by Paul.
That’s right, PETER was FALLIBLE on doctrine.
You seem to be offering two arguments regarding an infallible interpreter of inerrant scripture:
“If God provided inerrant scripture
Then God must provide an infallible interpreter.”
So when it is correctly pointed out that there was no infallible interpreter of the Hebrew Scriptures you state.
“If God did not provide an infallible interpreter
Then there must not be inerrant scripture.”
I find both of these statements to be logically flawed. (It has been many decades since my college philosophy/logic class so I cannot give the official name of the flaw).
If you can connect the logical truth or fill in the “why” you think it true please do so.
A quick review of some of the well-known apologetic web sites discussing the inerrancy of scripture fail to mention the requirement of an infallible interpreter.
We believe that the God who created the universe is capable of writing a book. And the God who is perfect is capable of writing a perfect book. The issue is not simply “Does the Bible have a mistake?” but “Can God make a mistake?”
So Joe370 who is the true author of Scripture, infallible God or fallible man?
Consider this: Peter wrote 2 inerrant books in the our New Testament; an without a doubt , Peter was infallible with what we wrote in those books.
HOWEVER, on subjects that Peter did NOT write about, he most certainly was fallible and had to be corrected by Paul.
That’s right, PETER was FALLIBLE on doctrine.
J
joe370
Guest
Hey Jon…
Infallible simply means, incapable of failure or error, and that is what we all claim vis-a-vis the bible, so I don’t see what the big deal is, but that’s just me.
I know. Up to that point there was one CC and that church taught inerrantly, and after the East West schism neither the eastern church nor the western church could continue to do so via the perpetual guidance of the HS. I too, as you know, use to embrace that notion, but not anymore. I believe that Jesus continues to guide His church into all truth regardless of individual apostasy which has infected His church from time to time. I do, absolutely respect your decision though.
Jon, to me, the only way to hold the teachings of each and every individual, accountable to the inerrant word of God, is to have some sort of authority outside the word of God, entrusted with the authority to inerrantly resolve and settle doctrinal differences when they arise. We both agree with that logic but we just defer to the authority of different church leaders. That kind of sola scriptura thinking makes perfect sense to me.
J
joe370
Guest
Jon, do you see where I am coming from regarding the infallibility or the in-errancy of the bible regarding the following:
I gave it some serious thought and came to the conclusion that you could be right friend, which got me thinking about the infallibility of the holy Bible. Based on that same reasoning, who is to say that the fallible apostles infallibly taught and infallibly interpreted scripture all of the time? Perhaps the fallible apostles taught fallibly at times and misinterpreted scripture at times, as they were teaching and preaching, and those fallible teachings and fallible interpretations of the fallible apostles, could have eventually made there way into their writings, which were eventually compiled and codified and called the bible, by the fallible successors of the apostles in the 4th century.
In other words, there is a chance that the bible is not infallible after all, based on your logic. Like you said: The answer could be the same for the Old testament teachers and the New Testament teachers, which were the apostles - correct?
However, after further examination, I had to ask myself: Jesus did provide the holy spirit to His fledgling apostolic church who then proceeded to teach the people of the 1st century, infallibly, via the guidance of the holy spirit. Why would Jesus provide the 1st century followers (members of Jesus’ church) - with His infallible truths taught by His fallible apostles, and then fail to do the same for the rest of His church followers (members of Jesus’ church) - in the later centuries, via the fallible successors of the fallible apostles???
I gave it some serious thought and came to the conclusion that you could be right friend, which got me thinking about the infallibility of the holy Bible. Based on that same reasoning, who is to say that the fallible apostles infallibly taught and infallibly interpreted scripture all of the time? Perhaps the fallible apostles taught fallibly at times and misinterpreted scripture at times, as they were teaching and preaching, and those fallible teachings and fallible interpretations of the fallible apostles, could have eventually made there way into their writings, which were eventually compiled and codified and called the bible, by the fallible successors of the apostles in the 4th century.
In other words, there is a chance that the bible is not infallible after all, based on your logic. Like you said: The answer could be the same for the Old testament teachers and the New Testament teachers, which were the apostles - correct?
However, after further examination, I had to ask myself: Jesus did provide the holy spirit to His fledgling apostolic church who then proceeded to teach the people of the 1st century, infallibly, via the guidance of the holy spirit. Why would Jesus provide the 1st century followers (members of Jesus’ church) - with His infallible truths taught by His fallible apostles, and then fail to do the same for the rest of His church followers (members of Jesus’ church) - in the later centuries, via the fallible successors of the fallible apostles???
L
LongJohnSilver
Guest
Don’t we read in Mat 23:
Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.
Isn’t that a confirmation of the Pharisees as infallible interpreters for the Hebrews?
J
joe370
Guest
Seems reasonable, but like you said, God did not provide an infallible interpreter for the OT scripture, so maybe God did not do the same for the apostles. Of course I believe that He did.
The bible, (based on the premise that the apostles were not infallible teachers/interpreters, which was the case, as you have stated, with the OT teachers) - might not be infallible. Do I embrace that notion - nope. Where is the flaw in that logic?
Okay…
God is the author, as God inspired fallible men to teach and interpret, infallibly and these fallible folks eventually committed those teachings to paper. Could the followers of these fallible men (in the 1st century) - trust the teachings and interpretations of these fallible church leaders - yes. Could the followers of their successors, (through every generation, until the end of time) - also be trusted regarding their teachings and interpretations, passed down to them, (again, through every generation) - yes. Why? The holy spirit is guiding and safeguarding the truths revealed to the apostles which were then passed on to the next generation of leaders, and the HS will continue to safeguard said truths in perpetuity. To me, this is why apostolic succession is so important. But I am fallible and could be wrong, but like I told Jon, it just feels so right.
Surely if the fallible apostles were not infallible interpreters via the guidance of the HS, then scripture becomes suspect, regarding its infallibility. Do I believe this to be true? Nope. I am simply applying your OT premise regarding the lack of infallible interpreters, today, to the apostles of yesterday.
Yes, both Peter and Paul were very fallible but they were moved by the HS to teach and they committed some of their infallible teachings to writing. The bottom line is:
The apostles could interpret things infallibly for their 1st century followers via the guidance of the HS.
Their successors received said teachings and continued to promulgate those teachings, and their successors did the same, and this has been going on for almost 2000 years, and I believe that truth has been safeguarded via this transmission of truth only because I believe that the HS has been ineffably guiding this transmission of truth for almost 2000 years, and will continue to do so until Jesus returns. I give all the credit to Jesus Christ, as opposed to the leaders of the CC, for safeguarding infallible truth. How He does it, I have no idea. I simply have faith that He can and did, so that every generation can access the same infallible truths that the 1st generation followers were so fortunate to have access to.
J
jericho777
Guest
The JW’s believe no one is capable or can correctly interpret scriptures other than the Watchtower Society, God’s elect voice. Regular members must follow without question the teaching from the Watchtower Society or be disfellowshipped. This is the philosophy of the CC not Christianity.
J
joe370
Guest
Good point John…
J
joe370
Guest
Hey Jericho…Seems reasonable and biblical if one believes that the JW church is the church founded by Jesus. Paul said: obey your leaders and defer to their authority…
J
jericho777
Guest
There were three major sects in Judiasm in the first century. They had very different beliefs yet ther still considered each other Jews. Remember Jesus and the apostles did not follow their teaching on hand washing in Mat 15:2.
Yes, Joe, I do see where you are going with this. And I don’t necessarily think the premise is far-fetched.
Jon
J
jericho777
Guest
It’s good to see you both have something in common.Hey Jericho…Seems reasonable and biblical if one believes that the JW church is the church founded by Jesus. Paul said: obey your leaders and defer to their authority…
F
fhansen
Guest
The Watchtower Society subscribes to the doctrine of sola scriptura for all practical purposes, as most Protestants do, unlike the CC.
S
SyCarl
Guest
T
tester
Guest
wow : what part of the of Jesus’s interaction with the Pharisees even remotely suggests that Pharisees were infallible interpreters for the Hebrews?
Note : Romans 13 tells us to submit to authorities: but not because they are infallible.
J
jericho777
Guest
Yes they only believe THEIR bible the New World Translation is the true word of God. It is contrary to original Hebrew and Greek texts that Christians believe in. However like the CC’s Magesterium they believe their Watchtower Society is the only one that legitimately and infallible hears from God.
H
Holly3278
Guest
I honestly have no idea if these Fundamentalists were “Jack Hyles” Fundamentalists or not. To be honest, I don’t ever recall hearing the man’s name before. However, before every service at this Fundamentalist Baptist Church, they would have a Bible count in which all the KJV Bibles that people had brought were quickly counted. People just simply held up their KJV Bible and and a count was made as to how many people brought one.You being from Indiana I assume these were the “Jack Hyles” Fundamentalists.
Depite being violently anti-Catholic I heard a story once of a fellow who attended one of Hyles services. They had a procession to the pulpit holding the KJV high in the air while someone loudly proclaimed “Behold the the stone cut out without hands” (citing Daniel).
Yep, they’re pretty much on the fringe.
J
jericho777
Guest
Good point and also in Matt 15:1-3 Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, 2“Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”
3Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?
- Status