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.
You replied: You are quoting Josh McDowell. Outstanding! :)
I have read some of his work, but I was actually quoting C.S. Lewis and "Mere Christianity".
I would only disagree that the Church was "guided". I would say that it was "directed".
What is the distinction? In either case, God is the power behind it. Catholics don't make the claim that our leaders are infallible based on their own ability! It is clear that the Tradition of the Church, the Scriptures and the Fathers, note that God infallibly guides His Bride. Thus, when I mention earlier that the Council determined the contents of Scripture, this is based on the Holy Spirit's guidance, Who was able to "guide" those men to infallibly determine Scripture.
Whether it is on the contents of Scripture OR making a decision on a belief ("is Jesus the same essence as God the Father?"), do you not agree that God would protect His Church, the Faithful, from error? If you think that the Scriptures are infallible, I do not understand why you refuse to accept God working through these same men to make decisions on the Faith. What good is Scriptures, frankly, if people have incorrect ideas about God that are not corrected?
It just seems odd to me that so many controversial (according to Protestants) teachings were not included.
They were NOT controversial at the time! Paul wrote to the Galatians about Judaizers and circumcision. Why? Because of false teachers who were influencing the community. Paul didn't write about irregular practices of the Eucharist (as in Corinth) because there WERE no such problems. Things like "Mary is the Mother of God" hadn't come up while the Apostles were alive or everyone agreed with that teaching and it never came up. Again, the writings were directed at people from the First Century, not the Sixteenth Century. Thus, it is illogical to believe that Paul should have discussed things that didn't come up - either because they were commonly held (Eucharist is Christ's Body) or were not theologically discussed yet (Mary was Assumed into heaven).
Can you tell me why God would change how He leads His Church? What He did with the Apostles, we believe He continues today and until the end of time. A visible Church that authoritatively interprets Scriptures. In matters of faith and morals, we need a Body that protects what was handed down - the Deposit of Faith. This is serious business, because we believe that Deposit CAME FROM GOD. It is not subject to our spin or change with the culture. Nothing is added to it (there will NEVER be a fourth person in the Trinity, women will NEVER be ordained by the Church, and so forth - no matter what culture says).History has taught us that men alone will not agree on what the Scripture tells us. Thus, we need an authority protected by God Himself.
Thus, while people say that the Spirit leads them to believe "X" or "Y", we MUST disagree, as the Spirit of Truthy doesn't teach two different things. THAT is what the Church is for. Can you imagine if no one could point to a teaching (is God one, two or three or four persons) that was TRUE? What would BE the point of Scriptures if there was not something to back it up and say "THIS is what it means"?
I'll put my trust in God's word
Can you go through the process of proving that the Bible is God's Word WITHOUT the witness of the Church? The Bible is not self-attesting in its individual books! Explain Philemon or Jude. Why? I have yet to hear an answer on this front.
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.
I never said that! What I am saying is that YOU (or HIM) cannot be sure if the pastor at your church is teaching the truth, or his own version of the truth. Sure, he might happen to coincide with the Apostolic sense of the Scriptures - what God meant for Scripture to teach. He might happen to teach VERY Catholic teachings, such as on abortion or the Trinity. But when they deviate from Catholic teachings, rest assured, they are wrong and are not following the Spirit, but their own personal ideas. God does not teach its Church one thing, and your pastor another.
The Spirit is most certainly active in your pastor. We can know someone by their fruit. But we are speaking on two different levels. I am not speaking about a person's personal sanctification. I am speaking about a person's knowledge of God, about proper teachings that God has given His Apostles. Those don't change - despite what you pastor thinks is his personal abilities in the Spirit to be holy and free from sin. God has given the Church Apostles, teachers, preachers, prophets, and so forth. We are not ALL teachers. We are not ALL prophets. Your pastor has heard God's calling to proclaim the Word. But it is not supposed to be according to HIS opinion, but God's. He has already given this to the Apostles and their teachings - both oral and written. Deviate from that, and you are following men, whether you admit this or not.
Regards