Protestants: Is the Bible true because someone repents after reading it?

[PRmerger]

I don’t see whereas this should be controversial at all. It is a matter of the historical record after all. Unless there is some document that fell from the hand of God that gave specific directions to include Hebrews but not 1 Clement. But I have not read where such a document exists, but who knows.

I agree with you. It shouldn’t be controversial at all, and it’s a great testament to your integrity that you acknowledge this.

Would that every other non-Catholic Christian on this forum would do the same.

Now I think you just need to go the next step and question why your church is so different from the Church that discerned for you this canon of Scripture. What happened to your bishops?

 

[CopticChristian]

Here is where we disagree and I still think I am correct although I am certainly not infallible.

Back to math test example. What does it mean to be infallible with respect to math tests.

Well the repeatable process is “Whenever I take a math test”? and the result it is impossible for me to be incorrect.

Let us say I have taken 10 math tests so far and I have scored 100% on each math test. For me to be infallible in taking math tests, it must a certainty that every future math test I take for the rest of my life will be 100% correct. If there is any possibility that the next test I take can have an error in it, then I am not infallible with respect to taking math tests.

Since I am a human being and subject to error as much as the next human being, you can not be certain that the next 100 math tests I take will be error free just on the basis that my first 10 were. Because it is possible that my 11th will contan an error.

Well the alternative would be that I get to decide for myself what my personal canon would be. I don’t that is a good idea and I don’t think my pastor would.

Instead my I am just submitting to the same NT canon that my church uses. And my church uses the same NT canon that everybody else uses. And everybody else has been using that same canon for a very long time…in fact back to the point where somebody or some group of individuals had to decide that Hebrews was in and 1 Clement was out.
I don’t see whereas this should be controversial at all. It is a matter of the historical record after all. Unless there is some document that fell from the hand of God that gave specific directions to include Hebrews but not 1 Clement. But I have not read where such a document exists, but who knows.

You could with certainty provide 100% certainty and infallibly produce the same result if you took the same test over and over again…as with the Church…looking at the deposit of Faith over and over again…not a different deposit each time and with that we get an infallible interpretation and things like the canon of Scripture.

You have found it…go back, until you discover how it was that Hebrews was included…you have the code…when you can trace truth backward and forward it is truly true…for truth can never change…or it is not true.

 

[PRmerger]

Here is where we disagree and I still think I am correct although I am certainly not infallible.

Back to math test example. What does it mean to be infallible with respect to math tests.

Well the repeatable process is “Whenever I take a math test”? and the result it is impossible for me to be incorrect.

Let us say I have taken 10 math tests so far and I have scored 100% on each math test. For me to be infallible in taking math tests, it must a certainty that every future math test I take for the rest of my life will be 100% correct. If there is any possibility that the next test I take can have an error in it, then I am not infallible with respect to taking math tests.

Since I am a human being and subject to error as much as the next human being, you can not be certain that the next 100 math tests I take will be error free just on the basis that my first 10 were. Because it is possible that my 11th will contan an error.

Just curious, AP: do you believe that the Holy Spirit assisted these bishops, members of the universal church, in discerning the canon of Scripture?

 

[Tony888]

Protestants claim the “infallibility of Scripture” and yet there are fallible interpretations as you would agree. In the Protestant world there is no infallible interpretation by any Protestant rendering the infallble entity undecipherable. It is like not having the “code”. If you can accept the “infalliblity of Scripture” and if you can accept that Christ is Lord, His body is the Church, The mystery hidden for all ages through which it is what God wants us to know, the Church is nothing more than the conduit of the infallbility of God. Not so hard to imagine.

If you were going to set up a Kingdom, we have experience with earthly Kings, would you not set up some sort of method to be sure the subjects got the “infallible” messages, in consideration that Protestants have rendered the notion of “church” to other than the mystery through which all fallilble messages flow.

It’s all quicksand since even if you agree on the books, no translation of the Bible is without error, even the Vulgate. Too many readers pretend the words are perfect (without error) when it is the sprit that counts… Baptism and repentance can lead one to change and follow Christ, but the power comes from the Holy Spirit and not words on paper.

I expect every version of the bible published (warts and all) has led people to Christ

 

[CopticChristian]

It’s all quicksand since even if you agree on the books, no translation of the Bible is without error, even the Vulgate. Too many readers pretend the words are perfect (without error) when it is the sprit that counts… Baptism and repentance can lead one to change and follow Christ, but the power comes from the Holy Spirit and not words on paper.

I expect every version of the bible published (warts and all) has led people to Christ

Would you include the New World Translation?

When you say has led people to Christ, be specific, do you mean Christ of the Trinity, Christ born of The Virgin Mary without copulation? Is it the same Christ for all that have been led by the warts?

 

[Tony888]

Would you include the New World Translation?

When you say has led people to Christ, be specific, do you mean Christ of the Trinity, Christ born of The Virgin Mary without copulation? Is it the same Christ for all that have been led by the warts?

maybe you didn’t bother to read my note?
I spoke of the holy spirit acting on man
I did not speak of **your crude fantasy **to explain the mystery of Christ’s conception.

Why do I feel you are baiting for mud slinging rather than discussing theology?

 

[PRmerger]

Baptism and repentance can lead one to change and follow Christ, but the power comes from the Holy Spirit and not words on paper.

Indeed. This is exactly what the Catholic Church teaches!

 

[AmateurPianist]

Just curious, AP: do you believe that the Holy Spirit assisted these bishops, members of the universal church, in discerning the canon of Scripture?

Yes!

I would use stronger language. Something that expresses the idea that whole process was initiated, sustained and brought to completion by the Holy Spirit. As with anything where God uses humans to accomplish His divine purposes.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes!

I would use stronger language. Something that expresses the idea that whole process was initiated, sustained and brought to completion by the Holy Spirit. As with anything where God uses humans to accomplish His divine purposes.

So you believe the HS did this, but did so without invoking the charism of infallibility?

 

[AmateurPianist]

So you believe the HS did this, but did so without invoking the charism of infallibility?

Infallability by definition must refer to a repeatable process that is guaranteed to yield correct results. An event can not be infallible in itself. Only a process can.

Again the difference between getting 100% on a math test and being unable to get anything but 100% on any math test that you might take in your life.

…unless I am really misunderstanding the phrase “incapable of being incorrect”… but just doing the English that is what it clearly seems to mean…

Think of applying the phrase “incapable of being incorrect” to anything else that might happen in real life and you might see what I mean.

 

[PRmerger]

Infallability by definition must refer to a repeatable process that is guaranteed to yield correct results. An event can not be infallible in itself. Only a process can.

Again the difference between getting 100% on a math test and being unable to get anything but 100% on any math test that you might take in your life.

…unless I am really misunderstanding the phrase “incapable of being incorrect”… but just doing the English that is what it clearly seems to mean…

Think of applying the phrase “incapable of being incorrect” to anything else that might happen in real life and you might see what I mean.

Again, please explain how this definition of infallibility would apply to the Scriptures. Thanks.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Again, please explain how this definition of infallibility would apply to the Scriptures. Thanks.

Now I am confused.

I am not sure the word “infallible” can apply to Scripture strictly speaking. Although I probably have used it that way.

If you think about it something written is either has errors or it does not It has no capacity to be “unable”.

But anyway, I guess I can understand using the word “infallible” in respect to a point-in-time event, even though it is very confusing.

I can better understand it when used with a process like “speaking ex cathedra on an issue of faith and morals”.

So if one want to apply the word infallible to taking a math test and getting 100% I guess I should give it a pass. But regardless of the word being used we are still left with the big logical difference of an event being error free and a process being unable to be incorrect.

BTW I see this same lack of critical thinking and differentiating between event and process on my side of the house. Like we take events of healing found in Scripture and assume there is an underlying process (pray believing) that will always reproduce the desired result.

It has also occurred to me that I am speaking and writing very geekish using words like “event” and “process”. These are words that are used all the time in computer-speak which is the way my mind operates and my job.

So I guess what I am trying to say after all this is just because we can observe God doing something either in the Bible or in history (event), it does not follow that there is something that we can do or steps that we follow that if done correctly (process) can always reproduce the same results (whether the results be gifts of healing or a gift of divine revelation).

 

[PRmerger]

Now I am confused.

I think so!

I am not sure the word “infallible” can apply to Scripture strictly speaking. Although I probably have used it that way.

Right. So when you used it “that way”, what did you mean? And how, when you used it that way, can you describe infallibility as applying to Scriptures but not to the discernment of the canon?

IOW: please give your definition of infallibility that includes the Scriptures but excludes the discernment of the canon.

 

[Nicea325]

It’s all quicksand since even if you agree on the books, no translation of the Bible is without error, even the Vulgate. Too many readers pretend the words are perfect (without error) when it is the sprit that counts… Baptism and repentance can lead one to change and follow Christ, but the power comes from the Holy Spirit and not words on paper.

I expect every version of the bible published (warts and all) has led people to Christ

Really? You have evidence displaying the Bible has had errors?

 

[CopticChristian]

maybe you didn’t bother to read my note?
I spoke of the holy spirit acting on man
I did not speak of **your crude fantasy **to explain the mystery of Christ’s conception.

Why do I feel you are baiting for mud slinging rather than discussing theology?

In answer to your question…

King James Matthew 1:18. The Bible you say leads us to Christ with warts. God’s word tells us this…

18Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. 19Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

King James Luke 1:34. The same Bible warts and all…

34Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God

Apostles Creed

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.

And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried;

Nicene Creed

Who, for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man;

So the Christ I was led to was incarnate by the power of the Holy Spirit. In several places copulation is alluded to…Mary asked…how can this be…I know not man…(copulation)

This same notion is repeated in creeds. To say conceived by the Holy Spirit is to say conceived without copulation. Explain my fantasy. Mary did not copulate to produce the Christ I was led to…with all the warts and all…

 

[CopticChristian]

Now I am confused.

I am not sure the word “infallible” can apply to Scripture strictly speaking. Although I probably have used it that way.

If you think about it something written is either has errors or it does not It has no capacity to be “unable”.

But anyway, I guess I can understand using the word “infallible” in respect to a point-in-time event, even though it is very confusing.

I can better understand it when used with a process like “speaking ex cathedra on an issue of faith and morals”.

So if one want to apply the word infallible to taking a math test and getting 100% I guess I should give it a pass. But regardless of the word being used we are still left with the big logical difference of an event being error free and a process being unable to be incorrect.

BTW I see this same lack of critical thinking and differentiating between event and process on my side of the house. Like we take events of healing found in Scripture and assume there is an underlying process (pray believing) that will always reproduce the desired result.

It has also occurred to me that I am speaking and writing very geekish using words like “event” and “process”. These are words that are used all the time in computer-speak which is the way my mind operates and my job.

So I guess what I am trying to say after all this is just because we can observe God doing something either in the Bible or in history (event), it does not follow that there is something that we can do or steps that we follow that if done correctly (process) can always reproduce the same results (whether the results be gifts of healing or a gift of divine revelation).

Then there is no point in submitting your Will to God. To do God’s will would not produce the same predictable results unless your will got in the way?

 

[jlhargus]

Oh mine is not nearly as dramatic. Probably as simple as that was what I was taught at the church the Lord brought me into.

JL: That would mean you know what NT books are inspiried by the Tradition handed on to you by your faith group. That Tradition which came originally to your faith group thru the Catholic Church.