Is God is in control regarding the preservation of doctrinal truth, in the church founded by God.....

  • Thread starter Thread starter joe370
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You really did not address my post and you know I was not attacking your faith; I don’t even know what your faith is, but, as I have already said: I respect your right to believe what ever you want to believe. 👍
Dave_Noonan said:
I’m just thinking of the dictionary definition of “fallible”—meaning “capable of error.” I don’t see how one could declare the Bible to be infallible and simultaneously agree that it could have errors. If you want to say that parts of the Bible are capable of error and parts are not, then I would wonder who decides which parts are which and how one would know. For example, is the story of Abraham in Genesis 12 a historical account, and thus subject to error?

I’d disagree with your statement that evidence and proof are the same.

I made the same point about faith/certitude above.

I’m not attacking your faith; I’d appreciate it if you wouldn’t attack mine.
Click to expand...
 
joe370 said:
You really did not address my post and you know I was not attacking your faith; I don’t even know what your faith is, but, as I have already said: I respect your right to believe what ever you want to believe. 👍
Click to expand...
Sorry, I took “faith…lacking” as sort of a smart comment.

So maybe maybe just list out the parts that you feel like I didn’t address and I’d be happy to.

My basic question is how a person can state that the Bible is, on one hand “infallible” and on the other, subject to error. If you’re saying that certain errors are exceptions, then I’d say that that’s missing the mark in terms of “infallible” (maybe we’d just have to disagree) but even beyond that, who decides what’s an “historical” or “secular” error versus an error that has some impact on faith and the “teaching of God”?
 
Dave, you said:
My basic question is how a person can state that the Bible is, on one hand “infallible” and on the other, subject to error. If you’re saying that certain errors are exceptions, then I’d say that that’s missing the mark in terms of “infallible” (maybe we’d just have to disagree) but even beyond that, who decides what’s an “historical” or “secular” error versus an error that has some impact on faith and the “teaching of God”?
Click to expand...
I understand what you are talking about. In that sense of which you speak, I agree that the bible is not infallible. Doctrinally speaking however, it is, unless you can in-errantly point out those doctrinal errors? As far as your question: “who decides what’s an “historical” or “secular” error versus an error that has some impact on faith and the “teaching of God”?”

The answer: The church forever guided by the Holy spirit, which was entrusted with the authority, by Jesus, to in-errantly teach, thanks to the ever presence of the infallible holy spirit. Can I prove this? Of course not, but we cannot prove that Jesus defeated death or walked on water or raised the dead or defied natural laws or cured the blind; it is all faith. Surely God can do anything, and if God can do anything, then the word of God could be the in-errant word of God, doctrinally speaking - maybe?

I have faith in the following, but I cannot in-errantly prove it:

Doctrinally speaking, the bible is the inerrant word of God in my humble opinion. The Bible, as I mentioned before, is not a science book or a secular history book…The Bible is an inerrant reflection of doctrinal truth regarding God’s will, and His respect for our free will, and that is why we see said inadequacies and limitations of human speech and writing found within the pages of scripture. God in-errantly teaches within the confines of said inadequacies and limitations of human speech and writing found within the pages of scripture. What matters to me is what the church (founded by God) - teaches, and has taught, regarding the doctrinal truths of God, taught in both the old and new testament, since Pentecost for the simple fact that I have faith that the holy spirit is forever guiding Jesus’ church into all truth. That book you referenced, admits that the bible in-errantly reflects the truth regarding the teachings taught by God, which were passed on to his apostles, who then passed on those inerrant doctrinal truths to their disciples,etc. etc…They admit, rightfully so, that the Bible must be approached in the knowledge that it is “God’s word expressed in human language” and that proper acknowledgement should be given both to the word of God and its human dimensions, which can always lead to certain non-doctrinal inconsequential errors, while inerrant doctrinal truth remains in tact, forever. The Bible is true in passages relating to human salvation, they say, but continue: “We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters.” I agree!

Dave do you have faith that sacred scripture, in-errantly reflects doctrinal truth, revealed by God, in spite of the inadequacies and limitations of human speech and writing - yes, no, maybe? 🙂
 
Dave_Noonan said:
So maybe go back and look and the post as I previously suggested.
Click to expand...
This your proof?

*Gift of Scripture by the Catholic Bishops of England, Wales & Scotland:

“The books thus declared canonical and inspired by the Spirit of God contain ‘the truth which God wished to be set down in the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation’ (Dei Verbum 11). It is important to note this teaching of the Second Vatican Council that the truth of Scripture is to be found in all that is written down ‘for the sake of our salvation’. We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters. We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision.” (18)*

Exactly! The Bible was not written as a scientific book or as ‘history’ book per se in the modern sense,so in that aspect it is fallible. However,how does the above rebuke or negate the Word of God,which is infallible?
 
joe370 said:
Dave do you have faith that sacred scripture, in-errantly reflects doctrinal truth, revealed by God, in spite of the inadequacies and limitations of human speech and writing - yes, no, maybe? 🙂
Click to expand...
I think the Bible teaches sufficiently for human salvation. I continue think it’s very difficult to separate what is fallible historiography versus doctrinal teaching–people will disagree over which is which. Because the Bible isn’t in any way a list of doctrinal propositions (we must draw those conclusions based on what we find) I’m also hesitant to say that it “reflects doctrinal truth.” I don’t think that the Bible misleads (if that’s what you mean by inerrancy), but I do think humans can misinterpret because we are fallible beings.
 
=Dave Noonan;7296584]I think the Bible teaches sufficiently for human salvation.
Click to expand...
From a sola scriptura standpoint, one shouldn’t believe that, for the simple fact that that is not taught in scripture; quite the opposite. According to the bible, Holy Tradition is necessary; Holy Scripture is necessary, and the Holy Church is necessary.
I continue think it’s very difficult to separate what is fallible historiography versus doctrinal teaching–people will disagree over which is which.
Click to expand...
And that, in my opinion, is why God gave us a church with a teaching office, forever guided by the Holy spirit, into all truth. 🙂
Because the Bible isn’t in any way a list of doctrinal propositions (we must draw those conclusions based on what we find) I’m also hesitant to say that it “reflects doctrinal truth.”
Click to expand...
Some folks have faith that it does and some folks do not. It certainly can’t be proven, and that is why Jesus said: blessed are those who do not see and yet believe.
I don’t think that the Bible misleads (if that’s what you mean by inerrancy), but I do think humans can misinterpret because we are fallible beings.
Click to expand...
I agree, and that is why I said (above) - what I said. 🙂
 
joe370 said:
From a sola scriptura standpoint, one shouldn’t believe that, for the simple fact that that is not taught in scripture; quite the opposite. According to the bible, Holy Tradition is necessary; Holy Scripture is necessary, and the Holy Church is necessary.
Click to expand...
As has been discussed on many other threads on this forum, this is somewhat of a distortion of what sola scriptura actually means. I agree that the church and tradition are also important and necessary (at least in the vast majority of situations), which is also part of sola scriptura. But I don’t think that equates to any church’s perfect, infallible charism to state and teach doctrine. No teacher or doctrine, no matter how enlightened or guided by the Spirit, will ever come to close to capturing the infinite fullness of who God is or what God has done. That’s why I gravitate toward ideas of sufficiency rather than categories of infallibility and perfection.
joe370 said:
And that, in my opinion, is why God gave us a church with a teaching office, forever guided by the Holy spirit, into all truth. 🙂
Click to expand...
I agree that the church has a teaching responsibility and teaching authority, but because this authority is vested in fallible, limited humans (who are not God), I don’t think the church teaches perfectly or infallibly—far from it. Some people are better teachers than others, regardless of their authority to teach. I don’t think this means that the Holy Spirit doesn’t continue to guide, but I think humans have often ignored the Spirit’s guidance. Who knows–the church may indeed be lead into “all truth” one day, but I certainly don’t think that anyone should be claiming to arrived there just yet. Even the apostles were pretty dense most of the time.
joe370 said:
Some folks have faith that it does and some folks do not. It certainly can’t be proven, and that is why Jesus said: blessed are those who do not see and yet believe.
Click to expand...
I think you’re mixing faith in the church (or maybe even faith in the Bible?) with faith in Jesus Christ; which for me would be a completely different understanding of what faith really means—but it does help explain your earlier statement that my faith is lacking so I guess I’m grateful for that. (BTW, I don’t think that particular verse, taken in context, really has anything to do with the teaching authority of the church or its ability to teach infallibly.) From just my own perspective, having faith in humans and human institutions would be a violation of the first commandment.
 
No one here is ever going to change your mind, that much I can tell, and I am certainly not going to try. You take care of yourself brother. 🙂
Dave_Noonan said:
As has been discussed on many other threads on this forum, this is somewhat of a distortion of what sola scriptura actually means. I agree that the church and tradition are also important and necessary (at least in the vast majority of situations), which is also part of sola scriptura. But I don’t think that equates to any church’s perfect, infallible charism to state and teach doctrine. No teacher or doctrine, no matter how enlightened or guided by the Spirit, will ever come to close to capturing the infinite fullness of who God is or what God has done. That’s why I gravitate toward ideas of sufficiency rather than categories of infallibility and perfection.

I agree that the church has a teaching responsibility and teaching authority, but because this authority is vested in fallible, limited humans (who are not God), I don’t think the church teaches perfectly or infallibly—far from it. Some people are better teachers than others, regardless of their authority to teach. I don’t think this means that the Holy Spirit doesn’t continue to guide, but I think humans have often ignored the Spirit’s guidance. Who knows–the church may indeed be lead into “all truth” one day, but I certainly don’t think that anyone should be claiming to arrived there just yet. Even the apostles were pretty dense most of the time.

I think you’re mixing faith in the church (or maybe even faith in the Bible?) with faith in Jesus Christ; which for me would be a completely different understanding of what faith really means—but it does help explain your earlier statement that my faith is lacking so I guess I’m grateful for that. (BTW, I don’t think that particular verse, taken in context, really has anything to do with the teaching authority of the church or its ability to teach infallibly.) From just my own perspective, having faith in humans and human institutions would be a violation of the first commandment.
Click to expand...
 
joe370 said:
Evidence please? Jesus said that he would build his church on Kepha, which is what the CC teaches and believes, (no other church, regardless of denomination, teaches this) - and the EOC believes that Jesus’ church was/is built on Kepha’s confession. Click on the pic below and let me know if you agree with it? 🙂
Click to expand...
OK Joe, so what you are saying here is that Christ is building His Church on Peter’s confession, but isn’t it the norm of belief of Matt 16:17 that Christ is firmly planting the ultimate leadership of the Church on Peter?
 
Nicea325 said:
The one true church? Then when are you going to show us the overwhelming historical facts the church Christ founded was called the Orthodox Church? I have yet to read a single shred of evidence from you. You constantly repeating the same lines does not make a historical fact.
Click to expand...
And I don’t see any overwhelming historical facts that contradict this or that are in support of your position. You cannot make out that all Truth is preserved solely in the Roman Catholic Church and call that an historical fact. What Truth one holds is way outside the realm of historical facts.
 
joe370 said:
Mike, if the RCC is schismatic so are all of the Protestant churches for the simple fact that all of them are offshoots of the supposed schismatic RCC, or offshoots of other Protestant churches that preceded them - correct?
Click to expand...
You got it Joe!
 
Mikeoffaith said:
According to YOU, which has no bearing at all.
Click to expand...
Mike there is a reason why I said that comment about the Lutheran church. To make a point to show how silly you sound and your awful attitude towards the RCC.
 
JonNC said:
Well, not exactly, Joe. I agree with Mike that our ties are far closer to Rome than to Orthodoxy. It would be easier for me, for example, to become Catholic than Orthodox, largely on ethnic and historical grounds.
However, I don’t deny, as Mike seems to be saying, that Rome has a lesser claim than Orthodoxy. ** I’m saying it is difficult to know** which has the stronger claim, and until they reconcile, I’m inclined to question the doctrines they disagree on. As that is the case, I would have a difficult time being in communion with either (unless, of course, Lutheranism came to reconciliation with one or the other).

Jon
Click to expand...
I really get what you are saying here, especially regarding doctrines they disagree on. And if my parish or diocese chose to reconcile with Rome or Orthodoxy, I would then be able to enter into communion with the institution to which we were reconciled.
 
Mikeoffaith said:
The Roman Catholic Church is schismatic. The only receptacle of truth regarding the teaching of Jesus Christ is in the Orthodox Church, the one true holy and apostolic church, where the faith of the Apostles is safeguarded and guided by the Holy Spirit until the end of time.
Click to expand...
What do the orthodox say about the lutherans. Just curious since you tag yourself as lutheran.
 
jphilapy said:
What do the orthodox say about the lutherans. Just curious since you tag yourself as lutheran.
Click to expand...
The same thing that the Catholic Church says about us, maybe worse in some cases. Some of them also say the same things about the Catholic Church.

Jon
 
Nicea325 said:
Mike there is a reason why I said that comment about the Lutheran church. To make a point to show how silly you sound and your awful attitude towards the RCC.
Click to expand...
And my point is exactly the same, to point out how silly you sound and your awful attitude towards anyone who is outside of the RCC.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top