Protestants, How could an Infallible book be of use to you, w/o an Infallible Interpreter?

[Prodigal_Son1]

Rom 9:21, " is not the potter master of his clay…" Found in Wis 15:7

LOL!!! Once again I bet you thought I would not look up your so called references. I do believe that the Apocrypha might reference Jeremiah though…So any verse dealing with Potter and his clay you thought you could pull out??

Jer 18:4
And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make [it].
Jer 18:6
O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter? saith the LORD. Behold, as the clay [is] in the potter’s hand, so [are] ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.

1Pet 1:6-7, “…gold which is tried by fire…” See Wis 3:5-6
,
First of all the gold is not tried by fire, the FAITH is.

A deliberate changing of the words of 1st Peter it appears.
Oh because you might now know, Wisdom is actually referring to Proverbs.

Rom 1:20-23, “For since the creation of the world…” Found in Wis 13:1-7

Wisdom 13: 1-7 SURELY vain are all men by nature, who are ignorant of God, and could not out of the good things that are seen know him that is: neither by considering the works did they acknowledge the workmaster;
2 But deemed either fire, or wind, or the swift air, or the circle of the stars, or the violent water, or the lights of heaven, to be the gods which govern the world.
3 With whose beauty if they being delighted took them to be gods; let them know how much better the Lord of them is: for the first author of beauty hath created them.
4 But if they were astonished at their power and virtue, let them understand by them, how much mightier he is that made them.
5 For by the greatness and beauty of the creatures proportionably the maker of them is seen.
6 But yet for this they are the less to be blamed: for they peradventure err, seeking God, and desirous to find him.
7 For being conversant in his works they search him diligently, and believe their sight: because the things are beautiful that are seen.

Help me on this one please. I don not see your connection at all. Lets stop on these and let you defend your references. And yes, I am not happy you wasted my time for your made up references except for one historical reference which does not prove literary dependence but does prove the Apocrypha has some very good history…which it does.

You can LOL all you want and you can read scriptures the way you want, you’re already doing that. It really seems you read them to fit your theology and not trying to fit your theology to scriptures. I have provided many scriptures on many discussions to be blown off just as quickly and without any scriptures to support your view and accusations.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

WHAT? They both use mountains. Right? How does John 14:23 and Sirach 2:18 have ANYTHING to do with one another.

No one can see that connection. Why did you waste my time???

You don’t have to waste your time reading scriptures, just as you don’t waste time posting any to support your views.

 

[Rightlydivide]

ProdigalSon
I have a direct question which I expect you to answer on your honor as a Christian.
Did you personally look up and agree with each of these so called references?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

ProdigalSon
I have a direct question which I expect you to answer on your honor as a Christian.
Did you personally look up and agree with each of these so called references?

Look, you hide behind ‘atheists might find me’. So you don’t have to discuss your Church.

You disagree with everything a Catholic says on these forums. When scriptures are presented, you have failed to provide as much a detailed explanation as was given. And, you don’t post scriptures to support your beliefs. You only want to disagree, ridicule, and bash Catholicism, maybe with the goals of evangelizing. It’s a tactic that won’t work, at least for me.

You deny history, even that which is recorded by other than the Catholic Church if it doesn’t fit your view. You deny the reasons for the reformation. You are focused on your ‘target’.

You can’t depend on God’s ability to protect His truth, His Church or the Apostolic authority Christ setup. My faith is that He can do what He said and He does. He appointed men, built a Church and those men wrote scriptures, in that order. Those scritpures tells us He would be with His Church until the consummation of the world. I haven’t checked the news today, but I don’t think I missed that event. He told the men of His Church He would send the Spirit of Truth to teach them ALL things.

I am in the Church the Holy Spirit led me too. I won’t settle for anything less.

You are free to do whatever you want with the free will God gave you. I pray we both have enough to warrent the promises of Christ.

If you’re here to ‘learn’ about Catholicism, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church. It’s easy to access and there is nothing hidden. It can explain it better than we can. Of course, you can’t use the same tactics reading information freely accessible. You need people for that.

 

[Rightlydivide]

How come you did not answer my question? You posted a list of references. I am asking you point blank before God if you personally looked up all those references and agree they are accurate. Its a simple question.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Mat 5:37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

I request a yes or no. I asked a question.

 

[schaick]

How could an Infallible book be of use to you, w/o an Infallible Interpreter?

please don’t say “we have the Holy Spirit with us”
because there is no way there can be morethan 30,000 Holy Spirit

and hence the word “Holy Spirit” it is not Plural

WHAT!?!

So on any given Sunday the Holy Spirit only in one Catholic Church in the whole world?

You must realize that all Trinitarian Christians hold the same basic tenets of faith. We simply celebrate our faith differently.

I am glad someone brought up the different Catholic denominations- what is going on with that?

 

[AmateurPianist]

It’s taking an example, from scriptures, and showing that scriptures alone cannot be understood. Nehemiah 8 shows that the priests had to explain scriptures so they people could understand. Christ even preached scriptures to those on the road to Emmaus and opened scriptures for them. Those men knew scriptures but didn’t understand them until Christ opened them to them.

I sense you are trying to shift the terms of the original post.

The original post says nothing about “The Bible teaches infallability”. It does not make the assumption whether the Bible teaches infallability or not. It just claims that an infallible book is useless without an infallible interpreter.

I suppose that the meaning behind this is that if I were to see the light that good grief it does not make any sense to have an infallible book without an infallible interpreter you could then open the Scriptures and make your case that yes Virginia the Bible teaches that there is an infallible authority.

Of course then you have to make two distinctions to prove this claim:

• The Scriptures that teach this do not simply teach that there is a teaching authority. On that issue we should agree.
• You have to make a distinction between being correct and being incapable of being incorrect. Of course the Bible has examples of teaching authorities teaching the Word of God correctly. That is not the same as being incapable of being incorrect.

Now I have had this discussion in the past on this board and have been totally not persuaded, mostly because these distinctions have not been understood.

I don’t have the time and energy right now to have this discussion all over again. First of all, it is not what I signed up for when I joined this thread. I signed up for a little discussion on just why an infallible book without an infallible interpreter is useless. There is a difference between this discussion and the discussion on whether or not the Bible supports infallability. If you want to have this discussion, I am sure there are other fine people here who can carry the ball. I just don’t have the time and (honestly) the energy to have a discussion on something I have discussed before.

But, then there I go using scriptures to support a view. That’s something I haven’t seen from Protestants in this discussion.

Again that is not what I signed up for when I joined this thread. I could if I wanted to but right now I am tired. I do want to know (independently of Scripture) why an infallible book without an infallible interpreter is useless. Of course you could just respond that this little assertion is over the top.

Philip was an authority from the Church and He preached the same message as the others. Once a truth is infallible, it can be taught by those of authority.

But you were quoting this Scripture as proof that the Bible teaches infallability. Again we say it only teaches a teaching authority. See the distinctions above.

So, it’s acceptable to have many different interpretations? Would you please provide scriptures that even imply this?

Did I make this claim? If I did please show me where I did and I will retract it.

Again, please provide the examples from scriptures that show it’s acceptable to have different interpretations, therefore different teachings?

Did I make this claim? If I did please show me where I did and I will retract it.

Oh look, there are Catholics weak in the faith that don’t agree,

Did I make this claim? If I did please show me where I did and I will retract it.

therefore it’s perfectly alright for Protestants to go off in any direction we want and be of whatever mind and judgment we want.

Did I make this claim? If I did please show me where I did and I will retract it.

Distorted numbers, smoke screen explanations, exaggerated examples of explanations provided with scriptures, but no scriptures to support your view yet…it speaks loud and clear.

Again…you are the ones making the claim that an infallible book without an infallible interpreter is useless. That is the discussion I signed up for when I joined this thread. I did not sign up for a battle of my Scripture versus your Scripture (I actually find that distasteful for many reasons that I will not enumerate here). If I really wanted to I suppose I could have this discussion. But since I am not here to convert Catholics from the evil of their ways, and I don’t have the time and moreso the energy, I think I will pass for now.

 

[larkin31]

…Oh look, there are Catholics weak in the faith that don’t agree, therefore it’s perfectly alright for Protestants to go off in any direction we want and be of whatever mind and judgment we want.

You’re tilting at strawmen again.

You guys sure work real hard over this “infallibility” and “unity” stuff.

Even the stuff about Hell never prevailing against the gates of the truth is a metaphor. Which requires interpretation. Each of Jesus’ parables requires a mind to receive it and then interpret it.

Why do you fear the power of interpretation so much, when Jesus’ teachings required its use?

 

[mark_a]

Please provide the *criteria *that these early councils used and the proof they discussed non-canonical writings. Prove your statement or retract it.

Are you a lawyer?

 

[Dokimas]

So, you don’t call the building you worship in a Church? Come on now, ProdicalSon, of course the building is called a church. I know you know there is a huge difference between a building called a church and The Church. Jesus did not start a building, He called out people to be the Body of Christ.

See, that’s where you and other Protestants refuse to remove the blinders of misconception. We have buildings, as does all faiths, but the building itself is nothing without the authority and promises of Christ, through the men He appointed over the Church and promised to make all things known to them through His Holy Spirit, to the consummation of the world. What misconception are you referring to?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I see so much irony in the steady requests for answers and more scriptures or documentation to support our view, especially in light of all the requests that I, and other Catholics, have made that go, not only unanswered but, apparently ignored.

I don’t see this as an honest discussion, in that we share our beliefs and where those beliefs come from, by providing scriptures and explanations. It must be my misinterpretation to think that’s what scriptures teaches us to do.

Simply because you do not agree with an interpretation, you say ‘outright’ that we are wrong and you are right. Seems you have made yourselves infallible by your assertions and ‘corrections’ of any interpretations offered.

I won’t ‘waste’ anymore of your time, by expecting to discuss scriptures together. I personally read every scripture I post, even if it’s repeated for people who ‘pop’ into the thread without reading through. I enjoy reading scriptures, even repeatedly, and comparing them with each other. I am often amazed at prophecies explicitly fulfilled. I love finding ‘types’ in the Old Testament that are connected with events in the New Testament.

In each Mass, I am attentive to every scripture read. I am guilty of writing chapter and verse numbers on the Church bulletins, or gift envelopes to take home so I can look them up and read them again and put them in my topic notes of my Bible program.

Here, I enjoy seeing others post scriptures, with explanations and am sometimes challenged to dig deeper into scriptures and pray over some interpretations given. That seems to be a rare event though, as Protestants, who claim the Bible is the ONLY authority, don’t seem to post scriptures very often.

I am a Catholic who depends heavily on scriptures because, of my Protestant roots and, it seems to be the only documentation that Protestants will accept in discussions. It hurts when I feel I provide a sound scriptural argument to support my, Catholic, beliefs and can’t even get someone to admit they can see how it comes from scriptures, even if they don’t agree with the interpretation. It maybe pride, but it’s like someone is calling me a liar, or stupid. I am neither, at least I don’t think I’m the latter.

I spend alot of time explaining my view, in as much detail as I possibly can and at times I chastise myself for thinking I’m throwing my pearls before swine. That one of my own faults. I often remind myself to be as charitable as I can, and express the love I have for every person. It’s not always easy, as I’ve tried to explain, when others are ridiculing or bashing my faith.

I’m a little over a quarter way into my shift, with 36 hours to go. I’ll check in later and will post, if I feel I have anything ‘worthwhile’ to add. Have a good night and a better tomorrow.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You’re tilting at strawmen again.

You guys sure work real hard over this “infallibility” and “unity” stuff.

Even the stuff about Hell never prevailing against the gates of the truth is a metaphor. Which requires interpretation. Each of Jesus’ parables requires a mind to receive it and then interpret it.

Why do you fear the power of interpretation so much, when Jesus’ teachings required its use?

I believe in Christ, His Church and the Scritpures. I know metaphors and I know parables and I know symbolism, as well as what is real. I’ll let Peter answer your question about interpretations.

**2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.
2Pe 3:17 You therefore, brethren, knowing these things before, take heed, lest being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness. **

 

[Dokimas]

I sense you are trying to shift the terms of the original post.

The original post says nothing about “The Bible teaches infallability”. It does not make the assumption whether the Bible teaches infallability or not. It just claims that an infallible book is useless without an infallible interpreter.

I suppose that the meaning behind this is that if I were to see the light that good grief it does not make any sense to have an infallible book without an infallible interpreter you could then open the Scriptures and make your case that yes Virginia the Bible teaches that there is an infallible authority.

Of course then you have to make two distinctions to prove this claim:

• The Scriptures that teach this do not simply teach that there is a teaching authority. On that issue we should agree.
• You have to make a distinction between being correct and being incapable of being incorrect. Of course the Bible has examples of teaching authorities teaching the Word of God correctly. That is not the same as being incapable of being incorrect.

Now I have had this discussion in the past on this board and have been totally not persuaded, mostly because these distinctions have not been understood.

I don’t have the time and energy right now to have this discussion all over again. First of all, it is not what I signed up for when I joined this thread. I signed up for a little discussion on just why an infallible book without an infallible interpreter is useless. There is a difference between this discussion and the discussion on whether or not the Bible supports infallability. If you want to have this discussion, I am sure there are other fine people here who can carry the ball. I just don’t have the time and (honestly) the energy to have a discussion on something I have discussed before.

Again that is not what I signed up for when I joined this thread. I could if I wanted to but right now I am tired. I do want to know (independently of Scripture) why an infallible book without an infallible interpreter is useless. Of course you could just respond that this little assertion is over the top.

But you were quoting this Scripture as proof that the Bible teaches infallability. Again we say it only teaches a teaching authority. See the distinctions above.

Did I make this claim? If I did please show me where I did and I will retract it.

Did I make this claim? If I did please show me where I did and I will retract it.

Did I make this claim? If I did please show me where I did and I will retract it.

Did I make this claim? If I did please show me where I did and I will retract it.

Again…you are the ones making the claim that an infallible book without an infallible interpreter is useless. That is the discussion I signed up for when I joined this thread. I did not sign up for a battle of my Scripture versus your Scripture (I actually find that distasteful for many reasons that I will not enumerate here). If I really wanted to I suppose I could have this discussion. But since I am not here to convert Catholics from the evil of their ways, and I don’t have the time and moreso the energy, I think I will pass for now.

APiano, I’m having a similar problem with ProdicalSon. I am not nearly as articulate as you are so I was thinking it was I, not being clear. I have been thinking ProdicalSon has been destorting what I’ve been saying. You handled it well by asking to be shown where you said things. Good job. Thank you.​

Infallible Scripture needs an infallible interpreter - the Holy Spirit. It makes sense that as God used fallible men like Paul (I think his writings support that idea), He’d use fallible people moved by the infallible Holy Spirit to open the Scriptures.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Are you a lawyer?

No.
You made an assertion now support it. Its a historical one and should be easy to do if accurate…except its not…at least what I have read.

 

[larkin31]

I believe in Christ, His Church and the Scritpures. I know metaphors and I know parables and I know symbolism, as well as what is real. I’ll let Peter answer your question about interpretations.

**2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.
2Pe 3:17 You therefore, brethren, knowing these things before, take heed, lest being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness. **

I don’t read every passage you cite because sometimes you simply provide a list of them with hardly any commentary. Most of us are here for the commentary rather than for a re-reading of the Bible (which can be performed on one’s own rather than sitting in front of a computer). This thread initially was a theoretical question about the logical necessity of an infallible interpreter for an infallible text. So, “infallibility” ended up a large focus of the discussion. The only passages given on this specific topic were debated at length, not ignored.

If you consider us “swine,” then I suggest that you find a different animal pen to linger in. After all, some animals are more equal than others.

 

[Dokimas]

to Dokimas
I really find it funny that you said that the church is it’s members, because you are supporting apostolic succession. Sorry,*** I don’t follow your logic.***
The Church Is Apostolic (Eph. 2:19–20, CCC 857–865)

Now ofcourse you wouldn’t

If you actually read the verse it says there that
“19Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;”

therefore if the Church is it’s members it must be apostolic

Thank you for trying but I must be thick headed. I have no clue how you come up with your conclusion about apostolic from the verse you quoted or from any verse in the Bible.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Goodness gracious. The emotions of some people.
Its fairly simple. We are having a discussion and it has been a wide ranging one. But the bottom line for the last few posts is that ProdigalSon1 stated that the New Testament references the Apocrypha and he gave quotes to prove. I challenged the quotes (as anyone should expect if they are going to post them) and I think anyone who read them can see why. Some of them have absolutely nothing to do with the NT quote. One of them is a reference to a historical event that is recorded in the Apocrypha. Some of the others contain similiar words (singular…words not whole phrases). When that was the case, I showed the same words used on the OT.
I asked if he had read the quotes, I believe that he answered that yes but it was hard for me to tell.
Here is the deal with me. Don’t overstate your case. Don’t play games acting like you know more than you do. I will call you on it every single time. Do not insult my intelligence. I will try to do the same with you. Do not get your information from poorly done websites; which is where those quotes came from although the source was not given.

 

[Dokimas]

I believe in Christ (me too), His Church (me too) and the Scritpures (me too). I know metaphors and I know parables and I know symbolism, as well as what is real. I’ll let Peter answer your question about interpretations.

**2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.
2Pe 3:17 You therefore, brethren, knowing these things before, take heed, lest being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness. **

Where has Peter said it takes a priest, or bishop or pope to correctly interpret the Scriptures? I know Peter said it takes the Holy Spirit.

 

[larkin31]

Thank you for trying but I must be thick headed. I have no clue how you come up with your conclusion about apostolic from the verse you quoted or from any verse in the Bible.

Honestly, I don’t either.