We both agree that the Apostles COULD NOT be in error when teaching the faith. Paul in Galatians even mentions that he KNOWS THEY cannot be mistaken! "As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man] preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed" (Gal 1:9). There is a big difference between sinning and not teaching error. God doesn't protect men from sinning. Paul mentions in Romans 7 that he HIMSELF continues to war against the flesh. But yet, he KNOWS he cannot err in teaching the faith. Why? Because the Spirit of God is protecting his proclamation.
But if the Bible is inerrant, then it could not have been subject to human error
You seem to be lumping "sin" and "error" in the same definition. Again, we believe that the Apostles and their successors, due to Christ's promise, cannot err when, as a group, teach the faith. This includes putting pen to paper, teaching in public to the Galatians, or deciding what books infallibly belong in Scripture.
Through God's given grace and faith, I am able to see that the Bible is true and accept it.
That is pretty much the same argument that Mormons use. We have discussed the anthropology of man before, and you seem to agree that man is at the very least a wounded specimen, incapable of coming to God alone. Yet, now you "know" that your wounded (or depraved?) intellect is able to point out what Scripture is - alone and without mediation from another? I find this an interesting argument - "I know that Scripture is God's Word - because my (depraved) mind tells me it is". Really, is that it?
I don't see this as changing my faith all the time, the core hasn't changed, I just see it as learning more correctly the nature of the true faith that God already gave me.
Sure. I can agree with that. We all form conceptions in our minds on the faith. I believe God sometimes corrects ideas that we hold that are in error. But we are wounded in intellect and the will. It is difficult to rely on such things for correction-sake, because we can, as humans, convince ourselves of anything being true...
So, even when I teach new Christians something, my attitude is never "trust me", I have been a Christian for a long time, etc. I always say take a look at what I've said, see if it matches scripture and pray about it. The Spirit will then lead as He will
God mediates Himself through your teaching. People see you as trustworthy because of your WITNESS. They see your way of life, how you follow the Lord and your belief in Him. They see you as at peace - different from other people. They want that peace, that assuredness of God's presence in their lives. You are forgetting what moves people to conversion. God works through other people. The Scriptures are not meant to be read alone separate from His Church. The Scriptures merely help to verify the proclamation that needs no Scriptures - JESUS IS LORD! Our witness is stronger, in the eyes of others, than a book. The reason people look to the book in the first place is because they trust your witness and your word that your source for your peace is God and His Word - found in Scriptures.
I'd agree it is debatable whether he was also referring to (what would become) the NT
Debatable?! How about "no doubt"! Paul was refering to a book written before Timothy's youth! Couldn't be the NT... In any case, we don't find a "table of contents" that is inspired and found in Scriptures. The Book of James doesn't list all the other books that belong. We have to rely on the decisions of men to determine WHAT is Scriptures. Perhaps you find that offensive. But that is the unarguable truth of the matter. If you believe that the Bible is infallible and inerrant, how does one explain that fallible men put it together? If one is infallible, so was the other.
Wouldn't you agree that the Bible stands alone in the history of religious literature as the only book, written through many different people, across hundreds of years, with a firmly consistent message without contradiction, etc.?
Of course, because God guided men protected by the Spirit to compile it. Naturally, if they could compile such an infallible book - and Paul could say their teachings were infallible, I have a difficult time understanding why the Spirit of Truth doesn't protect the ordinary special teachings of these same men.
Every single prophecy which subject has come to pass has turned out to be absolutely true.
Be careful on that one, brother. Prophesy is subject to interpretation. We interpret the OT prophesy has having been fulfilled by Jesus - such is what we have been taught. However, the OT never mentions Jesus of Nazareth as being the Messiah. WE as Christians say that. They Jews, the authors of the OT, did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah. What this means is that prophesy is subject to interpretation. Prophesy ITSELF does not prove Jesus was the Messiah, because prophesy is by nature vague.
If you are trying to start a movement, would you highlight stuff like that? Can any other book say 'yes' to all of those things?
Please don't misunderstand me. I agree that the Bible is God's Inspired Word. It is just that I believe that based on the witness of other men - men who were willing to die for their witness. Men who could have just as easily remained under the protection offered their Jewish brothers (an accepted religion in Rome) by not that a man rose from the dead. Their way of life, their teachings, the miracles reported even by hostile witnesses. And this continued for centuries. The truth of the matter is that either Jesus was a lunatic, a liar, or our Lord. Based on what we have, the witness of His followers, based on how so many people have followed this Man, I can't help but think He was the latter. But to accept that the Scripture is God-breathed FIRST is a circular argument that does not stand up to critical argument. We believe the Bible is the Word of God BECAUSE of those men, not the other way around!
men had nothing to do with their organization into what became the Bible.
I would suggest you do some reading on the forming of the Canon of Scripture. You are beginning to sound like you think that the scrolls of James had a stamp on them that said "Inspired Scripture, please hold for 300 years until the Council of Carthage"... Start by reading who Marcion was - and why HIS verison of the Canon was not taken up. THe reason why, of course, is because the men of the Church already KNEW what were the teachings of the Apostles. They HAD the Deposit of Faith. Thus, Marcion didn't ring true - not because of Scripture, but because of Tradition.
I'm just saying that God was the final editor and controlled the entire process. He allowed the personalities of the scribes to come through, but the message was all God's.
Yes, of course. However, again, I ask you to read about the formation of the canon of Scripture. Many Christian commmunities felt that the Spirit was leading them to include the First Letter of Clement to the Corinthians as Scripture. Others thought the Shepherd of Hermes belonged. Many didn't agree that 2nd Peter was Scripture. Some didn't think the Book of Revelation was from God. Isn't it obvious that individual men are not given the ability to infallibly determine what IS the Scriptures and to collate them into one book? This took the Church, infallibly guided by the Spirit, to make such judgments.
Why were these fundamentals left out, or not clearer? Even with a traditional paradigm, aren't there too many things left wide open for the future Protestants to assail later?
Apparently, the writers of the Scriptures didn't foresee the Protestant Reformation and their decision to ignore the Church's authority on such matters. I ask you to consider this....When you write a letter, do you write EVERYTHING you did to someone? No, you focus on something that sticks out in your mind, something you consider important. You don't write a letter and include how to eat a bowl of cereal! Thus, since the vast majority of the NT is letters, why would anyone expect everything taught by the first Christians to be in there? Doesn't Paul make it clear that he taught many things to his communities, some of them found in the written traditions, some not? In the quote from Galatians above, isn't it clear that Paul talked to the Galatians before he WROTE to them?
And why would he rehash EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE that he taught them in a letter? For the Protestants who would leave the Church 1500 years later??? Tne purpose of a letter is to address particulars, not to teach people of 1000 years latter the history of the Christian doctrines and beliefs. We write to people, understanding the nuances of our langauges, the customs of our times, the society that we live in. Historians regret that Paul and other didn't write more, because we have precious little knowledge of the times. But the fact remains that Paul was no different then we would have been. Paul was addressing problems and exhorting his communities, not writing a full exposition of the Catholic faith, all its practices and doctrines, in his letters. He understood that was the point of having an authoritative group of men. Did he not ordain men to continue his work, or did he leave a book to teach future men? And yet, you seem to forget this and place your faith in a book alone which is not self-attesting?
To me that is "a" proof that we are right and Arius is wrong, plus, if that's what the JWs say then enough said. :) And, doesn't the Spirit lead both of us to the same place (as we perceive it) on so many issues? I think that's great.
Unfortunately, as the existence of Protestantism shows, men do not agree on what is "valid" Christian teaching on many issues, some being of eternal importance. Without an heirarchial authority that is accepted by the Church, Arius would have just started another church and dragged away more unwitting catholics to eternal doom. The intent of Christ was to establish an authoritative body who knew HIS teaching and could bind and loosen on such matters.
My argument to Arius would not have been so much "that is not what we have been taught" as much as it would have been "that's not what the totality of scripture teaches".
Scripture alone does not interpret itself. Doesn't thousands of denominations convince you otherwise? These are not just on minor issues, brother. Look at the Arminius vs. Calvin discussions. Is Baptism an ordinance or a sacrament necessary for salvation? The Eucharist? I find this particularly scandalous, because NOWHERE in the Scriptures do we find that Christians had many faiths and beliefs, "as long as they agreed on the main issues". That is the relativistic individualism of Protestantism, not what is taught in Scripture. We are taught one faith, one Baptism, and one Lord. We partake in one loaf. We are one Body, not many. Communion implies a sharing of beliefs. Unfortunately, we don't share in beliefs on key issues.
Your continued reliance on the "Spirit" is purely subjective. What is the difference between what you see as the "Spirit" and what might be your own fancy? How do we identify between the two? One month ago, you thought the "Spirit" was leading you to believe in "the absolute assuredness of salvation" and then today, the "Spirit" leads you to "perseverance of the Saints"? Why is it that last month, the Spirit was leading you to the former belief, and then, today, He has changed His mind, leading you somewhere else? Isn't this proof enough that the Spirit doesn't lead every one of our actions and beliefs and thoughts? Merely identifying your current beliefs with the "Spirit leading me" is another way of justifying yourself and your beliefs. How do you KNOW such thoughts are from the Spirit, and not your own intellect, or even worse, Satan???
If the Spirit doesn't (ultimately or directly) lead me, and I'm just making it up, then I'm not a Christian in the first place.
We must discern WHAT the Spirit is saying. We cannot equate every thought we have as coming from the Spirit. That is why we cannot trust our own intellects and wills to infallibly lead us to God's will and teachings. Our human condition REQUIRES a protected body to lead us, since we cannot infallibly follow Christ alone - we interject too many errors into the process. The Spirit leads us always in line with how He leads the visible Body of Christ. When we read something and take it in contradistinction from how He leads the Body, we can be assured that we are treading dangerous ground. Beware of pride. The Spirit does not lead us astray from the Body.
On the question of who's to say whether my interpretation or that of the JW is correct, I can simply rest in how the Spirit leads me
You won't convince many people on that argument, because they say the same thing. Either the Spirit is lying, or one (or both) are misinterpreting what the Spirit is saying. The question, then, is :" how do you discern infallibly the Spirit"? How do you know the JW is wrong and you are right? BOTH of you 'claim' the Spirit! What an impasse. Just this example should be proof that one treads on dangerous ground when they use private interpretation and claiming that "the Spirit is leading me" - a virtual impossiblity considering the Spirit supposedly leads so many others in different directions. I will call this pride and leave it to you to discern if I am correct or not.
Regards
We both agree that the Apostles COULD NOT be in error when teaching the faith.
I do believe the Apostles themselves were given special abilities to spread the truth, so I am not inclined to scream bloody murder at this. There's a bone. :)
Me: "But if the Bible is inerrant, then it could not have been subject to human error."
You seem to be lumping "sin" and "error" in the same definition. Again, we believe that the Apostles and their successors, due to Christ's promise, cannot err when, as a group, teach the faith. This includes putting pen to paper, teaching in public to the Galatians, or deciding what books infallibly belong in Scripture.
But ONE PARAGRAPH AGO you saw me list sin and error separately. I was making a distinction. In my next statement I only said "error". I didn't think it possible for sin to be involved in the writing of scripture, so I also eliminated error. Notwithstanding unintentional sin mentioned in the OT, I am using these words to mean "sin" (intentional) vs. "error" (unintentional).
Me: "Through God's given grace and faith, I am able to see that the Bible is true and accept it."
... We have discussed the anthropology of man before, and you seem to agree that man is at the very least a wounded specimen, incapable of coming to God alone. Yet, now you "know" that your wounded (or depraved?) intellect is able to point out what Scripture is - alone and without mediation from another? I find this an interesting argument - "I know that Scripture is God's Word - because my (depraved) mind tells me it is". Really, is that it?
I believe that when we are born, man is much more than wounded, he is DEAD in sin. Perhaps this is a semantics issue. I said that God gives me grace and that God gives me faith. Through these, then, I am able to "see". My intellect has no ability of its own. The Spirit translates and interprets for me, but in my own weakness I am still capable of missing the correct interpretation. Sanctification makes me better able to avoid that error on my part. I believe this is consistent with what I have been saying all along.
The Scriptures are not meant to be read alone separate from His Church. The Scriptures merely help to verify the proclamation that needs no Scriptures - JESUS IS LORD! Our witness is stronger, in the eyes of others, than a book. The reason people look to the book in the first place is because they trust your witness and your word that your source for your peace is God and His Word - found in Scriptures.
While I would never say the scriptures "merely" do anything, I do agree that witnessing is very important. God tasked us with this honor. I did not mean to imply that I chat with someone, throw him a Bible, and say "let me know how it works out". :) I always follow up with further teaching and encouragement.
I do not believe my little witness will ever be stronger than God's word. Since my witness is based upon it, the best I can do is not blow it. I can't surpass it, and I am not perfect, God's word is. I fully agree with you that seekers are very attracted to the peace that we hopefully exhibit. I firmly remember being that seeker.
If you believe that the Bible is infallible and inerrant, how does one explain that fallible men put it together? If one is infallible, so was the other.
One of the main points I have been making is that fallible men did not put the Bible together. God alone did through His use of men. There were no accidents, there was no luck. God takes no chances based on the decisions of fallible men.
The Jews, the authors of the OT, did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah. What this means is that prophesy is subject to interpretation. Prophesy ITSELF does not prove Jesus was the Messiah, because prophesy is by nature vague.
I agree that prophesy is subject to interpretation, but then, so is everything. Some "Christians" interpret that Jesus was married. You and I appear to interpret the same on this even though we differ on the path. Many Jews chose to not see what was in plain view, "live". Later Jews are forced to throw out the whole NT, it never happened, all lies, etc. We know this is not a reasonable interpretation.
I would say that the shear volume of prophecies about Christ, vague or not, interpreted or not, DO prove the identity of Christ as Savior. Statistical probability studies have been done and there is no doubt. If someone wants to interpret away the prophecies that doesn't change the truth.
The truth of the matter is that either Jesus was a lunatic, a liar, or our Lord.
You are quoting Josh McDowell. Outstanding! :)
Isn't it obvious that individual men are not given the ability to infallibly determine what IS the Scriptures and to collate them into one book? This took the Church, infallibly guided by the Spirit, to make such judgments.
Yes, it is indeed obvious. I would only disagree that the Church was "guided". I would say that it was "directed".
Thus, since the vast majority of the NT is letters, why would anyone expect everything taught by the first Christians to be in there? Doesn't Paul make it clear that he taught many things to his communities, some of them found in the written traditions, some not?
Yes, I can accept that, and I wouldn't expect that everything taught would be included. It just seems odd to me that so many controversial (according to Protestants) teachings were not included. Were they not written down by anyone, even just for reference? If you were a free will writer of scripture, wouldn't you want to include the core doctrine of practice in your writings, at least somewhere? You made the analogy that no one writes down how to eat a bowl of cereal. The difference is that from the time of the first bowl until today, no one has ever argued about it. Not so with Catholic tradition.
And why would he rehash EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE that he taught them in a letter? For the Protestants who would leave the Church 1500 years later???
Of course he wouldn't rehash everything. I would think that he would rehash some more of what is now known as tradition. After all, aren't there many very important principles in the traditions that we have only the faith in men to know are true? As for not being able to see potential future problems in doctrine, I guess the writers were not nearly as blessed as we were led to believe. You rely on the special powers of the Apostles for authority, but none of them was wise enough to foresee a major doctrinal split ripping Christianity apart. That seems strange to me, if it was a bad thing.
Did he [Paul] not ordain men to continue his work, or did he leave a book to teach future men? And yet, you seem to forget this and place your faith in a book alone which is not self-attesting?
Of course. I'll put my trust in God's word, and you can put your trust in other men you hope have been inspired. Ask yourself why you believe the Bible is not self-attesting. It is only because men of the Church instructed you to interpret it this way. Why do you believe these men of the Church are infallible? Because they said so. What do you use as proof of their infallibility? A non-self-attesting Bible.
Why is it that last month, the Spirit was leading you to the former belief, and then, today, He has changed His mind, leading you somewhere else? Isn't this proof enough that the Spirit doesn't lead every one of our actions and beliefs and thoughts?
The Spirit never changes His mind, He changes my mind. This is what we call sanctification. I'm surprised that you do not appear to believe in it. I take it then that everything you know today you knew at the first moment you became a Christian? Further, that you don't expect to learn anything else in your faith for the rest of your life? This is perfect proof that the Spirit does lead. The Spirit knows that, unlike others, I am unable to absorb all truth in a single moment. The Spirit therefore leads me on a pace that I can handle. This will last for the rest of my life and I give all glory to God for it.
How do you KNOW such thoughts are from the Spirit, and not your own intellect, or even worse, Satan???
That's what faith is, and I'm sticking to it. If I am no more than a useful idiot to Satan then I will pay the price later. I live in God-given confidence and power that this won't be the case.
Me: "On the question of who's to say whether my interpretation or that of the JW is correct, I can simply rest in how the Spirit leads me."
You won't convince many people on that argument, because they say the same thing. Either the Spirit is lying, or one (or both) are misinterpreting what the Spirit is saying. The question, then, is :" how do you discern infallibly the Spirit"? How do you know the JW is wrong and you are right? BOTH of you 'claim' the Spirit! ... I will call this pride and leave it to you to discern if I am correct or not.
I would never use that argument on anyone else. I thought I was being clear enough that this was an argument I would use with myself. You are right that it would not work on another person.
From all of your posts on related matters, it is becoming more clear to me that you do not believe that the Holy Spirit leads non-Catholic-clergy at all. Every time a Protestant says the Spirit has led me to such and such, you immediately dismiss the idea and equate it with vanity and pride in the so-called believer. What can I say? I know the Spirit lives in me. I know the Spirit loves me. I know the Spirit leads me. If I can't convince you, then I can't convince you.