Was Paul Wrong, and if so, what does that mean for the Inerrancy of Scripture?

[comrade1789]

Recently a Catholic theologian told a group of inquiring young men that Paul and many of the Apostles believed that the end of time was near, that the Parousia was imminent (not in the eucharistic sense, but the Final Jundgement, Christ Coming in Glory). He used this as a springboard to then agrue that Paul’s views on marriage should be seen in this light. Specifically, the theologian was trying to contextualize Paul’s statement about not taking up a wife, and it was put in such a way that we could dismiss what Paul said about marriage because he thought the end was near. After a few emails back and forth with this theologian, my understanding of his position is correct. So my question is first, was Paul Wrong, did he really believe that it was the end (I don’t think he really did believe that), and if so, what does that mean for the Inerrancy of Scripture?

I understand the different senses of scripture, but i am having a problem with the precenent that is being set when this theologian is telling me I can dismiss one thing Paul said, makes me naturally ask, “what else did Paul say that I can reject?” This brother keeps accusing me of Sola Scriptura and refuses to move forward on the subject until I read the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, which I will soon enough. But I am not arguing for Sola Scriptura, but I also can’t understand how I can believe Paul was wrong about something that the Church allowed into the Canon of Scripture, and how it is not a slippery-slope to hold Paul in error on other issues.

I hope I was clear in this posting, if i need to re-state things, I certainly will. Can anyone help clear things up for me on this?

Thanks.

 

[Cachonga]

I would say that it’s one thing to question whether or not Augustine was wrong in something he wrrote (his writings are not inspired scripture), but to question if Paul (or anyone else who wrote Scriptures) was wrong is akin to asking if God (who inspired these men to write what they did) was wrong. Regardless of what Paul personally believed, the Scriptures are true! I would just ask him who he thinks the author of Scripture was (the correct answer is God). To put it in a way that a Catholic might unbderstand - if God can ensure that the Magisterium is infallible when it teaches its dogmas, why would he think God couldn’t (or wouldn’t) ensure that His Scriptures weren’t infallible when they were written? You can reword this any way you wish.

Needless to say, I do not believe in the “infallibility” of any pope, council, or magisterium, but I would think the question is still a valid one for Catholics.

Hope that helps!

Pax!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

“the end of time was near”

Define near.

It is all near to God as God lives within eternity. All of time is present to God as the now, there is no past, present, or future.

Also to get so technical we would need to take a look at the original language to see what words were used and what those words mean.

 

[James224]

Recently a Catholic theologian told a group of inquiring young men that Paul and many of the Apostles believed that the end of time was near, that the Parousia was imminent (not in the eucharistic sense, but the Final Jundgement, Christ Coming in Glory). He used this as a springboard to then agrue that Paul’s views on marriage should be seen in this light. Specifically, the theologian was trying to contextualize Paul’s statement about not taking up a wife, and it was put in such a way that we could dismiss what Paul said about marriage because he thought the end was near. After a few emails back and forth with this theologian, my understanding of his position is correct. So my question is first, was Paul Wrong, did he really believe that it was the end (I don’t think he really did believe that), and if so, what does that mean for the Inerrancy of Scripture?

I understand the different senses of scripture, but i am having a problem with the precenent that is being set when this theologian is telling me I can dismiss one thing Paul said, makes me naturally ask, “what else did Paul say that I can reject?” This brother keeps accusing me of Sola Scriptura and refuses to move forward on the subject until I read the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, which I will soon enough. But I am not arguing for Sola Scriptura, but I also can’t understand how I can believe Paul was wrong about something that the Church allowed into the Canon of Scripture, and how it is not a slippery-slope to hold Paul in error on other issues.

I hope I was clear in this posting, if i need to re-state things, I certainly will. Can anyone help clear things up for me on this?

Thanks.

I’ve thought about similiar things to do with scripture. I can’t think of another example right now but remember thinking that, even if one of the apostles thought something seemingly incorrect, it doesn’t matter because it wasn’t meant for them to know everything anyway. It’s left to the Church to interpret those things.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Recently a Catholic theologian told a group of inquiring young men that Paul and many of the Apostles believed that the end of time was near, that the Parousia was imminent (not in the eucharistic sense, but the Final Jundgement, Christ Coming in Glory). He used this as a springboard to then agrue that Paul’s views on marriage should be seen in this light. Specifically, the theologian was trying to contextualize Paul’s statement about not taking up a wife, and it was put in such a way that we could dismiss what Paul said about marriage because he thought the end was near.

I’ve never bought this argument about Paul and his views on marriage. Paul (unlike a lot of us) was able to see a world that had been completely changed as a result of Jesus’ death and resurrection. Marriage in the Roman world was used as a badge of honor and a status symbol. Now people in Corinth are opting out of marriage; Paul thinks this can be a good thing if properly understood–and basically supports celibacy. The world has changed; you no longer have to be crushed by cultural expectations.

As far as I’m concerned, this argument also fails on just plain logic. So, let’s say you were planing on getting married but that you also thought the world was going to end soon. Would you just say “oh well; nevermind”? Or would you want to get married as soon as possible?

 

[comrade1789]

“the end of time was near”

Define near.

It is all near to God as God lives within eternity. All of time is present to God as the now, there is no past, present, or future.

Also to get so technical we would need to take a look at the original language to see what words were used and what those words mean.

near in the most obvious sense, as in, Christ Coming Again In Glory Like, Real Soon, So Don’t Bother Getting Married…that type of near.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Recently a Catholic theologian told a group of inquiring young men that Paul and many of the Apostles believed that the end of time was near, that the Parousia was imminent (not in the eucharistic sense, but the Final Jundgement, Christ Coming in Glory). He used this as a springboard to then agrue that Paul’s views on marriage should be seen in this light. Specifically, the theologian was trying to contextualize Paul’s statement about not taking up a wife, and it was put in such a way that we could dismiss what Paul said about marriage because he thought the end was near. After a few emails back and forth with this theologian, my understanding of his position is correct. So my question is first, was Paul Wrong, did he really believe that it was the end (I don’t think he really did believe that), and if so, what does that mean for the Inerrancy of Scripture?

I understand the different senses of scripture, but i am having a problem with the precenent that is being set when this theologian is telling me I can dismiss one thing Paul said, makes me naturally ask, “what else did Paul say that I can reject?” This brother keeps accusing me of Sola Scriptura and refuses to move forward on the subject until I read the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, which I will soon enough. But I am not arguing for Sola Scriptura, but I also can’t understand how I can believe Paul was wrong about something that the Church allowed into the Canon of Scripture, and how it is not a slippery-slope to hold Paul in error on other issues.

I hope I was clear in this posting, if i need to re-state things, I certainly will. Can anyone help clear things up for me on this?

Thanks.

What we have to determine is whether the theologian is speaking of Jesus’ second coming, or whether he is speaking of the coming of the “kingdom.” If he is speaking of the coming of the kingdom, Matthew 4:17 seems to say otherwise, since it is already “at hand.” If he is speaking of the second coming, I would strongly argue against that as well, since Jesus speaks of wars and rumors of wars, and nations rising against one another, and that these things must come to pass before the end. Not exactly an imminent arrival. There is also hardly any documentation regarding a “disappointment” in the delay of the second coming among early Christian writings, so it would seem they understood this as well. The “apocalyptic rabbi” view of Jesus was very popular during the nineties, but it has fallen out of favor as other verses regarding the “kingdom” have been looked at which argue against this viewpoint. For a solid critique, read up on Felder’s writings.

 

[FaithJoy]

Paul and other apostles wrote about the 2nd coming exactly how was expected. What I mean by that is, Jesus said himself He didn’t know the day or time of His coming. As an apostle, after hearing that, they would write as though the 2nd coming is possibly from tomorrow to much longer wait as possibilities. So, after saying that, an apostle COULD see tomorrow as a possibility.AND taking into consideration, ALL apostles hoped it WOULD be tomorrow. That’s why the apostles writings seemed to give us ideas that Jesus’ coming would be sooner than later to them.
After all, the Catholic Church decided what new testament books were inspired, considering that there were a lot to choose from. Protestants copied what we decided long before they came about 1,600 years later.

 

[rciadan]

The logic is simple. The Scriptures have been defined as inerrant. Therefore, what Paul stated is without error or misunderstanding on his part. This means that, if our interpretation of the passage contradicts Church Teaching or, most especially, something clearly stated in Scripture, we must re-evaluate our interpretation with the purpose of correcting the error in* our* thinking…

 

[Big_Dummy]

1 Corinthians 7
1Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

2Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

3Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.

4The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

5Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

6But **I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. **

7For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

8I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.

9But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

10And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband:

11But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife.

12But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

13And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

15But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

16For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

17But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.

18Is any man called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not be circumcised.

19Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God.

20Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.

21Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather.

22For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord’s freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ’s servant.

23Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men.

24Brethren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God.

25Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.

26I suppose therefore that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be.

27Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife.

28But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh: but I spare you.

29But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none;

30And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not;

31And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.

32But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:

33But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.

34There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.

35And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.

36But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.

37Nevertheless he that standeth stedfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.

38So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.

39The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

40But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

The distress was the church under perscution, not the second coming.

 

[comrade1789]

1 Corinthians 7

The distress was the church under perscution, not the second coming.

Thank you for the clear outline of the scripture. That actually helped a lot.

 

[germangreek]

Paul said, “The time is short (v 29 above)”, by which most of us THINK he meant something like “Christ is coming in the next year or so, so marriage does not have the same urgency it might have had in your earlier life.” Whether he personally thought that or not, that is not what the Holy Spirit inspired him to write. What is inerrant is what the Holy Spirit meant according to what was actually written.

Paul might also have meant, with an eye on “the present distress”, that “many of you will suffer martyrdom soon, so it may be wise to delay marriage.” He may also have meant, “Christ is coming sooner than you think He is,” which is undoubtedly true.

I, for one, don’t have as lively an expectation of the Second Coming as I think a Christian ought to have, and I don’t know that I’ve ever encountered a Christian who has. I certainly include that nameless theologian above. What would my life be like, and how would I write, if I did? I believe in the Second Coming, but I tend to live as if it really means (as it has for all Christians up to now), my going to Christ in death. What if we really did console each other at funerals with the knowledge that one day (please God, may it be soon!) Christ will come and our lives will be very different and there will be no more sadness, and every tear will be wiped away?

 

[kepha1]

Recently a Catholic theologian told a group of inquiring young men that Paul and many of the Apostles believed that the end of time was near, that the Parousia was imminent (not in the eucharistic sense, but the Final Jundgement, Christ Coming in Glory). He used this as a springboard to then agrue that Paul’s views on marriage should be seen in this light. Specifically, the theologian was trying to contextualize Paul’s statement about not taking up a wife, and it was put in such a way that we could dismiss what Paul said about marriage because he thought the end was near. After a few emails back and forth with this theologian, my understanding of his position is correct. So my question is first, was Paul Wrong, did he really believe that it was the end (I don’t think he really did believe that), and if so, what does that mean for the Inerrancy of Scripture?

I understand the different senses of scripture, but i am having a problem with the precenent that is being set when this theologian is telling me I can dismiss one thing Paul said, makes me naturally ask, “what else did Paul say that I can reject?” This brother keeps accusing me of Sola Scriptura and refuses to move forward on the subject until I read the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, which I will soon enough. But I am not arguing for Sola Scriptura, but I also can’t understand how I can believe Paul was wrong about something that the Church allowed into the Canon of Scripture, and how it is not a slippery-slope to hold Paul in error on other issues.

I hope I was clear in this posting, if i need to re-state things, I certainly will. Can anyone help clear things up for me on this?

Thanks.

I can clear it up for you real easy.

IF this “Catholic theologian” actually said or wrote this, you should forward your emails to the chancery office. He looks like a wolf in sheeps clothing to me but that would be for the bishop to decide.

I would get permission from this “theologian” to post your emails on a public blog, and let us know where it is.

 

[Ron_Conte]

We can discern from Paul’s words in Sacred infallible Scripture that Paul thought Christ would return soon, even in a generation or a few generations. However, Scripture does not make that false assertion. The Holy Spirit prevented Paul from writing anything false in Scripture, even if Paul misunderstood one point or another.

 

[comrade1789]

We can discern from Paul’s words in Sacred infallible Scripture that Paul thought Christ would return soon, even in a generation or a few generations. However, Scripture does not make that false assertion. The Holy Spirit prevented Paul from writing anything false in Scripture, even if Paul misunderstood one point or another.

This has been my response to him. However, he seems to believe that he needs to educate me on the senses of scripure, that he needs to explain to me the error of Sola Scriputra (which is not what I am arguing, and besides, the issue of the Inerrancy of Scripture is a Catholic doctrine and is a separate issue from Sola Scriptura ) and the he won’t discuss the matter with any further until I have read the Pontifical Commission’s The Interpretation Of The Bible In The Church. So, I am slowly digesting that document, although I know he only recommended it because he either misunderstands where i am coming from, or is stalling. either way, it is worth the read and I am happy to be going through it.

 

[patg]

This has been my response to him. However, he seems to believe that he needs to educate me on the senses of scripure, that he needs to explain to me the error of Sola Scriputra (which is not what I am arguing, and besides, the issue of the Inerrancy of Scripture is a Catholic doctrine and is a separate issue from Sola Scriptura ) and the he won’t discuss the matter with any further until I have read the Pontifical Commission’s The Interpretation Of The Bible In The Church. So, I am slowly digesting that document, although I know he only recommended it because he either misunderstands where i am coming from, or is stalling. either way, it is worth the read and I am happy to be going through it.

You should also read Dei Verbum, especially where it mentions the lack of errors in scripture:

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings* for the sake of salvation**.*

Paul and many of the Apostles’ mistaken belief that the end of time was near has nothing to do with our salvation and thus claims of inerrancy are irrelevant.