Protestant claims bible is infallible?

[Prodigal_Son1]

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”**

The Word, as spoken of in John 1:1, was Christ, God. It was not scriptures.

I was using quotes around book, as you did. If I lay a Bible on the ground and leave it, what can it do? It takes someone reading it…

Scriptures themselves say ‘the Church is the pillar and ground of truth’, instead of scriptures. The scriptures say, ‘the manifold wisdom of God may be made known through the Church’, instead of scriptures.

While scriptures do state scriptures are ‘useful’, it takes more than them alone to produce an affect.

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

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…

Agreed, Christians are the biggest problem of Christianity. I pray what our Lord has prayed in John 17:20-26 for unity and oneness of the followers of Him, in Him. A universal church, a ekklaysiaye kath olays (acts 9:31), as it was in the beginning, it shall be in the end. The Lamb’s Supper is ready when yall return home now y’hear!

 

[fpesce]

The Word, as spoken of in John 1:1, was Christ, God. It was not scriptures.

I was using quotes around book, as you did. If I lay a Bible on the ground and leave it, what can it do? It takes someone reading it…

Scriptures themselves say ‘the Church is the pillar and ground of truth’, instead of scriptures. The scriptures say, ‘the manifold wisdom of God may be made known through the Church’, instead of scriptures.

While scriptures do state scriptures are ‘useful’, it takes more than them alone to produce an affect.

If the bible is errant and the The Word, as spoken of in John 1:1 is not the bible, what are we to believe? Why should we read the bible? Where can I learn God’s word? If one part of the bible is wrong then what is to say what is right? Are we to pick and choose what is right or what is wrong? Then where is the truth?

If you say the truth is in the church, and the church is made up of fallable people, where is the infallability?

Then CHRISTIANITY IS A LIE. IS that what you beleive?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

If the bible is errant and the The Word, as spoken of in John 1:1 is not the bible, what are we to believe? Why should we read the bible? Where can I learn God’s word? If one part of the bible is wrong then what is to say what is right? Are we to pick and choose what is right or what is wrong? Then where is the truth?

If you say the truth is in the church, and the church is made up of fallable people, where is the infallability?

Then CHRISTIANITY IS A LIE. IS that what you beleive?

Christ chose and appointed 12, and called them Apostles. With all authority, He commanded them. He also promised the Spirit of Truth would lead them in all things and that He would be with them until the consummation of the world. He built His Church upon those men, one of which was Judas Iscariot. Do we now start to doubt Christ’s promises, or the building of His Church, because He chose Judas?

Christ told the multitudes to observe and do whatsoever those that sat upon the seat of Moses said to them. He did not refer them to scriptures, nor did He write, or command, anything anything written. Christ knew God could protect His truth, even through sinful men. Christ knew there would be none perfect over His Church, in His earthly absence.

Now we view Judas as the extreme, but Peter denied Him, Thomas doubted Him, and during His arrest they all ran away.

Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

Christ taught they observe and do whatsoever they shall say to you, knowing He was building a Church, that sinful authoritative men would be teaching His truth.

The Apostles, and some they chose and appointed with the authority vested in them by Him, wrote scriptures, years after the death and resurrection. It was years later that the canon of the New Testament was defined, by those fallible men of the Church. Scriptures did not tell us what writings belonged and what didn’t.

Christ did not write anything, or have anything scribed, because He was the Word.

The authors of scriptures wrote down the things He taught them, so that we could read what they taught us was true and would believe in Him.

Joh 20:30 Many other signs also did Jesus in the sight of his disciples, which are not written in this book.
Joh 20:31 But these are written, that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God: and that believing, you may have life in his name.

How long would it take someone to sit down and read the Gospels straight through? They represent approximately 3 years of His ministry, yet John tells us twice that there are many other things from Christ not written.

Joh 21:24 This is that disciple who giveth testimony of these things and hath written these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
Joh 21:25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they were written every one, the world itself. I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

Are those other things that Jesus did not important?

Those things are taught, with the Spirit of Truth leading them in all things and with Christ with them until the consummation of the world, through His Church. The men He made those promises to were mortal men, who Christ knew would die long before the consummation of the world. Christ was speaking to the authority He established over His earthly Church.

You again refer, with your question, ‘if one part of the Bible is wrong then what is to say what is right?’ The Bible is inerrant. God inspired men He chose and appointed, and that they chose and appointed, to write the scriptures of the New Testament. The men of Apostolic succession preserved the letters and epistles and later defined the canon of the New Testament. They received the letters and epistles from the authors, who could explain the meanings of what they had written. The letters and epistles, along with the interpretations, were passed along through the men of His Church. The Church protected and kept the scriptures, along with the teachings, through all the years until we have a Bible in our possession today.

The Protestant reformation would not have had the Bible in the 1500s if it had not been for His Church. They took the Bible, without the interpretations, and began interpreting it for themselves. Now we have many Churches, with many different teachings, due to different interpretations of what was written. Many different truths do not equal one truth. All have parts of His truth, but one has the ‘fullness’ of truth because it received the writings and the interpretations and kept them both as sacred.

There has always been the presence of sinful, or fallible, men, and always will be. I mentioned the faults of those He chose and appointed, scriptures also tells us of many of His disciples leaving Him and walking with Him no more. There has always, and will be, scandals in His Church since from the very beginning, but He is with it until the consummation of the world and just as He taught to ‘observe and do whatsoever they shall say to you’ we can be confident that Christ knows God’s truth can be protected from above.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

If you say the truth is in the church, and the church is made up of fallable people, where is the infallability?

Fallible men wrote the scriptures, defined the canon, translated scriptures to other languages, and preserved those scriptures for hundreds and hundreds of years. If there is a risk that God cannot protect His truth through fallible men, then how can we trust those fallible men are delivering to us the correct message of scriptures today?

If you say God protected those scriptures, through all the handling by fallible men, then why couldn’t God protect the Church He built in His earthly presence? We cannot limit God to inspiring His truth being written and protected through fallible men, and say He could not do the same for the Church He actually built, when He Himself did not write anything or inspire it be written that He commanded things be scribed.

1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Eph 3:9 And to enlighten all men, that they may see what is the dispensation of the mystery which hath been hidden from eternity in God who created all things:
Eph 3:10 That the manifold wisdom of God may be made known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church,
Eph 3:11 According to the eternal purpose which he made in Christ Jesus our Lord:

To enlighten all men, the manifold wisdom of God may be made known through the Church, according to the eternal purpose which He made in Christ Jesus.

 

[fpesce]

Fallible men wrote the scriptures, defined the canon, translated scriptures to other languages, and preserved those scriptures for hundreds and hundreds of years. If there is a risk that God cannot protect His truth through fallible men, then how can we trust those fallible men are delivering to us the correct message of scriptures today?

If you say God protected those scriptures, through all the handling by fallible men, then why couldn’t God protect the Church He built in His earthly presence? We cannot limit God to inspiring His truth being written and protected through fallible men, and say He could not do the same for the Church He actually built, when He Himself did not write anything or inspire it be written that He commanded things be scribed.

To enlighten all men, the manifold wisdom of God may be made known through the Church, according to the eternal purpose which He made in Christ Jesus.

That is exactly my point. Fallible Men cannot foil God’s Word or His Church.

** Jeremiah 1:12

12 Then the LORD said to me, “You have seen well, for I am watching over My word to perform it.” **

We can no more deny the Word of God (bible) as errant as you can deny the Church of God as infallible. Sure the enemy will attack both and try to nullify the Word and the Church. But our answer is God is still alive and still works thru us.

To deny the bible is to deny the works of the first apostles which is the foundation our church was built from. That is why Jesus said,"… gates of hell will not prevail against it".

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I believe only once our Lord Jesus Christ ordered things to be written:

[bibledrb]Revelation 1:19[/bibledrb]

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

That is exactly my point. Fallible Men cannot foil God’s Word or His Church.

** Jeremiah 1:12

12 Then the LORD said to me, “You have seen well, for I am watching over My word to perform it.” **

We can no more deny the Word of God (bible) as errant as you can deny the Church of God as infallible. Sure the enemy will attack both and try to nullify the Word and the Church. But our answer is God is still alive and still works thru us.

To deny the bible is to deny the works of the first apostles which is the foundation our church was built from. That is why Jesus said,"… gates of hell will not prevail against it".

I have not said the Bible was erred in anyway, nor I have I denied it in anyway. I only tried to put things in a realistic perspective.

Christ gave us the Church, which gave us the Bible, in that order. One cannot work without the other. I was trying to express the fault I saw in the ‘Bible’ could accomplish anything. Without the action of being read, it does nothing. Without the Church to guide us in the interpretation, it’s message has potential of being in err. That is evident by the many different Churches, all with different doctrines based on someone’s private interpretation. Christ built ONE Church. Men, separated from that one Church, started many other Churches. I would think everyone would find it important to seek out the one Christ built.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I believe only once our Lord Jesus Christ ordered things to be written:

[bibledrb]Revelation 1:19[/bibledrb]

Revelation was the last book written. Others had been written many years prior to that. What Christ ordered written was the ‘book’ of Revelation.

Did you have no thoughts on the other points made? How about the one point of, the Church was established some 70 to 80 years prior to the Revelation being written. The Church was not only in existence, it thrived and grew without a New Testament, and there was only ONE Church in many locations.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

But our answer is God is still alive and still works thru us.

God works through all of us, in our capacities, or vocation. Christ established an authoritative Church, with those He chose and appointed, and those they chose and appointed.

Christ did not promise to lead us individually in all truths, through the Spirit of Truth. There were things He said to the multitudes and other things He said to the authoritative men of the Church; e.g. the Church itself. When He spoke about the Spirit of Truth and being with them until the consummation of the world, He only addressed the men He chose and appointed over His Church, not the multitudes.

Scriptures clearly tell us to obey those in the Church that are over us. Nowhere does scriptures give example of anyone appointing themselves, or others, without it coming from the authoritative men of the Church.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Revelation was the last book written. Others had been written many years prior to that. What Christ ordered written was the ‘book’ of Revelation.

Did you have no thoughts on the other points made? How about the one point of, the Church was established some 70 to 80 years prior to the Revelation being written. The Church was not only in existence, it thrived and grew without a New Testament, and there was only ONE Church in many locations.

That’s what I said

The point is a record of Christ instructing the written word. And a request for possible instance that I may have missed.

In Revelation, there are seven Churches mentioned by Jesus, that speaks by itself on the existence of the Church (Or churches). By this I don’t mean that there were only seven Churches as there was(were) a church(es) in Colossae and Troas (Roman Asia) that I know of.

And if you are trying to imply I express Sola Scriptura you can jump from that boat before you drown. I don’t champion Sola Scriptura and the Bible itself is testament of the Old Covenant tradition and His Omnipotence without the written word.

I fully believe in:

[bibledrb]John 1:1-2[/bibledrb]

and

[bibledrb]John 1:14[/bibledrb]

However, I have always wondered why the Church in Rome was not mentioned? Maybe because of the heavy persecution it wasn’t as organized? Revelation is written shortly after Peter and Paul were killed (60s…) right? (Going on memory, a tired one right now.)

And if you have references to the letter to Corinthians by Clement I’d very much appreciate you sharing

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

That’s what I said

The point is a record of Christ instructing the written word. And a request for possible instance that I may have missed.

In Revelation, there are seven Churches mentioned by Jesus, that speaks by itself on the existence of the Church (Or churches). By this I don’t mean that there were only seven Churches as there was(were) a church(es) in Colossae and Troas (Roman Asia) that I know of.

And if you are trying to imply I express Sola Scriptura you can jump from that boat before you drown. I don’t champion Sola Scriptura and the Bible itself is testament of the Old Covenant tradition and His Omnipotence without the written word.

I fully believe in:

[bibledrb]John 1:1-2[/bibledrb]

and

[bibledrb]John 1:14[/bibledrb]

However, I have always wondered why the Church in Rome was not mentioned? Maybe because of the heavy persecution it wasn’t as organized? Revelation is written shortly after Peter and Paul were killed (60s…) right? (Going on memory, a tired one right now.)

And if you have references to the letter to Corinthians by Clement I’d very much appreciate you sharing

Where did the seven Churches go, if you’re trying to convey that there were many different Churches, with different doctrines in Revelation?

There were no 'non-denominational Churches then. Those arose many years later, even much later than the reformation. They have become individual denominations, furthering the separation of Christians to suffer different doctrines, according to private interpretations.

There was ONE Church in different locations. How many times did Paul teach to be of the same mind and judgement and to avoid dissensions, or divisions? Christ prayed for everyone to be one, as He and the Father were one. Many Churches have men as founders. Christ built ONE Church. Many of Paul’s writings were letters of correction to the various locations, keeping them one. This is the same as Christ admonishing Churches developing differences as shown in Revelation.

Jump from the boat before I drown? What use are cliches? Does it give the feeling of 'one up man ship, or something? I see it as condescending, to cover the denial of the ONE Church that preserved scriptures to the present day, long before Protestantism began, even those who claim ‘non denominational’ who came long after the reformation.

Christ built a Church, ONE Church. Scriptures themselves tell us the Church is the pillar and ground of truth and the place the manifold wisdom of God may be made known, not scriptures, especially individually. Scriptures tell us to obey our prelates, speaking of the authoritative men of the Church. Those are of the Apostolic succession. Show me in scriptures where anyone appointed themselves, or others, without the authority bestowed upon them by the Apostles, or those chosen by the Apostles.

Whatever you’re trying to imply with a letter from Clement, spit it out. I’m sure the early Church fathers believed in the primacy of Peter, and in Rome.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Where did the seven Churches go, if you’re trying to convey that there were many different Churches, with different doctrines in Revelation?

There were no 'non-denominational Churches then. Those arose many years later, even much later than the reformation. They have become individual denominations, furthering the separation of Christians to suffer different doctrines, according to private interpretations.

There was ONE Church in different locations. How many times did Paul teach to be of the same mind and judgement and to avoid dissensions, or divisions? Christ prayed for everyone to be one, as He and the Father were one. Many Churches have men as founders. Christ built ONE Church. Many of Paul’s writings were letters of correction to the various locations, keeping them one. This is the same as Christ admonishing Churches developing differences as shown in Revelation.

Jump from the boat before I drown? What use are cliches? Does it give the feeling of 'one up man ship, or something? I see it as condescending, to cover the denial of the ONE Church that preserved scriptures to the present day, long before Protestantism began, even those who claim ‘non denominational’ who came long after the reformation.

Christ built a Church, ONE Church. Scriptures themselves tell us the Church is the pillar and ground of truth and the place the manifold wisdom of God may be made known, not scriptures, especially individually. Scriptures tell us to obey our prelates, speaking of the authoritative men of the Church. Those are of the Apostolic succession. Show me in scriptures where anyone appointed themselves, or others, without the authority bestowed upon them by the Apostles, or those chosen by the Apostles.

Whatever you’re trying to imply with a letter from Clement, spit it out. I’m sure the early Church fathers believed in the primacy of Peter, and in Rome.

You are one angry person that reads offense where there is none. Your tone, even if it is typed, leaves much to be desired. And your attack to my forum designated religion is pathetic and shows lack of depth.

I ask for references and you jump to the conclusion that I am trying to imply something…

You are sure representing your Church well…

You should wear your first Pope passage with honor:

[bibledrb]1 Peter 3:8-22[/bibledrb]

I’ll be praying for you.

God Bless You.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You are one angry person that reads offense where there is none. Your tone, even if it is typed, leaves much to be desired. And your attack to my forum designated religion is pathetic and shows lack of depth.

I ask for references and you jump to the conclusion that I am trying to imply something…

You are sure representing your Church well…

You should wear your first Pope passage with honor:

[bibledrb]1 Peter 3:8-22[/bibledrb]

I’ll be praying for you.

God Bless You.

You should try saying what you mean and responding to specifics points and questions.

I am defending the Catholic faith, which appears to be undermined through your posts. If I’m mistaken, I apologize.

Let me point out that I have presented specific points again, to which you change the subject to me personally, without addressing any points raised. I am suspect, which I feel is easy to see why when you read through many of these threads where many people use ‘subtle’ posts to deny the Church, or Catholic beliefs in general, without touching on specific points raised. It shows a clear avoidance of an honest discussion, whether it’s intentional or not.

While you did post scriptures, you failed to address scriptures I have referred too.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

In Revelation, there are seven Churches mentioned by Jesus, that speaks by itself on the existence of the Church (Or churches). By this I don’t mean that there were only seven Churches as there was(were) a church(es) in Colossae and Troas (Roman Asia) that I know of.

However, I have always wondered why the Church in Rome was not mentioned? Maybe because of the heavy persecution it wasn’t as organized? Revelation is written shortly after Peter and Paul were killed (60s…) right? (Going on memory, a tired one right now.)

You sort of answered your own point. The seven Churches were all located in a province of the Roman Empire.

Also, if the Church of Rome needed no correction, why would it have been mentioned in Revelation, with the seven Churches to receive admonishment?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

You sort of answered your own point. The seven Churches were all located in a province of the Roman Empire.

Also, if the Church of Rome needed no correction, why would it have been mentioned in Revelation, with the seven Churches to receive admonishment?

Fact: Jesus ordered one book to be written
Fiction: I didn’t say anything else.

Fact: I have nothing to say about your other posts. That doesn’t mean I agree or disagree.
Fiction: I implied something.

Fact: I clearly stated that tradition precedes the written word. Not only that but that the Word of God precedes everything.
Fiction: I said or implied anything else.

Fact: While there are 7 churches mentioned in Revelation, it doesn’t mean that the others had no issues.
Fiction: I said Rome was imperfect.

Fact: I said that I have wondered about why Rome was not mentioned because it is the one I have hear the most and the most prominent one. I even said that they were persecuted in Rome.
Fiction: I implied Rome was not the one. I said Rome was imperfect. I said they were non-denominational.

Fact: I asked you as a RCC follower to share resources on the letter Clement wrote the Corinthians.
Fiction: I imply there is something in the letter to hit you with it.

Pretty clear to me.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Fact: Jesus ordered one book to be written
Fiction: I didn’t say anything else.

Fact: I have nothing to say about your other posts. That doesn’t mean I agree or disagree.
Fiction: I implied something.

Fact: I clearly stated that tradition precedes the written word. Not only that but that the Word of God precedes everything.
Fiction: I said or implied anything else.

Fact: While there are 7 churches mentioned in Revelation, it doesn’t mean that the others had no issues.
Fiction: I said Rome was imperfect.

Fact: I said that I have wondered about why Rome was not mentioned because it is the one I have hear the most and the most prominent one. I even said that they were persecuted in Rome.
Fiction: I implied Rome was not the one. I said Rome was imperfect. I said they were non-denominational.

Fact: I asked you as a RCC follower to share resources on the letter Clement wrote the Corinthians.
Fiction: I imply there is something in the letter to hit you with it.

Pretty clear to me.

Seriously? It appears to be an avoidance of an honest discussion, still.

What particular subject would you like from Clement? Would you prefer some of Paul’s writings of correction to the Corinthians? What point are you trying to make from Clement’s corrections? Oh yea, not trying to imply anything…

Just bring it out and let’s discuss it. I see you avoid a real discussion and imagine I can guess what’s on your mind, but what options do I have when you don’t say what you’re driving at? I don’t view these type discussions as a ‘game’.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

:banghead: This is like talking to my 15 y/o…

You just can’t fathom someone with honest queries…

Not driving and not “playing”.

You represent your church and I am asking you for references regarding writings from the 4th Pope of the RCC, Clement. Is that so hard? Really?

Other than:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_of_Clement

newadvent.org/fathers/0803.htm

Do you, or do you not, have anything else I can refer to?

To the OP -

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm

Some highlights:

II. INSPIRATION AND TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

107 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

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a “religion of the book.” Christianity is the religion of the “Word” of God, a word which is “not a written and mute word, but the Word which is incarnate and living”.73 If the Scriptures are not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open [our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74

And keeping in mind that Scriptures should be read:

1. Contextually
2. Christocentrically
3. Comprehensibly

Prodigal, if you wish to flame me please start a new thread.

God Bless You.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

:banghead: This is like talking to my 15 y/o…

You just can’t fathom someone with honest queries…

Not driving and not “playing”.

You represent your church and I am asking you for references regarding writings from the 4th Pope of the RCC, Clement. Is that so hard? Really?

Letter to the Corinthians (Clement)

There is a link. If I knew specifically what ‘references’ you were talking about, I’d be more than happy to address them. Without specifically stating what you’re getting at, I had wondered if I was talking to a young person, questioned what was honest, or thought someone was ‘toying’ with Catholics.

After seeing the condescending post, I’m still not sure what you’re trying to say?

Prodigal, if you wish to flame me please start a new thread.

God Bless You.

I wasn’t trying to ‘flame’ you. I was attempting to engage you in a discussion, or debate, but have no idea what view you’re espousing.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Letter to the Corinthians (Clement)

There is a link. If I knew specifically what ‘references’ you were talking about, I’d be more than happy to address them. Without specifically stating what you’re getting at, I had wondered if I was talking to a young person, questioned what was honest, or thought someone was ‘toying’ with Catholics.

After seeing the condescending post, I’m still not sure what you’re trying to say?

I wasn’t trying to ‘flame’ you. I was attempting to engage you in a discussion, or debate, but have no idea what view you’re espousing.

I don’t know what to specifically engage in Clement because I want to read as much as I can before I draw any conclusions.

Simple questions without any agenda.

I have the utmost respect for the Church and the Church Fathers. I have Non-Denominational because if I put Christian most will jump to the conclusion I am Protestant or something else.

I am a soul with no denomination at this time, no labels. Thirsting for our Lord’s Word and the Truth.

At this point, I’m leaning more towards Luther’s teachings. That doesn’t mean I agree with all of them since I have not read all of them.