Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: spunkets

That’s your interpretation, and here we are.

Interestingly, if the Church that wrote, preserved and canonized the Bible is fallible, then...

If Jesus founded a Church, which Scripture calls “the pillar and foundation of truth,” is it fallible?

The most significant question begged is the definition of infallibility, which the Church has the authority to define:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm


266 posted on 02/07/2012 12:04:30 PM PST by St_Thomas_Aquinas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 263 | View Replies ]


To: St_Thomas_Aquinas
"The most significant question begged is the definition of infallibility, which the Church has the authority to define:"

The Church has no such authority. Infallibility has only one rational meaning and it is not, nor was it ever defined by the Church. Infallibility means a persons logic can not be wrong, because of some special characteristic of their rational machinery that makes error impossible. The characteristic is that evidence and rational processing of evidence are not needed to determine truth. Truth is simply announced as such and is so, because of that miraculous nature of the machinery of mind possessed by the special person(s).

Every person is fallible and that is generally recognized in rational analysis. Infallibility only applies to those instances where rational analysis is rejected for the purposes of promoting some claim that has no rational support.

"If Jesus founded a Church, which Scripture calls “the pillar and foundation of truth,” is it fallible?"

Scripture doesn't call the Church, a collection of fallible beings, any such thing.

1 Timothy 3:15
"if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."

Logic applies. The living God is "the pillar and foundation of truth", else a collection of men are, as the infallible would claim. All others through an exercise of rational analysis would conclude the living God is "the pillar and foundation of truth", and that they are only students of and in no way any real foundation-especially an infallible one.

"That’s your interpretation, and here we are."

English and rational analysis are not to be interpreted. Interpretation is for those that reject rational analysis, and claim both infallibility and the authority to make up the meaning of words.

272 posted on 02/08/2012 9:14:40 AM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson