P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, if it doesn’t, then you ought never ever ever quote a single verse of Scripture again. For the only reason you know that the Gospel of Mark is inspired is
because
the
CC
told you so.
- Status
because
the
CC
told you so.
P
PRmerger
Guest
See post #306.
S
SyCarl
Guest
This is sophistry. You are assuming that because some things in the Bible are historically accurate that this means we can believe it in everything it says. I can say that some things in Homer’s Illiad can be shown to true. Does that mean that mean everything in the Illiad is true? Of course not.
Only by previously determining that everything in the Bible is true can it be used to establish the authority of the Church. And even in that case, you must interpret what the Bible says to come to the conclusion that the Church has the authority it claims. You must rely on your private interpretaion before you can say certain passages show an infallible Church.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Not at all.
So what parts of the Bible do you believe are not true? And how do you know? (Are you talking only historically false or theologically false?)
P
PRmerger
Guest
As presently defined?
What was solemnly pronounced, declared and defined a certain point of time is not an indication that it only came to be believed at that point.
It has been the “constant teaching” in our house that when the kids come home from school they are to do certain things: hang up their backpacks, put their shoes away, wash their hands, take off their uniforms, eat their snack, finish their chores, practice their piano, etc etc etc.
Despite the fact that they have been doing this every school day for 2-11 years every once in a while we need to have a “family meeting” to pronounce, declare and define exactly who should be doing which job and how it is to be done. (Note: I try to ignore their incredulous looks that say, “What? We’re supposed to hang up our backpacks again this year?” or “What? You’ve never said that we had to take off our uniforms and hang them up!” )
At this council we recall what’s been done in the past, review the current norms and define again exactly what’s the expectation. Sometimes the kids complain that we are “making up new rules”, claiming we’ve “never done it this way before” when in actuality we are just pronouncing, declaring and defining a standard norm of our family.
Thus, the solemn declaration of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was not newly formed in 1854. It was a constant belief held and spoken of for many years, sometimes correctly, sometimes incorrectly. Perhaps in order to alleviate any doubt and to correct any wrong information, God chose 1854 as the time to pronounce, declare and define this belief and practice.
However, this dogma was ancient, dating back to before St. Thomas Aquinas.
S
SyCarl
Guest
I believe that the whole Bible is true but that does not allow you use it to prove the Church is infallible, because until we know the Church is infallible it could be wrong about the Bible.
And this still doesn’t address the point that, even if we both believe the Bible is completely true, that we must privately interpret what it says. You interpret it as saying the Catholic Church has the authority it claims; I don’t.
S
SyCarl
Guest
So then, can we say Thomas Aquinas was a heretic because he did not believe Mary was sinnless from the moment of her conception? If not, then doctrine has changd. It is now necessary to believe something that wasn’t necessary before.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Then, again, you ought never quote a single verse of the Bible, Carl. For how do you know that the Church, which in your estimation is fallible, got it right when it included Revelation as theopneustos and excluded the Didache?
I’m just sayin’…
P
PRmerger
Guest
Alrighty, then, Carl!
Challenge to you here:
You tell us whether each of these verses is inspired, and how you know this:
Remember, one cannot beg the question!
• All generations shall call me blessed!
• O you who believe! Remember God’s favor to you when there came against you forces, so We sent against them a strong wind and forces which you did not see, and God is Ever- Seeing what you do.
• My breath is offensive to my wife.
• For from the rising of the sun to its setting my name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense will be offered to my name, and a pure offering. For my name will be great among the nations, says the LORD of hosts.
• Moreover, what I have now said in regard to abstaining from wanton looks should be carefully observed, with due love for the persons and hatred of the sin, in observing, forbidding, reporting, reproving, and punishing of all other fault.
• Be appalled at this, O heavens, and shudder with great horror," declares the LORD.
• And seek assistance through patience and prayer, and most surely it is a hard thing except for the humble ones.
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
That’s not a change.
The Church’s job is to determine what doctrines are part of the original deposit of faith.
[BIBLEDRB]Jude 1:3[/BIBLEDRB]
The Immaculate Conception has always been part of this deposit of faith. However, the Church had not yet determined that it was. So Aquinas, and every Catholic before the definition of the doctrine, was not sinning by rejecting it because they did not know it was, in fact, part of the original deposit of faith.
S
SyCarl
Guest
I have faith that Bible is accurate. You have faith that the Church is infallible. Neither of us can our belief if true. Neither of us can prove our interpretation of the relevant passages is true. We can only rely on the guidance of the Holy Spirit.Then, again, you ought never quote a single verse of the Bible, Carl. For how do you know that the Church, which in your estimation is fallible, got it right when it included Revelation as theopneustos and excluded the Didache?
I’m just sayin’…
P
PRmerger
Guest
I don’t believe you read my post, Carl.
It has been the constant teaching of the Church that Mary was conceived without sin.
At any rate, the assertion that St. Thomas Aquinas denied the dogma of the IC is inaccurate.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I don’t believe I’ve cited any “relevant passages” of Scripture at all.
I am interested in your thoughts on how you know whether verses, chapters, books, letters of early Christians are theopneustos?
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
But the Holy Spirit does not create confusion.
[BIBLEDRB]1 Cor 1:10[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Phil 2:2[/BIBLEDRB]
[BIBLEDRB]Rom 15:5[/BIBLEDRB]
When there is confusion, here is what we are supposed to do:
[BIBLEDRB]Mt 18:17-18[/BIBLEDRB]
P
PRmerger
Guest
Fair enough.
Just tell us how you know what’s the Bible? Is this verse inspired: * my breath is offensive to my wife.*
Is there something intrinsically theopneustos about the above verse?
S
SyCarl
Guest
Any of the verses that come from the Bible are inspired simply because the Bible tells us so. I have faith that the Bible is the word of God.
C
Cat_Herder
Guest
Where’d you get the table of contents, eh?
S
SyCarl
Guest
No, the Holy Spirit does not create confusion but men can. Did God want Adam to fall? Did God want Israel to disobey? No, but they did. In the same way men can introduce error in the Church particulairly when they try to define things as required for belief that are beyond our limited capacity to comprehend. We can never fully understand God and His ways since we are finite and He is infinite.
S
SyCarl
Guest
Which table of contents is correct? The Catholic Church uses one, Protestant Churches use another, Orthodox another again and churches like the Ethiopian Tewahedo CDhurch yet another.Where’d you get the table of contents, eh?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Even as you typed that I am certain you saw the absurdity of that comment, Carl :sad_yes:
- Status