"Why are there so many different Christian interpretations? If all Christians have th

[ALLFORHIM]

Apology accepted. Please don’t pull something like that ever again.

Here’s my question again. I’m not asking for specifics about the way God used. If you want to say his way was “superintending,” I don’t care. I just want a yes/no/I don’t know response.

4) Did God provide a way in which human beings, even though not sinless, when they penned scripture, would write only the truth, that what they wrote would be 100% inerrant?

Sometimes a yes/no answer wouldnt be good enough. I dont want to mislead anyone else who is reading this.

I believe post 278 answered your question.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Sometimes a yes/no answer wouldnt be good enough. I dont want to mislead anyone else who is reading this.

I believe post 278 answered your question.

I’m afraid your answer in post 278 is not enough.

I don’t care what the way is. That’s not what the discussion is about at all. In fact, it’s irrelevant to my point. I don’t intend to get into what the way is with you at all. What I’m interested in is whether or not there was a way.

If there wasn’t a way, I will be forced to conclude scripture has errors. Here is my question again:

4) Did God provide a way in which human beings, even though not sinless, when they penned scripture, would write only the truth, that what they wrote would be 100% inerrant?

Yes/no/I don’t know

 

[ALLFORHIM]

I’m afraid your answer in post 278 is not enough.

 

[sandusky]

Kay Cee:

Did God provide a way in which human beings, even though not sinless, when they penned scripture, would write only the truth, that what they wrote would be 100% inerrant?

yes.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Sorry that is my answer.

Look, if you want to qualify your answer by saying, “Yes, but by ‘a way’ I mean X, Y, and Z” that’s fine. If you want to reword the question to sandusky’s way–“even though sinners”–that’s fine too. But I do need a yes/no/I don’t know answer.

And if you really think I would conclude scripture has errors, you don’t understand how a logical argument works. I said a “no” answer would force me to logically conclude that from what you have said. It doesn’t mean I would believe it. You do understand the difference, don’t you?

 

[sandusky]

Look, if you want to qualify your answer by saying, “Yes, but by ‘a way’ I mean X, Y, and Z” that’s fine. If you want to reword the question to sandusky’s way–“even though sinners”–that’s fine too. But I do need a yes/no/I don’t know answer.

And if you really think I would conclude scripture has errors, you don’t understand how a logical argument works. I said a “no” answer would force me to logically conclude that from what you have said. It doesn’t mean I would believe it. You do understand the difference, don’t you?

Lighten up!

You are forgetting the Catholic obsession with charity, and not being a very a good witness.

I answered yes to your question.

Why don’t you proceed with your argument.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Look, if you want to qualify your answer by saying, “Yes, but by ‘a way’ I mean X, Y, and Z” that’s fine. If you want to reword the question to sandusky’s way–“even though sinners”–that’s fine too. But I do need a yes/no/I don’t know answer.

Calm down its ok. Please can we move on with the point you are trying to make or I guess our conversation is over.

 

[jmcrae]

.
This is what I believe the purpose of the Church to be:

**Acts 2:42 could be considered a purpose statement for the church, “They devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer.” **

I’m with you, right up to here.

So, according to this Scripture, the purposes / activities of the church should be: (1) teaching Biblical doctrine,

 

[jmcrae]

Some final purposes of the church are given in James 1:27, “Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” The church is to be about the business of ministering to those who are in need. This includes not only sharing the Gospel, but also providing for physical needs (food, clothing, shelter) as necessary and appropriate.

Yes - and when people are in desperate need, where’s the first place they know to come? They come first to the nearest Catholic Church, because they know that even if we can’t give them what they want right away, that we have an agency that they can go to, and get the help that they need.

The church is also to equip believers in Christ with the tools they need to overcome sin and remain free from the pollution of the world. This is done by the principles given above – Biblical teaching and Christian fellowship.

Have you ever checked out our Catechism?

So, with all that said, what is the purpose of the church? I like the illustration in 1 Corinthians 12:12-27. The church is God’s “body” – we are His hands, mouth, and feet in this world. We are to be doing the things that Jesus Christ would do if He were here physically on the earth. The church is to be “Christian” – “Christ-like” and Christ-following

Yes - but in order to work together, the body parts have to be united together, and all connected to the same nervous system, spinal column, and head. All the body parts have to be receiving the same commands - they can’t be making stuff up as they go along, regardless of the signals they’re getting from the head.

Which could be any church that follows what the Apostles taught us in the bible. I dont see this being limited to the CC.

No - but it would exclude any that were not devoting themselves to all of the Apostolic teachings.

 

[deb216]

This is when they should sit down–go to the original language the bible was written in(Greek and Hebrew) and see what it says. So going to scripture in original language is really the only way. Since this is a difficult task for most people–we do rely on our ministers/priests/bishops(who have done the work)to teach us. My minister always gives us the greek when teaching us scripture. Since most people are unwilling or just dont have the interst or time–we have different intrepretations.

Hand a dictionary to someone who does not speak English and what they will spout is pure gibberish. The words may be technically correct, but knowing a word does not make you fluent in a language. It does not make you knowedgeable. The same is true for any language.

I know two very devout non-Catholic Christians who read the Bible religiously. Both have the greek lexicon. Both have prayed for guidance from the Holy Spirit. Both claim to have the truth on their side. Their interpretations are very different.

So which is right? Do not presume that either lacks education, devotion, comprehension or faith. In that they are equals. If they cannot disagree and both be right, who has truth on his side?

 

[RNRobert]

This is when they should sit down–go to the original language the bible was written in(Greek and Hebrew) and see what it says. So going to scripture in original language is really the only way. Since this is a difficult task for most people–we do rely on our ministers/priests/bishops(who have done the work)to teach us. My minister always gives us the greek when teaching us scripture. Since most people are unwilling or just dont have the interst or time–we have different intrepretations.

Jmcrae answered this pretty well, but I’ll put in some thing as well.
As he pointed out, most Christians can’t read the original languages. You say we should rely on our ministers for this task. But, what if they disagree? A minister from one church claims the Scriptures teach we must be baptized, and the minister from another church claims Scripture teaches the opposite. I can go to a church one Sunday and hear it proclaimed from the pulpit that Baptism provides grace, while the next Sunday I can hear it preached from another pulpit that baptism is merely an external ritual. A learned minister at one church will tell me the Scriptures teach us that we are already predestined for heaven or hell, while another minister from a different church says we choose our fate. One minister from a particular church will use the scriptures to show we cannot lose our salvation, while another minister uses the scriptures to show how we can. And so on and on and on ad nauseam.
As Kay Cee said, salvation is serious business. The Apostles in the Bible did not contradict them selves in such fashion, and I want to be in the church that teaches with the same authority today.

 

[apophasis]

RNRobert:

Why shouldn’t the church have leadership supremacy?

Sepremacy over the Scriptures? Sepremacy over the Word of God itself?

The church (specifically the Catholic church) existed before the New Testament.

But did it exist before its Divine Author? Is a creature greater than its Creator? Is a student greater than its Teacher?

It wrote, preserved and set the New Testament canon.

God used individual men to write the Scriptures. Individual men copied the original autographs, thus preserving them. And as far as I know there never was an Ecumenical Council that set the canon of N.T. Scriptures.

And there is nothing in Catholic teaching that contradicts Scripture (though there are many things in Protestant teachings that do contradict Scripture).

And you know this how? Tradition?

Besides, if two Christians disagree on what Scripture teaches, who is the final arbiter?

First of all, how do you know that they’re not both wrong? The final arbiter will be Christ Himself since all Christians must stand before His judgment seat (2 Cor. 5:10; cf. Ja. 3:1). So for this reason alone, one must be very careful how he handles the written Word of God (2 Tim. 2:15). He WILL be held accountable (you might want to read those seven guidelines again).

Simply assigning “infallibility” and all authority over to other men and then blindly following their lead won’t get you off the hook. Adam didn’t get away with “passing the buck” in the Garden, did he? Nor will you when you stand before Christ in the future.

 

[Blue_Serenity]

Hand a dictionary to someone who does not speak English and what they will spout is pure gibberish. The words may be technically correct, but knowing a word does not make you fluent in a language. It does not make you knowedgeable. The same is true for any language.

I know two very devout non-Catholic Christians who read the Bible religiously. Both have the greek lexicon. Both have prayed for guidance from the Holy Spirit. Both claim to have the truth on their side. Their interpretations are very different.

So which is right? Do not presume that either lacks education, devotion, comprehension or faith. In that they are equals. If they cannot disagree and both be right, who has truth on his side?

Obviously one or both of them does NOT have the Truth then. Scripture can NOT contradict itself and no two interpretations that differ can be right. Sounds like pride is getting in the way of their Truth.
They sound like Pharisees.

 

[apophasis]

jmcare:

If God did not protect the eight men who wrote the New Testament from writing error, then how do we know for sure that they didn’t write error?

Because Scripture itself testifies of its own divine Authorship:2 Tim. 3:16 "All Scripture is inspired (Gr. theopneustos, “God-breathed”)"You know that God cannot error. The inerrancy of the Scriptures does not rest with its human authors, but its Divine author. For instance, was Peter “protected” when Jesus asked His disciples in Matt. 16 who they thought He was? Peter responded correctly and Jesus told him that he was blessed because this was revealed to Him by His Father in heaven. Now the veracity of Peter’s statement was not based on some temporary infallibility of Peter, but the One who revealed it to him. Was Peter being “protected” from error? I think not, since in the very next moment he was being harshly rebuked by Christ. In like manner the inerrancy of the Scriptures does not rest in men but in the One who cannot error, the One who inspired (breathed) them.

The Church has always looked at history,the oral tradition, the intended audience, the literary style, the culture of the time in which it was written, the original languages, and the four senses of Scripture (literal, allegorical, anagogical, and moral) to help us understand the Scriptures.

And you know this how? You’re not even allowed to question/challenge the traditions of your church.

After all, our Church was there when the Apostles were our leaders.

Of course this statement is based on RC tradition, not Scripture. The Scriptues emphatically state that ALL believers are baptized into the “body of Christ” by the Holy Spirit at the time of personal faith in Christ, and the “body of Christ” IS “the Church” (Acts 1:5; 11:15; 1 Cor. 12:13; Eph. 1:22-23; 4:4-6; 5:23; Col. 1:18).The Church is made up of all true believers, being a temple in the Lord, its foundation the Apostles, its corner stone Christ Himself (Eph. 2:20-22). There’s no mention of Rome here.

Where was your church, when the first members of my church were sitting on the grass, passing around a basket of loaves and fishes that never became empty, no matter how much food anyone took out of it?

Tradition, not Scripture. Christ Himself puts the building of His Church as yet future to His earthly ministry in Matt. 16:18. And we know, based on the Scriptues, that not until the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was anyone baptized by Him into the “body of Christ,” which is “the Church.” So, no, no member of your “church” was sitting on the grass eating bread and fish. Jews were, but no member of your church.Matt 15:24 "But He answered and said, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel."The Church did not begin until Pentecost, and Christ by that time had already ascended bodily back to heaven. Go back and read # 7, jm. You’re distorting the Scriptures with your traditions.

Oh that’s right - your religion didn’t even start until many centuries later.

I have no “religion.” I have a faith in Christ which goes back to the Apostles, and as far back as Abraham, and further still:2 Pet. 1:1 Simon Peter, a bond-servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness of our God and Savior, Jesus Christ…"

Gal 3:7 Therefore, be sure that it is those who are of faith who are sons of Abraham.

Gal 3:26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

As an RC, I’m not really into numerology - we are taught that it’s a sin to get involved in such things as numerology, horoscopes, ouija boards, the I Ching, etc.

That’s good, however, number seven on the list has nothing to do with such things.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Lighten up!

You are forgetting the Catholic obsession with charity, and not being a very a good witness.

I answered yes to your question.

Why don’t you proceed with your argument.

Excuse me, but my conversation is with AFH, and I wanted to see what *she *had to say about it, not you.

I was waiting for her answer, not yours.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Calm down its ok. Please can we move on with the point you are trying to make or I guess our conversation is over.

Well, I’m trying to understand. Either God provided a way so that scripture would be penned with 100% inerrancy, or he didn’t.

That’s why it’s a yes/no question.

I don’t understand why it’s so hard to answer yes or no to that. If the answer is no, the Bible could contain errors. If the answer is yes, the Bible has no errors.

I don’t care what the way God used is. For the purposes of this discussion, it doesn’t matter. But since people wrote the words of scripture down, didn’t God have to have a way to ensure they wrote the right words?

I’m sorry emotions are running high. That was never my intent. But you seem to be misinterpreting me, or I’m not very good at getting my point across. Otherwise, these questions should be easy and simple to answer.

But I agree with you that if you cannot answer this with a yes or no, the conversation is over.

 

[sandusky]

Excuse me, but my conversation is with AFH, and I wanted to see what *she *had to say about it, not you.

I was waiting for her answer, not yours.

I didn’t think you had a point.

 

[jmcrae]

Because Scripture itself testifies of its own divine Authorship:2 Tim. 3:16 "All Scripture is inspired (Gr. theopneustos, “God-breathed”)"You know that God cannot error.

No, He can’t. But the Scriptures did not fall fully formed from out of the sky. They were written by human beings. Not everything that was written was Scripture. Not every human being who was writing was divinely inspired.

But some writings were Scripture, and some writers were divinely inspired.

Without the infallible protection and guidance of the Holy Spirit, we have no way of knowing which writings were inspired - after all, if II Timothy is not an inspired writing, then the statement that “all Scripture is inspired” doesn’t have to be true - any more than the Book of Mormon’s claims of divine inspiration are true, or than the Koran’s claims are true.

I’m sure you don’t believe that just because the Koran says so itself, that it was actually dictated by the Angel Gabriel to Mohammed, or that, even though it is written in the pages of the Book of Mormon itself, that Joseph Smith was taking dictation from the Angel Moroni.

Believing that the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible itself claims such, isn’t enough - otherwise (in order to be consistent) we’d also have to believe the claims of every other holy book that claims Divine authorship.

In the case of the Bible, we rely on Apostolic Tradition to tell us that, first of all, II Timothy is one of the inspired books of the Bible, and secondly, that the Scriptures to which St. Paul was referring were, in fact, the Old and New Testaments.

The inerrancy of the Scriptures does not rest with its human authors, but its Divine author. For instance, was Peter “protected” when Jesus asked His disciples in Matt. 16 who they thought He was? Peter responded correctly and Jesus told him that he was blessed because this was revealed to Him by His Father in heaven. Now the veracity of Peter’s statement was not based on some temporary infallibility of Peter, but the One who revealed it to him. Was Peter being “protected” from error? I think not, since in the very next moment he was being harshly rebuked by Christ. In like manner the inerrancy of the Scriptures does not rest in men but in the One who cannot error, the One who inspired (breathed) them.

Yes, that’s what we believe - and we also believe that the infallibility of the Pope and the Magesterium does not come from their personal merits, but from God.

That’s why it doesn’t matter if they are sinners - even if they behave as badly as Peter did (and I am not aware of any Pope after St. Peter who actually denied knowing Christ - some of them did some bad things, but nothing that bad, I don’t think - St. Peter was the very worst of the lot, and he was the one appointed by Christ Himself - which is more proof that everything good is from God).

And you know this how? You’re not even allowed to question/challenge the traditions of your church.

Do you think that Catholic tradition happens without me? Do you think that I am off sleeping in a corner while all these things are going on, or that there is a “they” out there somewhere doing some kind of secret stuff that isn’t the “we” of which I became a member when I became Catholic?

I know that this is how we do Bible study because this is how I do Bible study in the Catholic Church. This is what happens when we - my Catholic friends and I - gather in the church basement and open our Bibles.

 

[Kay_Cee]

I didn’t think you had a point.

I’m trying the understand where *she’s *coming from. That’s why the questions are addressed to her.

 

[jmcrae]

Obviously one or both of them does NOT have the Truth then. Scripture can NOT contradict itself and no two interpretations that differ can be right. Sounds like pride is getting in the way of their Truth.
They sound like Pharisees.

Assume that they aren’t Pharisees.

Assume that both are very sincere Christians, following the Holy Spirit to the best of their ability, and seeking diligently to know the Truth. And, using Bible Alone, in the original Greek, they come to different conclusions on foundational salvation issues such as the purpose and nature of Baptism, predestination, etc.

Assume also that they aren’t arguing with each other, and that pride has nothing to do with it. They don’t even know each other, and are totally unaware that other people read the same things they read in the Bible, and think they mean something else.