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

[joe370]

Richard, we all (catholics and non-catholics) - know that the apostles taught infallibly aka, in-errantly, and they eventually passed on those inerrant teachings to their successors, such as Titus and Timothy for example, and told them to entrust to reliable men, apostolic preserved truth, who will also be qualified to teach others for the simple fact that they are simply taking what was given to them, by their predecessors and passing it on to their successors, and the holy spirit is guiding these teachers through every generation (it did not stop with Timothy and Titus and their successors - right?) - and safeguarding doctrinal truth through this unbroken chain of command. If someone, at some point decides to leave that unbroken chain of command to start his own church, there is the potential for them to deviate from apostolic preserved truth that has its origin in the apostles, and its preservation through their successors, again, in that unbroken chain of command. The key to the preservation truth has nothing to do with how smart catholic teachers are; the preservation of truth has everything to do with continuity, starting with the apostles and ending when Jesus returns; wouldn’t you agree that this is the best method for doctrinal preservation, maybe?

Just as Timothy and Titus and Barnabas were simply to take what Paul had taught them and entrust it to other reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others, the CC, (which has its origin in the apostles) - in every generation, as well as today, and in the future, simply take what was entrusted to them and passes it on to their successors, who would/will also be reliable men who would/will also be qualified to teach others, for the simple fact that they possess that treasure trove of truth that has been safeguarded through every generation, and the holy spirit gets all the credit.

In the bible we see 3 generations of catholic teachers (including men like Ignatius and Polycarp who called the church, the catholic church) - all of which had the authority to teach in-errantly, (not because they were infallible; even the apostles were fallible) - for the simple fact that they were entrusted with doctrinal truth from people who were also entrusted with doctrinal truth, going all the way back to the apostolic age, and these 3 generations of teachers were teaching in-errantly long before the bible even existed, and that is why Paul reminds us that it is the church, not the bible, that is the pillar and foundation of truth, to which we must defer. The bible is the infallible truth but the bible cannot interpret the bible; teachers are required.

Each generation of catholic teachers, starting with the apostles and ending with the return of Jesus, were/are to hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it had/has been taught to them, so that they can encourage others by sound doctrine, and refute those who oppose it. When teachers break away from the church for good reasons or bad reasons, they break that requisite continuity of leadership and become more susceptible to error, and it is not because they are less smart; doctrinal truth regarding God, never had anything to do with the intelligence of a teacher; it had/has everything to do with the power of the holy spirit who keeps the treasure trove of truth in tact. How God does this, who knows. It is truly a mystery.

*Obey your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account. Do this so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no benefit to you.

And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.

He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it…You, however, must teach what is appropriate to sound doctrine.*

Your thoughts friend?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

So what was your answer to the following?

Is God still in control regarding the preservation of doctrinal truth in the church founded by God, or, has the sin of man trumped the will of God, thereby making it impossible to know, with certainty, the truth regarding certain doctrinal truths that continue to divide Christianity?

As finite creatures I think we have a tough time grasping an infinite God. But I think this is more about human limitations than sin–although sin is certainly a part of it. No, I don’t think anyone has a full monopoly on truth, if that’s what you are asking.

 

[joe370]

As finite creatures I think we have a tough time grasping an infinite God. But I think this is more about human limitations than sin–although sin is certainly a part of it. No, I don’t think anyone has a full monopoly on truth, if that’s what you are asking.

So you don’t agree with post 21?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

So you don’t agree with post 21?

No, I don’t think the apostles or their successors had any special charism of infallibility.

 

[Nicea325]

No, I don’t think the apostles or their successors had any special charism of infallibility.

So then the letters Peter wrote in the NT are fallible? So the bishops who gave us the doctrine of the Trinity,Incarnation,canon,etc are ALL fallible?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

So then the letters Peter wrote in the NT are fallible? So the bishops who gave us the doctrine of the Trinity,Incarnation,canon,etc are ALL fallible?

I’m not sure what a theoretical “infallible” book would even look like. A book that explains all truth or imparts perfect understanding? A book so clear it would never give the wrong impression or be misinterpreted? Books (and language itself, and people) are very imperfect and limited instruments when it comes to explaining the nature and will of God. It may be the best we have, but I wouldn’t call them infallible, no.

As for the first bishops—if anything the NT shows how fallible Jesus’ disciples were. I can’t assume that their followers would have been magically any less subject to the potential for misunderstanding and error.

 

[joe370]

I’m not sure what a theoretical “infallible” book would even look like. A book that explains all truth or imparts perfect understanding? A book so clear it would never give the wrong impression or be misinterpreted? Books (and language itself, and people) are very imperfect and limited instruments when it comes to explaining the nature and will of God. It may be the best we have, but I wouldn’t call them infallible, no.

As for the first bishops—if anything the NT shows how fallible Jesus’ disciples were. I can’t assume that their followers would have been magically any less subject to the potential for misunderstanding and error.

You definitely get points for originality my friend and I certainly respect your right to believe that the bible is fallible. If the bible does not in-errantly reflect what Jesus taught, then maybe the death and resurrection of Jesus was in fact a fallible teaching, errantly propagated by the fallible apostles, but I doubt you would ever make that claim, but who knows.

By the way, there are other infallible books, other than the bible, written by fallible people. For example, math and science books. 2+2=4 is an infallible teaching. Can fallible people in-errantly interpret them? Of course. Can fallible people errantly interpret them? Of course, and the same goes for the inerrant word of God.

Like someone here said:

If God is inerrant, and the bible is the word of God, then the bible is inerrant. If is a faith based system; no doubt about that.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

You definitely get points for originality my friend and I certainly respect your right to believe that the bible is fallible. If the bible does not in-errantly reflect what Jesus taught, then maybe the death and resurrection of Jesus was in fact a fallible teaching, errantly propagated by the fallible apostles, but I doubt you would ever make that claim, but who knows.

By the way, there are other infallible books, other than the bible, written by fallible people. For example, math and science books. 2+2=4 is an infallible teaching. Can fallible people in-errantly interpret them? Of course. Can fallible people errantly interpret them? Of course, and the same goes for the inerrant word of God.

Like someone here said:

If God is inerrant, and the bible is the word of God, then the bible is inerrant. If is a faith based system; no doubt about that.

I’m not sure how original this idea is–there are quite a few people–Catholics included–who do not believe that the Bible is inerrant but still hold that it is the Word of God—or various gradations of this idea. For example, you might want to read The 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)

I also can’t think of any Catholic professor of Bible that I’ve encountered that thinks the Bible is inerrant. Personally, I think of the Bible more in the realm of evidence rather than proof—and I think our task is to do the best we can with the evidence that we have. Because the Bible was produced by humans, I think it contains all the inadequacies and limitations of human speech and writing–to say nothing of the limitations of and just plain errors in translation.

 

[Nicea325]

I’m not sure what a theoretical “infallible” book would even look like. A book that explains all truth or imparts perfect understanding? A book so clear it would never give the wrong impression or be misinterpreted? Books (and language itself, and people) are very imperfect and limited instruments when it comes to explaining the nature and will of God. It may be the best we have, but I wouldn’t call them infallible, no.

As for the first bishops—if anything the NT shows how fallible Jesus’ disciples were. I can’t assume that their followers would have been magically any less subject to the potential for misunderstanding and error.

Well if you are claiming to be Christian and question such a thing called an ‘infallible’ book what certitude do you have you are evening following the Truth? So in other words,Christ never sanctified His Church and never promised it the guidance of the Holy Spirit? All of the bibical authors books/letters are fallible never guided by the Holy Spirit?

Then what is the point then,if we are following a fallible book called the Bible?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Well if you are claiming to be Christian and question such a thing called an ‘infallible’ book what certitude do you have you are evening following the Truth? So in other words,Christ never sanctified His Church and never promised it the guidance of the Holy Spirit? All of the bibical authors books/letters are fallible never guided by the Holy Spirit?

Then what is the point then,if we are following a fallible book called the Bible?

That’s why it’s called faith; it’s not about certitude (Heb 11:1).

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Well if you are claiming to be Christian and question such a thing called an ‘infallible’ book what certitude do you have you are evening following the Truth? So in other words,Christ never sanctified His Church and never promised it the guidance of the Holy Spirit? All of the bibical authors books/letters are fallible never guided by the Holy Spirit?

Then what is the point then,if we are following a fallible book called the Bible?

That’s why it’s called faith; it’s not about certitude (Heb 11:1).

You still did not answer the question. Did Christ sanctify His Church? Yes or No? Did He promise to guide it with the Truth? Yes or No?

BTW: Why are you quoting a fallible book,if it is based on faith?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

You still did not answer the question. Did Christ sanctify His Church? Yes or No? Did He promise to guide it with the Truth? Yes or No?

BTW: Why are you quoting a fallible book,if it is based on faith?

Did Christ sanctify his church? If you mean sanctified as somehow set apart for a particular call or mission, then I’d say yes. If you mean that he made it perfect and endowed it with perfect knowledge and morals, then I’d say no–that’s pretty obvious from simply reading the newspaper or a history book.

Yes certainly Jesus promised that he would send the “spirit of truth” that guide the church; his point was that we are not abandoned. But I don’t think that in any way equates to a perfect church with infallible knowledge–if we knew everything and understood everything perfectly, we’d be God. I can have a guide, yet still not understand or follow that guidance very well. Also note that Christ didn’t promise to send a perfect book or infallible people, he promised the Spirit.

Why are you quoting a fallible book,if it is based on faith? I’m quoting a fallible book because I agree with it. If you have some other definition of faith, that’s fine by me.

 

[Nicea325]

Did Christ sanctify his church? If you mean sanctified as somehow set apart for a particular call or mission, then I’d say yes. If you mean that he made it perfect and endowed it with perfect knowledge and morals, then I’d say no–that’s pretty obvious from simply reading the newspaper or a history book.

Christ is perfect,so is His Church. It is followers are NOT,which in no way negates Christ
sanctification of His Church.

Yes certainly Jesus promised that he would send the “spirit of truth” that guide the church; his point was that we are not abandoned. But I don’t think that in any way equates to a perfect church with infallible knowledge–if we knew everything and understood everything perfectly, we’d be God. I can have a guide, yet still not understand or follow that guidance very well. Also note that Christ didn’t promise to send a perfect book or infallible people, he promised the Spirit.

What ever gave you the idea we will ever know everything? We are finite creatures confined to space and matter and God is Eternal. So if Jesus promised the 'spirit of truth" to His Church and the apostles,then evidently infallibility had to come into the picture. How else then would the church giving us the complex doctrine of the Trinity and the three distinct persons of the Trinity? So is the doctrine of the Trinity riddled with errors,since according to you,infallibility cannot exist within Christ Church?

Why are you quoting a fallible book,if it is based on faith? I’m quoting a fallible book because I agree with it. If you have some other definition of faith, that’s fine by me.

So you do confirm the Bible is NOT the infallible Word of God? So I guess for centuries people have been misled due to the fact it is ONLY a fallible book? Pretty strong argument Dave being the fact our salvation is at stake here.

 

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by Mikeoffaith
Because my tradition is so closely tied to that of the Roman Catholic Church, that it would be impossible for us to reconcile with the true church until the Roman Catholic Church would become reconciled to the one true church.

I understand Mike; that is the position JonNC takes and I certainly respect that position brother.

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

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Christ is perfect,so is His Church. It is followers are NOT,which in no way negates Christ
sanctification of His Church.

I think this is entirely illogical. If the church is the Body of Christ (1 Cor 12) and we are the members through baptism (Rom 6), and we are not perfect, then it is pretty difficult to point to exactly what the elements are in the church that actually are perfect, other than Christ. What is the church if not all the imperfect people who make it up? Your distinction between “the church” and “its followers” is a false one. If there were never any “followers” there wouldn’t be any church to talk about.

What ever gave you the idea we will ever know everything? We are finite creatures confined to space and matter and God is Eternal. So if Jesus promised the 'spirit of truth" to His Church and the apostles,then evidently infallibility had to come into the picture. How else then would the church giving us the complex doctrine of the Trinity and the three distinct persons of the Trinity? So is the doctrine of the Trinity riddled with errors,since according to you,infallibility cannot exist within Christ Church?

I never said we will know everything; just the opposite. No, I don’t see Jesus’ promise as some sort of magic guarantee of infallibility. The church does the best it can (when it’s at its best) with the knowledge and guidance given to it by the Spirit.

So you do confirm the Bible is NOT the infallible Word of God? So I guess for centuries people have been misled due to the fact it is ONLY a fallible book? Pretty strong argument Dave being the fact our salvation is at stake here.

Yes, as I’ve said several times. I don’t think that the Bible is infallible. As I noted above in #28, apparently a good chunk of your own bishops agree with me–or at least are open to the idea that the Bible contains errors and thus is a fallible book. I don’t think see this as a big shocker or having “been misled.”

 

[joe370]

Hey Dave…

Dave Noonan;7284193]I’m not sure how original this idea is–there are quite a few people–Catholics included–who do not believe that the Bible is inerrant but still hold that it is the Word of God—or various gradations of this idea.
For example, you might want to read The Gift of Scripture

by the Catholic Bishops of England, Wales & Scotland:

The Bible 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 inadequacies and limitations of human speech and writing; God teaches within the confines of fallible teachers. What matters to me is what the Catholic church leaders believe, and have believed, regarding the doctrinal truths of God, taught in both the old and new testament, since Pentecost. Does the magisterium of the CC believe that the bible is fallible? No. That book admits that the bible in-errantly reflects the truth regarding the teachings taught by God, and passed on to his apostles, who then passed on those inerrant teachings to their disciples,etc. etc…They admit 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 inconsequential errors, but they will never alter inerrant doctrinal truth. 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.”

Makes perfect sense to me.

“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)

Makes perfect sense to me.

I also can’t think of any Catholic professor of Bible that I’ve encountered that thinks the Bible is inerrant.

Again, when I say inerrant I am referring to the teachings of God, found in both the old and the new testament. Your strokes, regarding the in-errancy of the bible, are way too broad, in my opinion, but I do respect it even if I don’t agree with it. .

Personally, I think of the Bible more in the realm of evidence rather than proof—and I think our task is to do the best we can with the evidence that we have.

Evidence or proof, pretty much the same thing. However, we live by faith not evidence or proof, and your faith seems to be lacking, a tad.

Because the Bible was produced by humans, I think it contains all the inadequacies and limitations of human speech and writing–to say nothing of the limitations of and just plain errors in translation.

I totally agree brother, but it does reflect, in-errantly, doctrinal truth, revealed by God, in spite of all the inadequacies and limitations of human speech and writing - yes, no maybe?

 

[joe370]

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

Hey Jon. So, if all of the Lutheran churches reconciled with the EOC, you would choose to the EOC?

 

[JonNC]

Hey Jon. So, if all of the Lutheran churches reconciled with the EOC, you would choose to the EOC?

Yes.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Christ is perfect,so is His Church. It is followers are NOT,which in no way negates Christ
sanctification of His Church.

I think this is entirely illogical. If the church is the Body of Christ (1 Cor 12) and we are the members through baptism (Rom 6), and we are not perfect, then it is pretty difficult to point to exactly what the elements are in the church that actually are perfect, other than Christ. What is the church if not all the imperfect people who make it up? Your distinction between “the church” and “its followers” is a false one. If there were never any “followers” there wouldn’t be any church to talk about.

Not at all,you apparently do not understand the Body of Christ and His Church. The Church is “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). The Bible only mentions two entities with the entire Truth: God and His Church. So explain how it is illogical,if scripture makes it very clear?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
What ever gave you the idea we will ever know everything? We are finite creatures confined to space and matter and God is Eternal. So if Jesus promised the 'spirit of truth" to His Church and the apostles,then evidently infallibility had to come into the picture. How else then would the church giving us the complex doctrine of the Trinity and the three distinct persons of the Trinity? So is the doctrine of the Trinity riddled with errors,since according to you,infallibility cannot exist within Christ Church?

I never said we will know everything; just the opposite. No, I don’t see Jesus’ promise as some sort of magic guarantee of infallibility. The church does the best it can (when it’s at its best) with the knowledge and guidance given to it by the Spirit.

Magic is from humans, God is Divine Providence,big difference. Jesus mentions of sending the Third of Person of the Trinity (Holy Spirit),not magic or a thing. Therefore, you just finished stating:

The church does the best it can (when it’s at its best) with the knowledge and guidance given to it by the Spirit

Then evidently what the Holy Spirit tells the Church is 100% TRUTH;hence it is INFALLIBLE,not fallible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
So you do confirm the Bible is NOT the infallible Word of God? So I guess for centuries people have been misled due to the fact it is ONLY a fallible book? Pretty strong argument Dave being the fact our salvation is at stake here.

Yes, as I’ve said several times. I don’t think that the Bible is infallible. As I noted above in #28, apparently a good chunk of your own bishops agree with me–or at least are open to the idea that the Bible contains errors and thus is a fallible book. I don’t think see this as a big shocker or having “been misled.”

RCC bishops agree with you? Present the sources stating RCC Bishops (good chunk,your emphasis) believe it is fallible?

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Again, when I say inerrant I am referring to the teachings of God, found in both the old and the new testament. Your strokes, regarding the in-errancy of the bible, are way too broad, in my opinion, but I do respect it even if I don’t agree with it. .

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?
joe370;7285269:

Evidence or proof, pretty much the same thing. However, we live by faith not evidence or proof, and your faith seems to be lacking, a tad.

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.