R
Randy_Carson
Guest
CM-
Let me present another perspective on this.
Check out my posts #358 & 359 in this thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=127664&page=4
Let me know what you think.
- Status
Let me present another perspective on this.
Check out my posts #358 & 359 in this thread:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=127664&page=4
Let me know what you think.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Let’s stay on topic:
Is Sola Scriptura an infallible doctrine?
Is Sola Scriptura equal to the Word of God?
Is Sola Scriptura an infallible doctrine?
Is Sola Scriptura equal to the Word of God?
E
eliasaph99
Guest
That is absolutely ridiculous. The Church never taught such a thing. If it had, it would have been awfully hard to convert even the most ignorant sailor who could plainly see that the Earth was round just by watching ships sail away and approach.
No one, except the largest of fools, has ever believed that the Earth is flat. It has been known since great antiquity that the Earth is round and, in fact, the radius of the Earth was even known.
It was first calculated by a Greek named Eratosthenes who lived from 276-194 BC. It is a simple trigonometric calculation.
R
Reformed1
Guest
Several of your popes have stated that inspiration is not limited to any one specific portion of the text but that all parts of scripture are inerrant. What say you to this?
C
Church_Militant
Guest
I’d say that you do not properly understand what they were saying.
R
Reformed1
Guest
Have you read PROVIDENTISSIMUS DEUS by Leo XIII?
If you haven’t, take a look at it on the following site and let me know what you think. You can find it at americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/providentissimusdeus.htm
If you have read it, what did I not understand correclty?
F
franksv
Guest
Some food for thought.I took this from:
scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html
2 Tim. 3:14 - Protestants usually use 2 Tim. 3:16-17 to prove that the Bible is the sole authority of God’s word. But examining these texts disproves their claim. Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before the Protestants’ often quoted verse 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures, and Protestants generally ignore this fact.
2 Tim. 3:15 - Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul’s teaching). This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.
2 Tim. 3:16 - this verse says that Scripture is “profitable” for every good work, but not exclusive. The word “profitable” is “ophelimos” in Greek. “Ophelimos” only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Protestants unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive.
2 Tim. 3:16 - further, the verse “all Scripture” uses the words “pasa graphe” which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of “pasa graphe” would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use “sola Matthew,” or “sola Mark,” but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God’s word. This, of course, is not true and even Protestants would agree. Also, “pasa graphe” cannot mean “all of Scripture” because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless Protestants argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.
2 Tim. 3:16 - also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later.
2 Tim. 3:17 - Paul’s reference to the “man of God” who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although Protestants use it to prove their case, the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful.
2 Tim. 3:17 - further, Paul’s use of the word “complete” for every good work is “artios” which simply means the clergy is “suitable” or “fit.” Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.
James 1:4 - steadfastness also makes a man “perfect (teleioi) and complete (holoklepoi), lacking nothing.” This verse is important because "teleioi"and “holoklepoi” are much stronger words than “artios,” but Protestants do not argue that steadfastness is all one needs to be a Christian.
Titus 3:8 - good deeds are also “profitable” to men. For Protestants especially, profitable cannot mean “exclusive” here.
2 Tim 2:21- purity is also profitable for “any good work” (“pan ergon agathon”). This wording is the same as 2 Tim. 3:17, which shows that the Scriptures are not exclusive, and that other things (good deeds and purity) are also profitable to men.
Col. 4:12 - prayer also makes men “fully assured.” No where does Scripture say the Christian faith is based solely on a book.
2 Tim. 3:16-17 - Finally, if these verses really mean that Paul was teaching sola Scriptura to the early Church, then why in 1 Thess. 2:13 does Paul teach that he is giving Revelation from God orally? Either Paul is contradicting his own teaching on sola Scriptura, or Paul was not teaching sola Scriptura in 2 Tim. 3:16-17. This is a critical point which Protestants cannot reconcile with their sola Scriptura position.
scripturecatholic.com/scripture_alone.html
2 Tim. 3:14 - Protestants usually use 2 Tim. 3:16-17 to prove that the Bible is the sole authority of God’s word. But examining these texts disproves their claim. Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before the Protestants’ often quoted verse 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures, and Protestants generally ignore this fact.
2 Tim. 3:15 - Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul’s teaching). This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.
2 Tim. 3:16 - this verse says that Scripture is “profitable” for every good work, but not exclusive. The word “profitable” is “ophelimos” in Greek. “Ophelimos” only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Protestants unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive.
2 Tim. 3:16 - further, the verse “all Scripture” uses the words “pasa graphe” which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of “pasa graphe” would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use “sola Matthew,” or “sola Mark,” but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God’s word. This, of course, is not true and even Protestants would agree. Also, “pasa graphe” cannot mean “all of Scripture” because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless Protestants argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.
2 Tim. 3:16 - also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later.
2 Tim. 3:17 - Paul’s reference to the “man of God” who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although Protestants use it to prove their case, the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful.
2 Tim. 3:17 - further, Paul’s use of the word “complete” for every good work is “artios” which simply means the clergy is “suitable” or “fit.” Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.
James 1:4 - steadfastness also makes a man “perfect (teleioi) and complete (holoklepoi), lacking nothing.” This verse is important because "teleioi"and “holoklepoi” are much stronger words than “artios,” but Protestants do not argue that steadfastness is all one needs to be a Christian.
Titus 3:8 - good deeds are also “profitable” to men. For Protestants especially, profitable cannot mean “exclusive” here.
2 Tim 2:21- purity is also profitable for “any good work” (“pan ergon agathon”). This wording is the same as 2 Tim. 3:17, which shows that the Scriptures are not exclusive, and that other things (good deeds and purity) are also profitable to men.
Col. 4:12 - prayer also makes men “fully assured.” No where does Scripture say the Christian faith is based solely on a book.
2 Tim. 3:16-17 - Finally, if these verses really mean that Paul was teaching sola Scriptura to the early Church, then why in 1 Thess. 2:13 does Paul teach that he is giving Revelation from God orally? Either Paul is contradicting his own teaching on sola Scriptura, or Paul was not teaching sola Scriptura in 2 Tim. 3:16-17. This is a critical point which Protestants cannot reconcile with their sola Scriptura position.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Let me know what you think.Randy, your posts are a very well written and thought out. My compliments to you and the Holy Spirit.
I had a whole long response that deals with it and Firefox seems to have bailed on me and I lost it.
Essentially,
**
Vatican Council II, Dei Verbum, 1965**
“9. Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”
“11. Therefore since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings5 for the sake of our salvation. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17)
**Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994
- The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”**72
This brings up an important point. Literal Vs Literalist interpretations (of perhaps both scripture and Catholic documents). I agree with John Martignoni on this.
I hope that helps.
Pax tecum,
R
Reformed1
Guest
Why do you say this?
If you are referring to the fact that the septuagint included the books you call deuterocanonicals you have to realize the septuagint also included books such as 3 Maccabees that neither you or I accept as canonical. So, the fact that the apostles and Jesus quoted from the septuagint does not help your case in trying to establish the deutero’s as inspired or canonical, unless of course you want to be consistent and accept all the books that the septuagint included.
R
Reformed1
Guest
Read the footnotes in DV and you will see that it refers to several other texts where it is clear that the scriptures are totally and completely inerrant. Also, the section of the catechism you quoted comes from DV does it not?Randy, your posts are a very well written and thought out. My compliments to you and the Holy Spirit.
I had a whole long response that deals with it and Firefox seems to have bailed on me and I lost it.
Essentially,
**
Vatican Council II, Dei Verbum, 1965**
“9. Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”
“11. Therefore since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings5 for the sake of our salvation. Therefore “all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind” (2 Tim. 3:16-17)
**Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994
So then my posit stands within the teachings of the church in that I concur that what God intended for us to know He conveyed by inspiration, but that He did not intend to convey those things that are in contradiction to scientific fact (Note: NOT theory. Therefore eliminating evolution one way or the other.). Since OT writers had no concept of many of the things that we know today then I have no question that those are individual expressions, and not meant to be taken as inerrant Biblical declaration.
- The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”**72
This brings up an important point. Literal Vs Literalist interpretations (of perhaps both scripture and Catholic documents). I agree with John Martignoni on this.
I hope that helps.
Pax tecum,
Also, the phrase “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.” is some what ambiguous is it not?
F
franksv
Guest
I don’t know anything about that.I think it all comes down to either someone is buying it or not,thats why its called Faith and not science.Its a product of free will.
D
De_Maria
Guest
Correct. Although we use the word “inerrant” which essentially means the same thing.
Not exactly.
Only official Doctrines are infallible. What we call, Traditions with a big T.
But in essence you are correct.
Simply this.
We agree that Scripture is inerrant or infallible. But so is Sacred Tradition. Scripture tells us that Sacred Tradition transmitted orally is the Word of God:
1 Thess 2:13For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
And we disagree that everyone can read Scripture and understand it infallibly. Some people don’t understand what Scripture is saying. Scripture tells us so:
2 Pet 3:15And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
**2 Timothy 2:15 **Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
If one must study to rightly divide the Word of Truth, that means one can wrongly divide it.
Note that Paul doesn’t exert Tim to study the Bible. The context of the chapter is strictly that Tim should study what Paul is teaching him:
7Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things., 14Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers.
Note also that Paul doesn’t just exhort Tim to study his teachings, but he exhorts Tim to teach what Paul has taught him orally and in person:
2And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also…24And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, 25In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; 26And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.
And this is precisely a description of an infallible Teaching Church (i.e. Magisterium).
Sincerely,
De Maria
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
CM-
I have listened to that talk several times along with all the others from his site. In fact, I burned them onto CD’s so I can listen to them in my car. I’m old-fashioned, I guess…what exactly is an iPod, anyway?
I don’t think there is a dichotomy here, but the Church clearly teaches the inerrancy of the Bible. Frankly, I think science, archeology, etc. continue to confirm that, but that is a much bigger discussion for which I am not qualified.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
is some what ambiguous is it not?I don’t see how…when you take it for what it’s meaning and not what someone might wish to portray it as saying.
If one says that the Bible is inerrant even when it conflicts with scientific fact you make the whole inspiration of the Bible untenable. That’s why I say that it needs literal and not literalist interpretation.
To me it’s simply God-given common sense.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
. Frankly, I think science, archeology, etc. continue to confirm that, but that is a much bigger discussion for which I am not qualified.And so then we are in agreement and I am happy.CM-
I have listened to that talk several times along with all the others from his site. In fact, I burned them onto CD’s so I can listen to them in my car. I’m old-fashioned, I guess…what exactly is an iPod, anyway?
I don’t think there is a dichotomy here, but the Church clearly teaches the inerrancy of the Bible
I much enjoy your posts.
Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum.
M
mark_a
Guest
Works for me if you can, as you say “can put it into practice” without a superiority complex.
A
ALLFORHIM
Guest
You also apparently don’t believe in the apostrophe in contractions…
A
ALLFORHIM
Guest
E
eliasaph99
Guest
Where does the Bible contradict science?
I am unaware of any instance where this occurs.
- Status