Replies

I wrote : Clearly, the NT Bible never says anything about "itself" because it didn't exist yet! Thus, Sola Sciptura is a false teaching of men that leads people away from the Word of God as taught by the Apostles.

You responded :Again, before you would even consider the idea, you would require it to be the last verse in scripture. That is disingenuous.

You are making the classic mistake of presuming that the Bible fell out of heaven already printed and bound in its current configuration as we now hold it. If that were so, if the Bible was like the Koran claims to be, I would agree with you. But it is not. The letters were written independently of each other! Keep that in mind, FK. There wasn't a "NT Scriptures" that EVERYONE agreed on until the Church officially said what was and what wasn't Scriptures some 300 years later. We can presume that many churches didn't have EVERY letter from Paul or John, or even all the Gospels. They treasured what writings AND oral teachings that they had. Thus, why would you expect the Bible to have in the "last chapter" anything? There was no "last chapter" as John was sitting down writing Revelation!

Ah, but I have the teaching of 6000 years of God's teachings, backed by the promise of the Holy Spirit who CANNOT lead us into error.

How do you know when the Spirit is leading you or you are leading yourself? When two Protestants disagree, which one is the Spirit leading, if either? This is akin to the Mormon saying that he recognizes the "Spirit" and his writings by the "burning in the bosom". What a bunch of hog-wash.

Under your own theology, Christ promised guidance, but He would never promise to ensure that the Church was ever on the right path. He couldn't, because that would interfere with free will, and it would be Him forcing Himself on us. You say that can't happen. This may be a mini epiphany for me. Under Catholicism, how can anyone trust the Church to be correct if God demands that its members all have free will to disobey and propagate error?

Christ certainly DID promise the Spirit of Truth to the Church. Have you not read John's Gospel and the Last Supper Discourse? Or what about the verse I have been repeating from the Pastorals "the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth"? Christ promised that His Church would be guided by the Spirit, as Acts 15:28 tells us. "It seemed good to us AND the SPIRIT". Thus, in Counciliar decisions, using Acts 15 as precedent, the Spirit is guiding the Church when making a definitive statement that the Church has already previously believed, though not precisely defined yet. God guides the Church to infallibly speak His Word. This does not interfere with man's free will, since a pope can still choose to sin. He is NOT free to teach falsely - and this is something totally different from the will to choose to reject God in one's life or not.

How is that a tradition of men (the age of the earth)? Why couldn't someone whip out a calculator, read the Bible, and do some math?

Because it is based on several assumptions that the Bible does not explicitly state. First, the genealogical tables are not necessarily in chronological and historical order. It was normal to list only the important people on such lists, not every single chronological person. Often times, generations were skipped. Next, we don't know HOW long Adam lived before his sin. Perhaps it was millions of years? Who can say. And finally, if you look at the two creation stories, they contradict. That should be your sign, FK, that the stories are analogies that merely relate God's truths, not science's truths. Fundamentalists have desperately, and unsuccessfully tried to FORCE Genesis 1 and 2 to fit together because they feel it HAS to be historical! The age of the earth is from some Anglican Bishop of the 1600's, I think, not from the Bible.

I don't think that God is trying to trick us either. I just don't happen to think that the book is closed on a young earth.

Is this from a scientific or theological viewpoint? Scientists have refuted young earth evidence over and over. Taking an allegorical view in such a case is more prudent. But really, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other - it is still the inerrant word of God, which cannot be mistaken. If God inspired the writer of Jonah and MEANT it to be a parable, then the Scripture is still inerrant. It is OUR interpretation that is incorrect.

Regards

The letters were written independently of each other! Keep that in mind, FK. There wasn't a "NT Scriptures" that EVERYONE agreed on until the Church officially said what was and what wasn't Scriptures some 300 years later.

I suppose this is why we differ so much on this. I do not think that the NT was written "independently" because God knew what concepts He wanted covered, and He knew how He wanted all of the books to work together. So it happened, I do not think it was luck. Therefore, when one book talks about all scripture, it makes perfect sense to me that it applies to other books that haven't even been written yet. God knew what would wind up as scripture because He caused the compilation, not men.

I don't know anything about burning bosoms :), but I know that the Spirit is leading me when I think or do something that matches what the scripture teaches. I do consider what others have said on a particular interpretation, but those opinions must be backed with other scripture. On occasion, I also find it helpful to consider common practices of the time.

God guides the Church to infallibly speak His Word. This does not interfere with man's free will, since a pope can still choose to sin. He is NOT free to teach falsely - and this is something totally different from the will to choose to reject God in one's life or not.

But I thought that at least one Pope was declared a heretic, presumably for teaching falsely.

Often times, generations were skipped. Next, we don't know HOW long Adam lived before his sin. Perhaps it was millions of years? Who can say.

The Bible can. Adam sinned sometime in the first 130 years of his life. :

Gen. 5:3-5 : 3 When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. 4 After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 5 Altogether, Adam lived 930 years, and then he died.

Seth had to come after the fall because only two were booted from the Garden. In addition, if you throw out these numbers, then how do you know which other numbers should be thrown out? That seems like a pretty large slippery slope. Of course, some numbers are meant to be taken as allegory, such as how many times to forgive someone. But I don't think there are many examples of this, and they seem fairly easy to spot.

Is this [my young earth view] from a scientific or theological viewpoint? Scientists have refuted young earth evidence over and over. Taking an allegorical view in such a case is more prudent. But really, it doesn't matter to me one way or the other -

I suppose both. Much of what is considered good science at the time has gone on to be proven wrong. But I think that "old earthers" have some legitimate outs. In Gen. 2, it appears to be wide open how much time elapsed between the formation of the earth and the appearance of man. In Gen. 1, it is framed as in a matter of days. But since the counting of days started before men, there is a case that they could be "God-days". Such are referenced elsewhere in the Bible, such as in Ps. 90:4 and 2 Peter 3:8. But even those do not support an old earth, unless "a thousand" is meant as a an allegory, which could be. Overall, though, I think both sides have fair arguments.