Is sola Scriptura Infallible? Protestant says yes!

[Randy_Carson]

If your list is not infallible then what good is it? You could be wrong on every single entry. We want the infallible list, you know how you say we need an infallible list of the canon? Remember I have claimed I don’t need an infallible list for my belief, however your contention is that we do. So where is the infallible list Randy?

I see no particular value in my list whatsoever, and I’m making it up as I go along. I don’t recall claiming that you need such a list nor do I think that I need one, either. You keep asking for one, however. For what purpose I do not know.

You on the other hand, have claimed that sola scriptura is an infallible doctrine equal to the word of God.

Is this a doctrine I should have on my list? Along with sola fide? How can I be sure of this since there is no infallible church and the “only” verifiably infallible authority that you can steer me to, the Bible, does not contain this? Seems extra-biblical to me.

I know you desperately want to pin me down on the list thingie, but be honest - do you not see the self-refutation in that?

(like he’ll ever say yes)

 

[SolaScriptura]

I am trying to be careful to distinguish between infallibility and inspiration. Before we go further, which of these two expressions comes closest to defining “God-Breathed”.

God-breathed and inspired are used interchangeably in different translations for 2 Timothy 3:16.

Try to ease up on the condescending ad hominems. Fair enough?

OK, fair enough.

Apostolic Succession.

Even if I grant you Apostolic Succession it doesn’t follow that there is infallibility for a single Bishop in Rome. Do you see my problem? The Apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit, but this gift doesn’t follow Apostolic Succession so why do you assume infallibility does and ONLY to the Bishop of Rome?

As are you. In fact, you have no choice but to offer personal interpretation since you have no other authority from which to make your arguments. This is Protestantism exposed.

On the contrary we are both in the same boat. We both have infallible authorities. For me it is the Scriptures, in your case you have 3 of them, nevertheless we both have to interpret our infallible authorities. No other around understanding them without interpreting them.

On the other hand, I quoted passages from what three, four, five official Church documents, and you said, “Well, that’s just your interpretation of what those documents mean.” How can I refute that circular logic? That it’s only your interpretation of my interpretation.

If you are not infallible then it is only your interpretation. This is why some of the most distinguished scholars in your church disagree with you. These scholars submitted to Rome’s infallible teaching, however they disagree with your private interpretation of Rome’s teaching. Rome has never settled the issue.

You betcha. I’m a convert. Strong in some areas, weak in others, but improving fast.

How long have you been a Catholic?

I know you think you have a winning argument here, and we’ve been down this path before.

Well, it is not that I care who is really right, but that it proves my point that is disagreement amongst Catholic in good standing with the church. You are in no position to say that are not Catholics in good standing because they believe the Scriptures contain errors.

Two anecdotes:

1. President Bush has Colin Powell in his cabinet. Powell’s competence, his expertise, in some areas is unquestioned. But I don’t think Bush is paying one bit of attention to Powell’s ideas on policy for Iraq.

Yes, but if we continue we this anecdotes, would some guy(e.g. Randy Carson) on the internet more likely be right than Colin Powell (e.g. Raymon Brown) about what George Bush(e.g. The Pope) means?

1. Not long ago, a priest explained to my wife that artificial birth control is okay now that we are older and she’s had seven pregnancies. He was well-meaning but wrong. ABC is intrinsically evil.

Yes, but comparing this to inerrancy is comparing apples to oranges. Does the Pope put individual on commission dealing with martial sex that openly promote ABC? Do individuals that promote ABC write books on the subject that receive Nihil Obstat and the Imprimateur?

Brown and Fitzmyer were highly regarded as experts in their fields, but that doesn’t make them infallible nor does it make them right on every issue. Some brilliant minds opposed Humanae Vitae, as well, but Paul VI stunned the western world. End of story.

I’m not saying they are infallible, but neither are you. They are not right on every issue, but neither are you. My point is simply that there is disagreement in the Catholic church over the inerrancy of Scripture. That is an undeniable fact and the Popes have blessed individuals that say the Scriptures do contain errors.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I see no particular value in my list whatsoever, and I’m making it up as I go along. I don’t recall claiming that you need such a list nor do I think that I need one, either. You keep asking for one, however. For what purpose I do not know.

Don’t you claim Protestants need an infallible list of the Scriptures that makeup the canon? If so, why don’t you need an infallible list of infallible pronouncements?
Randy Carson:

You on the other hand, have claimed that sola scriptura is an infallible doctrine equal to the word of God.

I explained to you what I meant when I first responded to this thread. Please go up and read my first post to understand the argument so you are not attacking a strawman.
Randy Carson:

Is this a doctrine I should have on my list? Along with sola fide? How can I be sure of this since there is no infallible church and the “only” verifiably infallible authority that you can steer me to, the Bible, does not contain this? Seems extra-biblical to me.

How do you know there is an infallible church, being that you are fallible? Futhermore, how do you know you picked the right infallible church, being that you are fallible? Seems you really have no assurance besides your own fallibility.
Randy Carson:

I know you desperately want to pin me down on the list thingie, but be honest - do you not see the self-refutation in that?

(like he’ll ever say yes)

No. Didn’t want to disappoint you

 

[Lampo]

SS…What is your take on this exchange?

Eric, you have no business quoting from the Bible to disprove the Catholic faith when it was the Catholic Church who gave you the Bible. This is the brash arrogance of Protestant Christians, who are ignorant of history and twist the Scriptures to their own destruction. I call it “spoiled brat Christianity.” You despise the very Mother who gave you the Scriptures. The Bible is indeed the Word of God, but you only know that because the Catholic Church told you so. How do you know what books should be in the Bible when the Bible doesn’t tell you? You only know it because the Catholic Church definitively declared the Bible canon at the end of the fourth century.

If the Bible canon is necessary for our salvation, but Christ did not reveal it to His apostles, then Christ must have established an authority that would guarantee the early Christians’ determination of the Bible canon after He ascended into heaven. This authority is the Holy Catholic Church.

There was no Bible as you know it for 400 years after Christ’s death, and it wasn’t even distributed for 1500 years after His death. If the Bible is the only way to get us to heaven, then what happened to those millions of poor souls who never had a Bible during the 1500 year period? Eric, you need to get familiar with basic history. Jesus Christ established a Church to proclaim the good news. He never intended on having the Bible be the sole infallible guide for the Christian faith. This is why the Catholic Church is one, and your Protestant denominations are 30,000.

The Catholic Church wrote, translated, copied, and preserved God’s written word throughout the ages. That is the only reason you even have a Bible. Quit trying to interpret the Scriptures without the Church, because it is the Bible in the Church, the Church before the Bible, the Bible and the Church (both or neither).

 

[Randy_Carson]

God-breathed and inspired are used interchangeably in different translations for 2 Timothy 3:16.

Thanks. It helps to make sure of our terminology to avoid talking past one another.

Now, let me ask a question. John 20:21-22 says:

"21Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” 22And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

Did Jesus who is God just breathe on the Apostles? Does this provide the basis for a “God-breathed” Church?

OK, fair enough.

Even if I grant you Apostolic Succession it doesn’t follow that there is infallibility for a single Bishop in Rome. Do you see my problem? The Apostles were inspired by the Holy Spirit, but this gift doesn’t follow Apostolic Succession so why do you assume infallibility does and ONLY to the Bishop of Rome?

Just to be sure that I don’t go off on another one of my lengthy posts , you are (for the moment at least) willing to consider an argument that includes Apostolic Succesion. You understand that the original Apostles were “inspired” or “God-breathed” but you don’t see that this was transferred to those that succeeded them. So even if Apostolic Succession is a historical fact, infallibility does not necessarily come as part of a package deal. Is that your point fairly understood?

On the contrary we are both in the same boat. We both have infallible authorities. For me it is the Scriptures, in your case you have 3 of them, nevertheless we both have to interpret our infallible authorities. No other around understanding them without interpreting them.

Actually, the Catholic Church teaches that Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium are bound inseperably together. Think of a three-legged chair. It falls without one leg. God seems to have a thing for trinities, don’t you think? I do agree that we both have to interpret what our authorities are trying to say; this is where the issue of a formed conscience comes into play with culpability. My authority, however, can field questions. The Bible cannot respond to or clarify your questions.

If you are not infallible then it is only your interpretation. This is why some of the most distinguished scholars in your church disagree with you. These scholars submitted to Rome’s infallible teaching, however they disagree with your private interpretation of Rome’s teaching. Rome has never settled the issue.

The matter is already settled. You have seen the documents.

How long have you been a Catholic?

27 years.

Gotta bolt. More later.

 

[mikeledes]

I just find it interesting that Sola defends Sola Scriptura on “good and necessary consequence”, a highly subjective concept. What is a “good and necessary consequence” in one person’s eyes may not be the case with another person.

Do you have absolute assurance that this good and necessary consequence is true, especially when there is no explicit reference to it in Scripture?

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

Here is an interesting website:

matt1618.freeyellow.com/cyril.html

God Bless,
Michael

 

[SolaScriptura]

SS…What is your take on this exchange?

Rememer you asked

Eric, you have no business quoting from the Bible to disprove the Catholic faith when it was the Catholic Church who gave you the Bible. This is the brash arrogance of Protestant Christians, who are ignorant of history and twist the Scriptures to their own destruction. I call it “spoiled brat Christianity.” You despise the very Mother who gave you the Scriptures. The Bible is indeed the Word of God, but you only know that because the Catholic Church told you so. How do you know what books should be in the Bible when the Bible doesn’t tell you? You only know it because the Catholic Church definitively declared the Bible canon at the end of the fourth century.

It is full of fallacious reasoning and errors. The question is begged in reference to the church. The question is begged about who is twisting Scriptures and ignorant of history. As a matter of fact his person shows they are ignorant of history in the same paragraph when they claim the Catholic Church definitively declared the canon at the end of the fourth century. Any one who done a little bit of homework on this subject knows the Catholic Church didn’t officially defined the canon until Trent.

If the Bible canon is necessary for our salvation, but Christ did not reveal it to His apostles, then Christ must have established an authority that would guarantee the early Christians’ determination of the Bible canon after He ascended into heaven. This authority is the Holy Catholic Church.

The entire canon is not necessary for salvation. This is easily proven by the fact that the OT saints were saved without the current canon we have.

There was no Bible as you know it for 400 years after Christ’s death, and it wasn’t even distributed for 1500 years after His death. If the Bible is the only way to get us to heaven, then what happened to those millions of poor souls who never had a Bible during the 1500 year period? Eric, you need to get familiar with basic history. Jesus Christ established a Church to proclaim the good news. He never intended on having the Bible be the sole infallible guide for the Christian faith. This is why the Catholic Church is one, and your Protestant denominations are 30,000.

Now, I’m often accused of arrogance and insulting, I wonder how many Catholics said something to this person. The ironic thing is the he/she has no idea what they are talking about. Who claims the Bible is the only way to get us to heaven? That is silly. The Catholic Church is one and there are 30,000 Protestant denominations is also another misrepresentation.

The Catholic Church wrote, translated, copied, and preserved God’s written word throughout the ages. That is the only reason you even have a Bible. Quit trying to interpret the Scriptures without the Church, because it is the Bible in the Church, the Church before the Bible, the Bible and the Church (both or neither).

This is person is clueless if you ask me. All he/she is doing is parroting stuff they have heard before without fully understanding the issues. This is an example of the worse of Catholic apologetics since you asked me.

 

[mikeledes]

The entire canon is not necessary for salvation. This is easily proven by the fact that the OT saints were saved without the current canon we have.

Since the entire canon is not necessary for salvation and the Old Testament was enough for the Old Testament saints, then we can pretty much nix the entire New Testament or downgrade it from inspired to edifyng. How far are you willing to go to defend Sola Scriptura? Divine Revelation does not have to be directly necessary for salvation.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well, it is not that I care who is really right, but that it proves my point that is disagreement amongst Catholic in good standing with the church. You are in no position to say that are not Catholics in good standing because they believe the Scriptures contain errors.

Nor have I ever made such a claim. There is not scorecard that is used to determine who is and who is not in “good standing”. As I said elsewhere, I don’t care a whit what another individual Catholic says. I only pay attention to what the Church itself says. Over time, of course, I may realize that some folks are more reliable than others. Aren’t you experiencing that same feeling the more we exchange posts here?

Yes, but if we continue we this anecdotes, would some guy(e.g. Randy Carson) on the internet more likely be right than Colin Powell (e.g. Raymon Brown) about what George Bush(e.g. The Pope) means?

Go with Raymond Brown. But better yet, go with the official written documents. Just don’t get so locked in on one of them that you get blinded to the fact that they may go astray here and there.

Here’s the thing: In Protestantism, you have folks like John Haggee, R.C. Sproul, James White, James Dobson, Pat Robertson and Tim LaHaye all talking about prayer, scripture, the rapture, what have you. I deliberately chose a wide range of view points and theologies to illustrate my point. You might really like Sproul on Justification, Dobson on family issues and White on sola scriptura. But you might think Dobson is too liberal on justification while Hagee is too pro-Israel when it comes to the End Times while LaHaye is dead on. Or vice-versa. My point is that you listen to a variety of sources and discern what you like and don’t like.

To some extent, yes, Catholics do the same. Brown, Fitzmyer, Ratzinger (!), Scott Hahn, Ralph Martin, Peter Hocken. These are all published authors with differing area of expertise. I don’t read Hocken for apologetics and I don’t read Madrid for ecumenism. However, all of these Catholic authors are in fairly tight orbit around the single body of doctrine that makes up the teaching of the Catholic Church. And as I’ve stated elsewhere theologians get paid to experiment. When the Catechism states that the Bible contains errors, then I’ll believe it.

The distinction between Protestantism and Catholicism is that within Catholicism there really is a desk at which the buck finally stops. Any theologian who steps too far out of line will be called on the carpet in Rome and excommunicated if necessary. Protestants have no court of last appeal for settling doctrinal disputes.

Yes, but comparing this to inerrancy is comparing apples to oranges. Does the Pope put individual on commission dealing with martial sex that openly promote ABC? Do individuals that promote ABC write books on the subject that receive Nihil Obstat and the Imprimateur?

I think I just covered this without realizing it.

I’m not saying they are infallible, but neither are you. They are not right on every issue, but neither are you. My point is simply that there is disagreement in the Catholic church over the inerrancy of Scripture. That is an undeniable fact and the Popes have blessed individuals that say the Scriptures do contain errors.

Absolutely. We have never disagreed on this. There is disagreement within the Church AMONG CATHOLICS - and this is unfortunate but understandable. There is no disagreement among Church documents, however. The Church teaches one consistent message: the Bible is inerrant.

So where are we at?

 

[SolaScriptura]

Absolutely. We have never disagreed on this. There is disagreement within the Church AMONG CATHOLICS - and this is unfortunate but understandable. There is no disagreement among Church documents, however. The Church teaches one consistent message: the Bible is inerrant.

So where are we at?

Yes, but unless your interpretation of the official documents are infallible, which it is not, it is just your private interpretation. your claims carry no more weight than anyone else. As a matter of fact I would say it carries less weight than a member of the teaching magisterium wouldn’t you agree? Are you supposed to submit to this authority instead of your own private interpretation?

 

[Subrosa]

Hello all -

I’ve been reading these posts with interest until I noticed this statement by the poster SolaScriptura…

The entire canon is not necessary for salvation. This is easily proven by the fact that the OT saints were saved without the current canon we have.

I’d like to point out that this is false. I’ll give Sola that he may be ignorant of the reality of it.

It is only through the Sacrifice of Christ that the gates were opened in order to let the OT saints in. The bible states so itself. I know because I read the scripture this morning.
Please read Hebrews chapter 11, the whole thing. It is a treatise on the faith of the ancient saints.

Please read carefully Hebrews 11:39-40. “Yet all these, though approved because of thier faith, did not receive what had been promised. God had foreseen something better for us, so that without us they should not be made perfect.”

To restate this passage…The heroes of the Old Testament obtained thier recompense only AFTER the saving work of Christ had been accomplished.

We know this because of an earlier passage n Hebrews 9:11-15

11 But when Christ came as high priest of the good things that have come to be, passing through the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made by hands, that is, not belonging to this creation,
12 he entered once for all into the sanctuary, not with the blood of goats and calves but with his own blood, thus obtaining eternal redemption.
13 For if the blood of goats and bulls and the sprinkling of a heifer’s ashes can sanctify those who are defiled so that their flesh is cleansed,
14 how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from dead works to worship the living God.
15 For this reason he is mediator of a new covenant: since a death has taken place for deliverance from transgressions under the first covenant, those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance.

Subrosa

 

[Randy_Carson]

LOL!!! Randy, Paul said Timothy knew from childhood. I don’t think Paul was teaching him the proper interpretation when he was a baby.

Have you ever thought about the experience of the Bereans when Paul preached to them?

“Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” (Acts 17:11)

Sola Scripturists like to point to this verse and say, “See, these men were sola scripturists - they searched the scriptures to test that Paul’s teaching was true. That’s what we’re supposed to do.”

Really? Were they checking to see if the name “Jesus of Nazareth” appeared in one of the prophets? Were they trying to verify that Judas would betray the messiah or that? Or that Gentiles were now united with the Jews in one faith? Or that God was not really one after all but three - sort of - what did Paul say on that again???

No, they had received Paul’s gospel as he preached it orally, and they checked to see if his Infallible Interpretation of OT references to the messianic prophecies backed up his claims about Jesus, but the gospel message itself was more than the OT had foreseen. What made the Bereans noble is that they accepted Paul’s preaching which was filled with scriptures that they later double-checked for accuracy.

Ironically, it was the Thessalonicans who were true sola scriptura men. Paul taught them the same message, but they flat refused to believe anything that was not contained with the Bible Alone. Thus, they missed the Word of God because they denied Paul’s oral tradition that conflicted with their own interpretations of how God “must” fulfill the prophecies. Paul explained how God had actually worked, but they refused to go beyond what was on the written page.

Timothy was more Berean. Paul was able to explain the scriptures that Timothy had been learning all his life.

In both cases, Paul’s infallible interpretation, his teaching authority or magisterium, opened the truth to his listeners.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Have you ever thought about the experience of the Bereans when Paul preached to them?

“Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.” (Acts 17:11)

Sola Scripturists like to point to this verse and say, “See, these men were sola scripturists - they searched the scriptures to test that Paul’s teaching was true. That’s what we’re supposed to do.”

Really? Were they checking to see if the name “Jesus of Nazareth” appeared in one of the prophets? Were they trying to verify that Judas would betray the messiah or that? Or that Gentiles were now united with the Jews in one faith? Or that God was not really one after all but three - sort of - what did Paul say on that again???

No, they had received Paul’s gospel as he preached it orally, and they checked to see if his Infallible Interpretation of OT references to the messianic prophecies backed up his claims about Jesus, but the gospel message itself was more than the OT had foreseen. What made the Bereans noble is that they accepted Paul’s preaching which was filled with scriptures that they later double-checked for accuracy.

Ironically, it was the Thessalonicans who were true sola scriptura men. Paul taught them the same message, but they flat refused to believe anything that was not contained with the Bible Alone. Thus, they missed the Word of God because they denied Paul’s oral tradition that conflicted with their own interpretations of how God “must” fulfill the prophecies. Paul explained how God had actually worked, but they refused to go beyond what was on the written page.

Timothy was more Berean. Paul was able to explain the scriptures that Timothy had been learning all his life.

In both cases, Paul’s infallible interpretation, his teaching authority or magisterium, opened the truth to his listeners.

The discussion of the Bereans is a red herring. If what you are saying is true, no Jew could have been saved without an infallible interpretation. Tell me where all the Jews got this infallible interpretation from and what happened to it when Jesus came on the scene?

 

[runandsew]

Yes, but unless your interpretation of the official documents are infallible, which it is not, it is just your private interpretation. your claims carry no more weight than anyone else. As a matter of fact I would say it carries less weight than a member of the teaching magisterium wouldn’t you agree? Are you supposed to submit to this authority instead of your own private interpretation?

But we have a living Church, we can go to them to make sure we have the proper interpretation, who would you go to to make sure that you have the proper interpretation of scripture?
It is not like we can’t interpret scripture for ourselves, we are not some type of zombies or something, but when we do interpret scripture, we have guidelines that we can’t go against which is the teaching authority of the Church found in Sacred Tradition and the Church magesterium.
It is things like we have to believe that we came from Adam and Eve, in the Trinity ect…
The Church is not being mean or restrictive, but it is just doing the job that Jesus gave it to protect the truth.
Again I will ask, what good is an inspired (God breathed) and infllible bible if there is not infallible interpreter?

 

[eliasaph99]

Quite honestly, this is like arguing with Daffy Duck.

All SolaScriptura is doing is running around going “Whoo-Whoo-Whooo!!!”

It’s comically ridiculous.

Again, I point to the signature line.

I’m not trying to distract from the conversation, I think it’s relevant.

Isn’t anyone else amused that his signature line says that one must have tradition in order to properly interpret the scripture but all he does is say as loudly and illogically as he can, that you don’t?

My point is not to expect to be able to make a logical argument to someone who can’t see such a blatant contradiction in their own forum persona. You’ll never be able to persuade them because reason has nothing to do with their belief system.

Leave the goad alone. Kicking it doesn’t wake it up, it just hurts your toe and wastes your time.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes, but unless your interpretation of the official documents are infallible, which it is not, it is just your private interpretation. your claims carry no more weight than anyone else. As a matter of fact I would say it carries less weight than a member of the teaching magisterium wouldn’t you agree? Are you supposed to submit to this authority instead of your own private interpretation?

Then don’t accept my claims. Read the Church documents for yourself. Do your best to understand them. Submit to the church even when you disgree.

“Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.” (Hebrews 13:17)

Submit means to give over or yield to the power or authority of another. That last one is the real bottom line, isn’t it? If you agree on every issue, then there’s no real need for this instruction, is there? It’s only hardship when you disagree.

That’s why Protestantism is ultimately a rebellion against God’s authority as given by Jesus to the Apostles.

 

[SolaScriptura]

But we have a living Church, we can go to them to make sure we have the proper interpretation, who would you go to to make sure that you have the proper interpretation of scripture?

But members of the teaching magisterium even disagrees with each other. Can you go and ask your living Church a few questions for me and get back to me with the answers?

It is not like we can’t interpret scripture for ourselves, we are not some type of zombies or something, but when we do interpret scripture, we have guidelines that we can’t go against which is the teaching authority of the Church found in Sacred Tradition and the Church magesterium.

Yeah, but since it is your private intepretation you have no right to elevate it as being the official position of the church.

It is things like we have to believe that we came from Adam and Eve, in the Trinity ect…
The Church is not being mean or restrictive, but it is just doing the job that Jesus gave it to protect the truth.
Again I will ask, what good is an inspired (God breathed) and infllible bible if there is not infallible interpreter?

So why doesn’t this infallible interpreter start interpreting some of the biblical texts?

“To the best of my knowledge the Roman Catholic Church has never defined the literal sense of a single passage of the Bible.” Raymond E. Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible (New York: Paulist Press, 1981), p. 40.]

The Catholic commentator is bound to adhere to the interpretation of texts which the Church has defined either expressly or implicitly. The number of these texts is small, so that the commentator can easily avoid any transgression of this principle. Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. V, Exegesis (New York: The Encyclopedia Press, Inc., 1913), p. 699, 2nd column.]

What good is an infallible interpreter if she never interprets any biblical text?

 

[Randy_Carson]

The discussion of the Bereans is a red herring. If what you are saying is true, no Jew could have been saved without an infallible interpretation. Tell me where all the Jews got this infallible interpretation from and what happened to it when Jesus came on the scene?

Do you think all the Jews who died before Christ were already in heaven? Or were they waiting “elsewhere” until he preached to them after the crucifixion?

What does the Apostle’s Creed say?

I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

Why did Jesus descend into Hell? To preadh to those who died before this time, perhaps?

 

[runandsew]

But members of the teaching magisterium even disagrees with each other. Can you go and ask your living Church a few questions for me and get back to me with the answers?

When the Magisterium teaches infallibly they don’t disagree with each other.
Yeah, but since it is your private intepretation you have no right to elevate it as being the official position of the church.

I have private interpretation on how to live the Gosples in my life, not to create new dogma. Of course I wouldn’t elevate it as being the official position of the Church, I am not infallible, I was not given that promise from Jesus, the Apostles were.

So why doesn’t this infallible interpreter start interpreting some of the biblical texts?

It does, if you look back in the back of the Catechism, you will see the many Bible passages that it quoted, and used in its teachings. And that is what Sacred Tradition is.
It teaches about the Trinity, the need for Baptism, the need of Faith and works, the list goes on and on. Mostly the Church will only define things when a hersie arises, to put down the herisie.

“To the best of my knowledge the Roman Catholic Church has never defined the literal sense of a single passage of the Bible.” Raymond E. Brown, The Critical Meaning of the Bible (New York: Paulist Press, 1981), p. 40.]

The Catholic commentator is bound to adhere to the interpretation of texts which the Church has defined either expressly or implicitly. The number of these texts is small, so that the commentator can easily avoid any transgression of this principle. Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. V, Exegesis (New York: The Encyclopedia Press, Inc., 1913), p. 699, 2nd column.]

What good is an infallible interpreter if she never interprets any biblical text?

It keeps us from falling into heresies like denying the Trinity, believing in saved by faith alone, believing in Sola Scriptura, denying the sacraments, all of which are clearly taught in the Bible, but rejected by some.