Protestant claims bible is infallible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter joclucsylv
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Within a 8-10 mile radius of my house, there are almost 2 dozen non denominational churches alone. Any time a stand alone church is started, it becomes a denomination. I don’t know if there really is 30,000-40,000 denominations in the world today, but I think it is very possible.
 
Yes. The inspired word of God is inerrant, without error. The authors, authoritative men of the Church, were infallible in their writings. Translations and interpretations are subject to err. That’s why we have so many denominations, each based on someone’s private interpretation.

While an argument can be made against 30k denominations, it’s still wrong for if there were only 30 denominations, in my opinion. Scriptures teach us to be of the same mind and judgment, and one in the body of Christ, which is His Church, not Churches.
+1! I dream of one, unified body of Christ which relies on one, ‘sound’ body of Scripture!
 
Didn’t the Pharisees believe they were the only ones to understand the scriptures and traditions of their time?
*Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. (Matthew 23:1-3) *
 
*Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. (Matthew 23:1-3) *
Thus,

Praise God for His Grace and the lifting of the yoke of man!
 
Thus,

Praise God for His Grace and the lifting of the yoke of man!
Christ did have many warnings, in the form of ‘woes’, for those that sat on the chair of Moses; however, He did tell the people ‘observe and do whatsoever they shall tell you…’

I believe this was a teaching of obedience for the lay people, multitudes, and a warning for ‘teachers’.

Paul’s writing to the Hebrews seems to confirm this line of thought.
Heb 13:17 Obey your prelates and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls: that they may do this with joy and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.
Heb 13:18 Pray for us. For we trust we have a good conscience, being willing to behave ourselves well in all things.
 
Yes, He was, but liberal.

The Bible is theologically inerrant but not necessarily historically accurate in non-historical writings and it is by no means a science textbook.
What inaccuracies are you speaking about?

Also, I took the poster, that I quoted, to be inferring that Catholicism was like the Pharisees. As a convert I did not believe the question was as genuine as it was meant as a comparison to Catholics in a ‘derogatory’ way. I’ve seen the same comparisons used by openly anti-Catholic Protestants.

Please note the poster neglected to respond to my question, but did post a response to another poster about his view of ‘God lifting the yoke of man’. I also believed that statement was made in a similar fashion as I described above. Note again, the poster failed to address any points raised in my second response to his statements. When questions, or points raise, are not addressed it doesn’t appear to be a discussion, as much as it seems to be an ‘agenda’.
 
What inaccuracies are you speaking about?

Also, I took the poster, that I quoted, to be inferring that Catholicism was like the Pharisees. As a convert I did not believe the question was as genuine as it was meant as a comparison to Catholics in a ‘derogatory’ way. I’ve seen the same comparisons used by openly anti-Catholic Protestants.

Please note the poster neglected to respond to my question, but did post a response to another poster about his view of ‘God lifting the yoke of man’. I also believed that statement was made in a similar fashion as I described above. Note again, the poster failed to address any points raised in my second response to his statements. When questions, or points raise, are not addressed it doesn’t appear to be a discussion, as much as it seems to be an ‘agenda’.
The venom in your tongue (understand typing) makes you exactly what you criticize.

As men (understand human race) we are unable to properly keep the covenant with our Lord. He did it for us.
As men we are unable to understand the Word of God without the help of the Holy Spirit.

It was God the Son who corrected what men were practicing in God’s name. It was God the Son who made a new covenant with men because there is not one man that is able to keep it.

So, He did lift the yoke of man from us and took it upon Himself.

And now if you would be so kind and define my “agenda”?
 
The venom in your tongue (understand typing) makes you exactly what you criticize.
No venom intended, only speaking what the appearances were, in my opinion. If your short posts were not ‘jabs’ at Catholicism, please explain what you’re posting in the future, to avoid any confusion.

As I explained, I converted to Catholicism and believe the Catholic Church to be the one Church Christ built. I saw those points, you used, listed against the Catholic Church when I was a Protestant, and since my conversion, by Protestants who denied the Catholic Church in many respects.
As men (understand human race) we are unable to properly keep the covenant with our Lord. He did it for us.
As men we are unable to understand the Word of God without the help of the Holy Spirit.
We all have evidence of the Holy Spirit, by who we profess to be Lord. Christ promised that the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, would lead the authoritative men He chose and appointed over His Church. This was not spoken to the multitudes.

Read Nehemiah, chapter 8, and see how it was customary for ‘men’ to understand the scriptures.

We can see evidence of everyone applying those scriptures to themselves, by the many interpretations of scriptures.

Not everywhere that scriptures say ‘Word of God’ does it refer to scriptures, but also to the spoken word.
It was God the Son who corrected what men were practicing in God’s name. It was God the Son who made a new covenant with men because there is not one man that is able to keep it.
It was God the Son that build a Church, and chose and appointed authoritative men over His Church with specific instructions that were different when He addressed the multitudes. Paul told us the ‘pillar and ground of truth was the Church’ and ‘that the manifold wisdom of God may be made known through the Church’. He did not refer everyone to scriptures to find ‘truth’ for themselves, nor did He speak of scriptures being ‘sufficient’ by themselves.
So, He did lift the yoke of man from us and took it upon Himself.
The yoke of the Old was removed and we were given the New, through Him. It does not remove us from obligations that He taught us, through the multitudes, or what He commanded the authoritative men of the Church to teach us. I’m sure you’ve read that the Church is the body of Christ, of which He is the head. Christ did not have many Churches. He prayed for us to be one, as He and the Father were one. Paul explained ‘one’ by telling us to be of the same mind and judgment, and to avoid divisions.
And now if you would be so kind and define my “agenda”?
Only you know your agenda. I have already pointed out what your posts, and lack of responses to posts directed to your attention, seemed to say, in my opinion.
 
I think the original text would be considered (without error). Translations could be slanted or misinterpreted.

I believe that our God is a God of infinate power, wisdom, love, mercy and miracles and with God all things are possible. If He wanted to give us an Word (without error) it would not be beyond His power. No matter how fallible we are.

Do not underestimate our God!
 
I think the original text would be considered infallable. Translations could be slanted or misinterpreted.

I believe that our God is a God of infinate power, wisdom, love, mercy and miracles and with God all things are possible. If He wanted to give us an infallible Word it would not be beyond His power. No matter how fallible we are.

Do not underestimate our God!
And, we’ve come full circle. The inspired word of God is inerrant. Interpretations, just like translations, can be fallible. God gave us a Church and promised the Spirit of Truth would lead it in all things. The Church, guided by the Spirit of Truth, is infallible. Or, do we underestimate our God? 😉
 
And, we’ve come full circle. The inspired word of God is inerrant. Interpretations, just like translations, can be fallible. God gave us a Church and promised the Spirit of Truth would lead it in all things. The Church, guided by the Spirit of Truth, is infallible. Or, do we underestimate our God? 😉
Okay! I agree!!!
 
No venom intended, only speaking what the appearances were, in my opinion. If your short posts were not ‘jabs’ at Catholicism, please explain what you’re posting in the future, to avoid any confusion.
Ah, so you misjudged me and immediately went on the defensive. I have nothing against the Church. Who am I to criticize it? Just look at my forum name…
As I explained, I converted to Catholicism and believe the Catholic Church to be the one Church Christ built. I saw those points, you used, listed against the Catholic Church when I was a Protestant, and since my conversion, by Protestants who denied the Catholic Church in many respects.
One of the biggest problems with Christianity is Christians. The belief that you are better than anyone else and that you are “saved” because your checklist is complete and that the truth is yours… I have no tolerance for arrogance, more so when it is abusive (Even if it is good intentioned and from a figure of authority), so I just can’t help but get excited when our Lord humbles the arrogant. And I need to be more patient towards it and look at it from the perspective of Romans 11:11-24.
We all have evidence of the Holy Spirit, by who we profess to be Lord. Christ promised that the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, would lead the authoritative men He chose and appointed over His Church. This was not spoken to the multitudes.
Correct, the Lord chooses in His Omnipotence!
Read Nehemiah, chapter 8, and see how it was customary for ‘men’ to understand the scriptures.
We can see evidence of everyone applying those scriptures to themselves, by the many interpretations of scriptures.
Not everywhere that scriptures say ‘Word of God’ does it refer to scriptures, but also to the spoken word.
Just finished a bible study on the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. Would you say that the Levites are kind of like the RCC Dominicans? 😃

Of course, the spoken word was before the written word.
It was God the Son that build a Church, and chose and appointed authoritative men over His Church with specific instructions that were different when He addressed the multitudes. Paul told us the ‘pillar and ground of truth was the Church’ and ‘that the manifold wisdom of God may be made known through the Church’. He did not refer everyone to scriptures to find ‘truth’ for themselves, nor did He speak of scriptures being ‘sufficient’ by themselves.
That is a thread by itself.
The yoke of the Old was removed and we were given the New, through Him. It does not remove us from obligations that He taught us, through the multitudes, or what He commanded the authoritative men of the Church to teach us. I’m sure you’ve read that the Church is the body of Christ, of which He is the head. Christ did not have many Churches. He prayed for us to be one, as He and the Father were one. Paul explained ‘one’ by telling us to be of the same mind and judgment, and to avoid divisions.
I am most mindful of obligations and obedience, just read my posts…
Only you know your agenda. I have already pointed out what your posts, and lack of responses to posts directed to your attention, seemed to say, in my opinion.
I have no agenda. I respond with good intentions and only what is necessary, you just need to not judge a book by its cover. 😉
 
I think the original text would be considered (without error). Translations could be slanted or misinterpreted.

I believe that our God is a God of infinate power, wisdom, love, mercy and miracles and with God all things are possible. If He wanted to give us an Word (without error) it would not be beyond His power. No matter how fallible we are.

Do not underestimate our God!
We no longer have the autographs, does this mean the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek are no longer inerrant?

The editions which are based on Textual criticism etc are just as possible to be biased in their acceptance or non-accpetance of certain passages (eg the Woman caught in Adultery) and editors can be just as fallible as the translators.
 
Protestant Evangelicals generally believe that the Original Texts (TM and (C) The Apostles and Evangelists of JC, Inc., and TM and (C) the Nation of Israel, Ministries of History, Prophesy, and Literature) are infallible. Later copies of the original language texts as well as translations are fallible, which is why Protestants love textual criticism and original language study aids such as Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance.

Good Little Protestants, if they are concerned about a passage they read in the NIV, compare it to the KJV, NASB, NRSV, etc., and use a tool like Strong’s or the electronic equivalent to look up the Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic behind it and look at word definitions. If they are still concerned, they call their pastor who, hopefully, should know enough Greek and Hebrew to help them or direct them to a good source.

Some Protestants believe that the KJV is inspired and infallible. It’s not so strange - don’t Catholics believe that the Vulgate is infallible as it relates to faith and morals?
No. Catholics believe the Church is the pillar and ground of truth. A book cannot teach itself, regardless of the translation.
 
The 30,000 is funny because it is a lie.
How about calling it an exaggeration, this would be a more accurate description. A lie would mean a deliberate act to deceive. I don’t think this is the case here. Just a simple exaggeration.
 
A book cannot teach itself, regardless of the translation.
I would say it isn’t merely a book. It is the Word (inspired Word). God created all things thru His Word. I would say there are no limitations to what this “book” can accomplish.
 
I would say it isn’t merely a book. It is the Word (inspired Word). God created all things thru His Word. I would say there are no limitations to what this “book” can accomplish.
The ‘book’, in itself, can accomplish nothing. I have a shelf full of the ‘books’. They just sit there and, if not read, do nothing. The message can cause people do many things, if interpreted correctly.
 
The ‘book’, in itself, can accomplish nothing. I have a shelf full of the ‘books’. They just sit there and, if not read, do nothing. The message can cause people do many things, if interpreted correctly.
I am sorry, I cannot agree with your statement, “The ‘book’, in itself, can accomplish nothing”. The word of God is a living word. John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The bible is the word of God. It consists of both logos and rhema word. So you cannot classify it as a “book”. It is the “word”.** “…and the Word was God”**
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top