NO!! It does NOT mean I have faith in men.
(I can’t believe any Christian ever would)
Cyrus , Pharaoh , and Pilate got things "EXACTLY right[/qutote]
I agree. The solution is to place one’s faith in Christ, who is the Source of the Gift of infallibility.
alwayswill;13835760:
No it doesn’t: it means Peter was inerrant, not infallible
I think you are confused about the way we use these words, Always. Inerrant refers to a product, such as the Scriptures. They are inerrant because they are theopneustos. When the writers penned the Scriptures, they were protected in that ACT by the gift of infallibility, so that they would not err. It does not mean that any of the authors of Scripture are impeccable.
Code:
I know you think EVERY Chritsan was capital C Catholic: I do not
One must set aside a lot of Scipture and history to cling to such a viewpoint.
There were some people that called themselves Christians that were not Catholic. They were known as heretics or apostates.
Based on the testimony of the early believers
Based on the testimony of the early believers there were no God breathed writings after the last Apostle died
Well, the early believers did not teach or believe this. There may be other theopneustos documents. What we know is that all those included in the Scripture are certainly God Breathed. Those “early believers” were all Catholic.
Not confused:
Scripture is infallible because
it is a writing breathed by God
Scripture is infallible
because God is infallible.
not because the guy with the pen is.
You are confused about how we use these terms. Scripture cannot be infallible because to be infallible, there must be a possibility of fallible. Scripture is inspired,and inerrant,b ut it does not have the characteristics of persons, and therefore, cannot be fallible, or not.
The “guy with the pen” was protected by the gift of infalllibility, so that he could act protected by the HS from making error.
Code:
Ypu may not have reealized what you wrote: But I 100 % agree
** the product**
of their actions is protected from error by the HS.
Amen and Amen
No where in Scripture do we find any mention of inspired writers; just inspired writings
Well, you quoted it yourself, Always:
"But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, 21for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but
men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. 2 Pet 1:21
Men, moved by the HS. This is an infallible act - when a person is moved by the HS an acts without error. Another example is found with the story of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5. The result of Peter’s actions is the work of the HS, not of Peter.
non- sequitur : I don’t confuse incapable of error with sinlessness
Infallibility is a Divine only attribute: it is not shared
Not in the sense that we become divine, of course. It is a Gift from which we can benefit.
Infallible means incapable of error
Scriptures are incapable of being in error
You seem to be confused about how we use this word, Always. We use it to describe actions of persons. If you wish to have a meaningful discussion about theology, you might consider learning how others are using language, and consider entering into how that language is used, rather than trying to force your definition into the discussion. Your effort to reverse the use of language that has been used this way for 2000 years just does not seem very effective.
Why would Catholics give up a meaning that has been used for 2000 years and cleave to your modern alternative instead?
Code:
The Catholic use of the term Infallible is NOT agreement the web-dictionary description.
No, it is not. This is why I am saying, if you want to have a meaningful discussion, you might consider using the word the way the people use it with whom you are trying to communicate.
It is a lot like trying to use the word “gay” like it was used 50 years ago or more, when the modern understanding of the word has changed drastically.
It seem Catholics have a specialized meaning of the word:
Fine
But that doesn’t mean you get to tell the rest of the world they are wrong on the common definition of a word .
Did someone do that? Of course you can cling to the modern definition if you want, and continue this useless attempt to push the modern meaning onto Catholics, but what does it accomplish? We cannot give up the meaning that was handed down to us from the Apostles, so we will just be going in circles talking past each other. What fruit will be born of it?
We have specialized meanings for a lot of words. This is not uncommon in any area of specialty. Medicine, enginnering, etc. Many fields have specialized definitions of words that are used in their field. If you want to have an intelligent discussion, then it is helpful to use the language of the person with whom you are trying to communicate.
Surely you must understand by now that the Chicago Statement is a modern invention, and is not consistent with what the Apostles believed and taught,and therefore, we cannot accept the definitions in it?
