Nope. You’re saying:My logic is irrefutable.
You simply cannot bring yourself to say what the logic concludes.
Because of the implications.
Either you believe that the authors of the Scripture were able to convey God’s revelation without error…and were therefore infallible…
OR
You don’t believe the Bible is inerrant.
[SIGN1]There are no other options.[/SIGN1]
I am certain that you reject the latter.
Which means you accept the former.
You simply cannot say that, for whatever adamantine reason you may have.
But there are no other options.
The Holy Spirit assisted them in professing that which God wanted professed and keeping silent on that which God wanted to be kept silent.The Apostles had free will. yet, these men called Apostles believed in Jesus and what he taught them. They saw the risen Christ and they were willing to die for what they believed. So I think that when the preached the Good news and taught what Jesus taught them, they had the Holy Spirit to guide them in all that they said did and taught. To me that means that they were infallible.
As such, what you are doing right now is the equivalent of this:
Me: All female mammals can make milk.
Cows make milk.
PnPTherefore, cows are mammals.
Right. Each of these two different things can be called “infallibility” in popular usage, according to wiki at least, but the Catholic usage is the latter. It seems that the non-Catholics here understand that. What puzzles me is that I wonder if some of the Catholics on this thread do not understand the Catholic usage?Not making mistakes and not being able to make mistakes are two different things.
You believe that the inspired writers were infallible, AWM.Right. Each of these two different things can be called “infallibility” in popular usage, according to wiki at least, but the Catholic usage is the latter. It seems that the non-Catholics here understand that. What puzzles me is that I wonder if some of the Catholics on this thread do not understand the Catholic usage?
No. How is my logic incorrect?PR are you intentionally being incorrect on your logic in presenting the “me”?
PnP
Your logic is wrong. See post #735.You believe that the inspired writers were infallible, AWM.
Either you believe that, or you believe that the Bible is not inerrant.
Which one do you believe?
You have to choose one, Novo, if you are a Christian who believes the Bible is the Word of God.Your logic is wrong. See post #735.
I don’t understand why you continue to assume, wrongly and illogically, that inerrancy necessarily entails infallibility. It is perfectly logically possible that the Bible contains no errors, and yet was written by human beings capable of error. If you genuinely still can’t see that this is a logical possibility, then I think we’re no longer capable of rational discussion.You have to choose one, Novo, if you are a Christian who believes the Bible is the Word of God.
Either you believe that the Bible is inerrant Or you believe the Bible has errors.
If you believe the Bible is inerrant, then you believe that the inspired writers were infallible.
There is no other option.
That the Bible is inerrant means that the human authors did not err. Surely you see that.I don’t understand why you continue to assume, wrongly and illogically, that inerrancy necessarily entails infallibility.
If you leave the discussion it is only because you see the implications of what it means to reject the inerrancy of the Bible, or to accept that some men, at some point, have been given the charism of infallibility.It is perfectly logically possible that the Bible contains no errors, and yet was written by human beings capable of error. If you genuinely still can’t see that this is a logical possibility, then I think we’re no longer capable of rational discussion.
The bolded premise is your problem. It’s simply not true, in terms of how all the non-Catholics on this thread, and how the Roman Church in *Pastor Aeternus *and Lumen Gentium, define infallibility.That the Bible is inerrant means that the human authors did not err. Surely you see that.
That the human authors did not err means that they were infallible.
Either you believe that Paul wrote error, or you believe he was infallible.
There is no other option.
If you leave the discussion it is only because you see the implications of what it means to reject the inerrancy of the Bible, or to accept that some men, at some point, have been given the charism of infallibility.
Post 733No. How is my logic incorrect?
You’re mischaracterizing the argument. This is the way I see it:Nope. You’re saying:
A: People who wrote the Bible made no mistakes
B: People who make no mistakes are infallible
C: Therefore the people who wrote the Bible were infallible.
Valid logically, but unsound because premise B is untrue, as folk here have been trying to explain for some time. Not making mistakes and not being able to make mistakes are two different things.
That’s not PR’s argument, but it is logically valid, although it contains some redundancy. Simpler would be:You’re mischaracterizing the argument. This is the way I see it:
A: People who wrote the Bible made no mistakes through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit
B: People who are speaking or writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit can make no mistakes
C: Therefore the people who wrote the Bible were infallible.
Actually, that’s precisely what Sola Scriptura does. It’s for those very cultural, historical and linguistic questions that many protestants consider the Apocryphal books to be of a lesser authority than the other canonical books.Sola Scriptura is also one of the most… misleading forms of understanding Divine Scripture.
Due to the fact that it does not understand the culture,history,and language of the era in which scripture was written.
That’s not what Sola Scriptura says. That’s what literalism says. Let’s not confuse separate things.Sola Scriptura says,“It is written,so it is automatically good and is real.” No matter what the case this is what it teaches. But if one Reasons, if one Meditates then Sola Scriptura makes no logical sense.
PR locuta; causa finita est, eh?My logic is irrefutable.
Being without error is not the same as being incapable of error. Why is this concept so difficult?Either you believe that the authors of the Scripture were able to convey God’s revelation without error…and were therefore infallible…
False. I’ve posted this before, and I’m not sure it’s been read. It explains the issue quite clearly:But there are no other options.
…[Between] Catholics and Protestants, the canon debate is framed in such away that either you believe in an inerrant Protestant canon of 66 books based on their self-evident, internal witness to their own divine inspiration, or you believe that the infallible Church inerrantly defined the canon, and that it is accepted only on that authority. But as with many theological issues, the Lutheran position takes neither of the supposedly only two possible options without being a synthesis, either.
The Lutheran approach to Scripture begins with faith in Jesus and confession of belonging to the apostolic church… [continued in the link]
Premise B is invalid. People inspired by the Holy Spirit are infallible only under certain circumstances at certain times.That’s not PR’s argument, but it is logically valid, although it contains some redundancy. Simpler would be:
A: The people who wrote the Bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit
B: People inspired by the Holy Spirit are infallible
C: Therefore the people who wrote the Bible were infallible.
Quite a different argument from PR’s. Valid. Whether it is sound is a matter of opinion as to the truth of the two premises. (They don’t convince me, but then I wouldn’t expect them to!)
Almost. He is infallible by virtue of the promises Jesus made.Ok, I’ll agree that someone truly inspired by the Holy Spirit is infallible insofar as the Spirit is infallible. But this is not what the Roman Church calls infallibility; the Roman Pontiff is supposedly infallible in virtue of his office, not inspiration.
Obviously we disagree regarding what Christ’s promises to his Church entail.Almost. He is infallible by virtue of the promises Jesus made.
In answer to your question as to why I think the way I do is that The Catholic Church has never officially adopted any one explanation of inspiration as her own. However, the Church has insisted that any theory that seeks to explain the nature of inspiration must contain two elements !) God is actively present in a unique manor in the composition of the Bible; that is Scripture is the word of God. 2) The human authors are free to make use of their own talents and resources, in cooperation with the Holy Spirit, in the writing the books of the Bible; that is, Scripture is the Word of God in the words of man. The action of God is the most difficult to explain. yet, God is the principle cause who moves and elevates the human author who then produces an effect of an order higher then he could were he working on his own. In the process God respects the freedom and intelligence of the human author who speaks a particular language, lives at a particular time, and is the product of a particular age and culture.I’m curious as to why you think that that is the case. It’s written by God and man.