Posted on 12/10/2010 9:27:36 AM PST by marshmallow
Your Comment was “I am amazed that any Christian would suggest that a mere mortal, no matter how righteous or well taught, is immune from spritual error. When the “first Pope” was called “Satan” by Jesus Christ Himself (Matthew 16:23) and later denied his lord three times, wasn’t blasphemy involved? The Early Church Fathers are profitable reading but they are not inerrant. I suspect that they would be appalled by your implication. “
My comment had to do with Jesus knowing Peter was to be his foundation “Rock” prayed for Peter, so he would overcome Satan and then strengthen his fellow brethren and the church overall. Your comment leads one to believe that only the words from the Apostles have meaning. Yet words are interesting things and as we can tell by the various amount of religions based on Christianity many have interpreted them differently. For one to believe that only the words in the bible are all God gave to us leaves others wondering why God would have limited himself to this. Was not the bible itself composed by mere men? After all it was just a bunch of different scriptures before it became the bible and many were not included. Was it not assembled many years after the Apostles? Were these men inspired when they assemble the bible? If so then why could not St. Irenaeus have been inspired? If Not then what meaning is there in the bible for it would have no true foundation? Part of the foundation of Christianity has to do with the faith of inspiration in this case you say no way and I disagree and say yes way.
I for one think God also wrote things in our hearts, and left traditions such as the last super, which was both acted out and inscribe in scripture as one example. Yet is this to be found and practiced in most Christian religions?
Note: The Pope is not without error for if so why would he go to confession? He is guided by the holy spirit when studying and speaking on questions of faith of morals (Speaking from the Chair of Peter). He is human just as you and I and in so being fails to be perfect for sure.
Were the books of Holy Scripture inspired? Despite the fact that they were written by mere men, both Catholic and Protestant can agree that the Holy Spirit superintended the process to assure the writings' perfection in the case of the 66 books of the Protestant Bible. Catholics would insist that the same supernatural protection of the Holy Spirit was involved in the writing of the Books of the Apocrypha. Since the Catholic Church has not seen fit to canonize the writing of Irenaeus, his writings have to be seen as less inspired than these canonized writings. Valuable for the insight that they provide but not inerrant.
The fact that Irenaeus was only a couple of generations removed from the Apostles and sat under the teaching of Polycarp makes his writings valuable for the insights that they might provide about the practices of the Apostles but it doesn't provide a cloak of inerrancy to his writings. As far as I know, no one with any ecclesiastical authority (Catholic or Protestant) has canonized the writing of Irenaeus. So the working assumption has to be that these are the writings of a mere man and therefore could contain error.
It might be nice for casual readers for you to explain how the books of the New Testament became the NT Bible we have. The importance of having seen the Lord or those directly an Apostle who was with the Lord might be helpful to understand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.