Sola Scriptura...

[spina1953]

Actually, on reflection, I’m willing to say that there are some levels on which Scripture can be seen as fallible. Here I’m aware that the likes of Jon and I are likely to respectfully disagree.

It appears or seems to me that if you think that there are some levels that Scripture is fallible or can be seen as fallible then either Scripture is God’s word written by men or it is not God’s word. There can be in my mind no two ways about it, either Scripture has the God’s word or it does not it can’t be both.

 

[PRmerger]

Great. So Mary was capable of sin. Doesn’t entail that she did.

Egg-zactly. She never sinned.

Just like the Apostles were capable of error, But they never did (at least, as it applies to the kerygma).

So you are agreed that men have been infallible, at least as some time in the history of the Church? Yes?

 

[Novocastrian]

It appears or seems to me that if you think that there are some levels that Scripture is fallible or can be seen as fallible then either Scripture is God’s word written by men or it is not God’s word. There can be in my mind no two ways about it, either Scripture has the God’s word or it does not it can’t be both.

I’m curious as to why you think that that is the case. It’s written by God and man.

 

[Novocastrian]

Egg-zactly. She never sinned.

Just like the Apostles were capable of error, But they never did (at least, as it applies to the kerygma).

So you are agreed that men have been infallible, at least as some time in the history of the Church? Yes?

I think you and I have an irreconcilable difference over the meaning of the word ‘infallible’.

 

[ericc]

Again the problem with those propounding sola Scriptura
there is the division in which gasp literalism is intended.
And actually with most fundamentalist I’ve met literal
is the only recognized form of interpretation. Except
oddly enough the Eucharist.

How would one know when it should be figurative and when it should be literal?

Therefore if Mary and His brothers arrive to take
Jesus home, obviously Mary had more children.

Based on what evidence did you arrive at the conclusion obviously Mary had more children? If it is Bible only, my research and Catholic/Protestant scholars say it is inconclusive. Please do share you research. It would be a pleasant change to finally nail this down. I’ve been looking at this for quite a while and so far I could not find anything that is in the Bible that can without doubt conclude Mary had other blood children other than Jesus. Language such as anepsios, first born, till had been proven inconclusive.

This was my writeup forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11620455&postcount=64

Do share your research so that I can update my understanding.

 

[PRmerger]

I think you and I have an irreconcilable difference over the meaning of the word ‘infallible’.

I think that you are just being obdurate about acknowledging what it would mean to say, “Yes, there have been times in the Church that someone has been infallible.”

For you know what that would mean. Your entire argument would crumble.

As such, what you are doing right now is the equivalent of this:

Me: All female mammals can make milk.
Cows make milk.

Therefore, cows are mammals.

You: I agree with your first 2 points, but let’s just say that you and I are never going to agree that cows are mammals. I simply believe that cows are animals that make milk.

 

[steido01]

I think that you are just being obdurate about acknowledging what it would mean to say, “Yes, there have been times in the Church that someone has been infallible.”

For you know what that would mean. Your entire argument would crumble.

As such, what you are doing right now is the equivalent of this:

Me: All female mammals can make milk.
Cows make milk.

Therefore, cows are mammals.

You: I agree with your first 2 points, but let’s just say that you and I are never going to agree that cows are mammals. I simply believe that cows are animals that make milk.

Put the cows back in the barn. You’ve already been shown in other threads that this analogy doesn’t fit.

If we flip a coin and I predict it’ll land on heads, and it does, does that make me infallible - if only for that moment in time? Of course not. One can be correct without being infallible. To claim otherwise is… Just silly.

 

[PRmerger]

Put the cows back in the barn. You’ve already been shown in other threads that this analogy doesn’t fit.

Of course it fits.

You are both willing to state A, and B, but somehow are recusant to declaring what it necessarily means: C.

…because of the implications, which you readily see.

If we flip a coin and I predict it’ll land on heads, and it does, does that make me infallible - if only for that moment in time? Of course not. One can be correct without being infallible. To claim otherwise is… Just silly.

Surely you’re not saying that Peter just happened to get it right when he said, “Always be ready to have a reason for the hope that is within you…but do that with gentleness and reverence”? He was correct but not infallible here?

And correct but not infallible here:

[BIBLEDRB]1 Peter 2:14[/BIBLEDRB]

And correct but not infallible here:

[BIBLEDRB]2 Peter 1:3[/BIBLEDRB]

Really? St. Peter just happened to be correct in over hundreds of statements he made. But he wasn’t infallible.



And the Scriptures are inerrant.

But the authors aren’t infallible.

Curious, that.

 

[Nicea325]

Great. So Mary was capable of sin. Doesn’t entail that she did.

So she did or did not?

 

[Nicea325]

Actually, on reflection, I’m willing to say that there are some levels on which Scripture can be seen as fallible. Here I’m aware that the likes of Jon and I are likely to respectfully disagree.

As to say even in matters of salvation?

 

[ericc]

Do you think the Apostles had free will? Could they have refused to cooperate with the Holy Spirit in writing down Scripture/preaching the Gospel?

Perhaps we need to define the term “infallibility” as it is being used rather loosely. The Pope can teach infallibly in certain situations only. It does not mean his daily chitchat is infallible.

a) Obviously mere mortals have the capacity to do/teach wrong
b) Despite this capacity, did this particular mortal taught wrongly even if his lifestyle is not a shining example of morality? We did have bad Popes in the past but none had been shown to teach false doctrine.

Jesus said do what those people sitting in Moses Chair teaches but not what they do. Mat 23:2. He recognizes that these hypocrites have valid authority to teach and God is guaranteeing that what these hypocrites taught is authoritative and to be followed.

In Mat 18:17, Jesus is guaranteeing that the Church will teach correctly and to be followed otherwise “let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector”.

 

[AbideWithMe]

I think you and I have an irreconcilable difference over the meaning of the word ‘infallible’.

I think that sums up what’s going on here. This is the wiki entry on “infallibility”: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infallibility
“Infallibility” can refer to an “absence of error” or “inability to err”; these are two distinct ideas.

According to the older Catholic Encyclopedia (newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm, the Catholic definition is the latter of the two above. “It is well to further explain: that infallibility means more than the exemption from actual error; it means the exemption from the possibility of error.”

 

[Scientia_Dei]

Sola Scriptura is not an ideal way of looking for answers. As a Catholic we must yes understand the world spiritually but at the same time naturally. I used to be an atheist and the core belief/ value of an atheist is the use of evidence ( Which is ironic since the catholic church created the scientific method). An evidence and reasoning point to the Universal Truth, Genesis 1-1. For example to do believe in Genesis as is? No. Due to the fact of theological evolution gives us a better idea of Life and its beginning. So that rules out creation in simple talk. Do we believe that in the future a dragon will come and eat a Woman’s Child like it says in Revelation? No, Scott Hahn’s book Supper of the Lamb explains Revelation in a much clearer and realistic form.

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. 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.

 

[nmgauss]

As a Catholic we must yes understand the world spiritually but at the same time naturally. I used to be an atheist and the core belief/ value of an atheist is the use of evidence ( Which is ironic since the catholic church created the scientific method).

Have you ever heard of Aristotle? He precedes the Catholic Church and emphasized studying physical evidence. He originated the scientific method, while Catholics were still stuck on Neo-Platonism.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Have you ever heard of Aristotle? He precedes the Catholic Church and emphasized studying physical evidence. He originated the scientific method, while Catholics were still stuck on Neo-Platonism.

You can make a case for Aristotle, I guess.

But you can actually go back to 1600BC and study the Edwin Smith Papyrus for a more purely scientific methodology.

Aristotle introduced empiricism and deductive reasoning to the Papyrus already established formula.

 

[Novocastrian]

So she did or did not?

To be honest, I don’t know.

 

[Novocastrian]

As to say even in matters of salvation?

No, I would not say that is the case.

 

[Novocastrian]

Of course it fits.

You are both willing to state A, and B, but somehow are recusant to declaring what it necessarily means: C.

…because of the implications, which you readily see.

Surely you’re not saying that Peter just happened to get it right when he said, “Always be ready to have a reason for the hope that is within you…but do that with gentleness and reverence”? He was correct but not infallible here?

And correct but not infallible here:

[BIBLEDRB]1 Peter 2:14[/BIBLEDRB]

And correct but not infallible here:

[BIBLEDRB]2 Peter 1:3[/BIBLEDRB]

Really? St. Peter just happened to be correct in over hundreds of statements he made. But he wasn’t infallible.



And the Scriptures are inerrant.

But the authors aren’t infallible.

Curious, that.

I really don’t mean to sound rude, but you need to study some basic logic. Your arguments do not follow.

 

[Picky_Picky]

I think that you are just being obdurate about acknowledging what it would mean to say, “Yes, there have been times in the Church that someone has been infallible.”

For you know what that would mean. Your entire argument would crumble.

As such, what you are doing right now is the equivalent of this:

Me: All female mammals can make milk.
Cows make milk.

Therefore, cows are mammals.

You: I agree with your first 2 points, but let’s just say that you and I are never going to agree that cows are mammals. I simply believe that cows are animals that make milk.

Whether your analogy is good or not (and I don’t see why it should be), let’s at least clear up the bovine logic. For the syllogism to work it has to be

A: All female animals that make milk are mammals
B: Cows are female animals that make milk
C: Therefore cows are mammals.

or

A: All female mammals make milk
B: Cows are female mammals
C: Therefore cows make milk.

Not your form of the argument, which works (or doesn’t) like this:

A: All elephants have ears
B: Mice have ears
C: Therefore mice are elephants.

 

[PRmerger]

I really don’t mean to sound rude, but you need to study some basic logic. Your arguments do not follow.

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.