Why would God have bothered to inspire the writing of the Bible if His goal was to have it be incomplete? Does God have a long history of doing things half- ..... baked? But I have to remember again that you believe that the Bible is inerrant based on the same authority that you believe that extra-scriptural Tradition is inerrant. If a committee votes that the Bible is inerrant, and another committee votes that the writings of a particular Saint are also inerrant, then why wouldn't that Saint be on a par with the Apostles?
[continuing] They ONLY ADDRESSED things that they felt needed further explanation. Things that everyone believed were not given much attention.
Really? So let me get this straight. Everyone believed in an infant baptism, but further explanation was needed as to whether Jesus ever said anyone should get baptized? (What was the additional info?) And, everyone believed in a sinless Mary, but further explanation was needed as to whether she was the mother of Jesus? And finally, everyone knew that Jesus went down into hell, but further explanation was needed that He even died on the cross? Seems like the cart is before the horse in all these cases. Odd ducks, these early Christians.
What makes you think there was error in the oral teachings of the Apostles? What evidence do you have that oral was wrong and written was infallibly correct?
I didn't say that. I said that "error" came forth both before and after, and I meant error from any direction. I do not think the Apostles erred. As you know, I believe that the scripture proves itself to be infallibly correct. And, I do not say that everything oral is automatically wrong. If it passes the scriptural test, then it could very well be fine. Do you think that all extra-Biblical Tradition must pass a scriptural test? Or, in stark opposition, do you believe that Extra-Biblical Tradition is correct definitionally, so that any perceived conflict must be weighed in favor of the Tradition, and Biblical interpretation must therefore be made to conform?
So if I say "this is God's Word", followed by some sort of baloney, you'd believe it because I preceded it with "this is God's word"?
No, if you said "this is God's word ...", I would ask you to show me where it says that in God's word, the Bible. If you couldn't, then I would know that it's baloney. :)
FK: "I have never said that anything written equals something true. I have said that anything written from God beats out anything else "claimed" to be from God."
Really, what is the difference? Are you trying to say that because something is WRITTEN that it is from God, it is beyond reproof???
There is a big difference. The only things written from God are the 66 books of the Bible. They are true and superior to anything else, oral or written, claimed to be from God.
FK: "My understanding is that Sunday was chosen because Christ rose on a Sunday. What does that have to do with anything?"
BECAUSE IT WAS WRITTEN! Was it not WRITTEN that the seventh day of the week was the Sabbath? But then Christians, based on ORAL teachings, change the day of the Sabbath - a LAW of God!!! What does that have to do with anything????
I don't think very much. The Commandment itself notes that it is a symbolic remembrance, which is, of course, good. But I don't think God is too hung up on whether the actual day is a Saturday or a Sunday, or a Wednesday (other Protestants might strongly disagree with me on this part). To me, the important part is just so long as there is a day of worship and remembrance. I believe that the Sabbath was made for man. I take my attitude from the words of Jesus on this very subject:
Matt. 12:11-12 : 11 He said to them, "If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable is a man than a sheep! Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."
I don't know. Why did God allow man to sin? Why did so many Jews reject Christ? All I can say is that God does things that do not meet "man's" expectations - for example, the "folly of the cross"... I believe God left a Church that was alive, active, and able to meet the needs of the community of TODAY. The Bible has a lot of things in it if taken literally, make no sense for us today. It is subject to faulty interpretation. It can be twisted out of context. Without the Church, the Bible isn't much help. I think God would foresee that, and left the Church, our spiritual mother, to help us along our journey of faith. We need a community of believers to help us. I do not believe a man can be isolated with his bible and expect to be a good Christian. The Church gives us proper perspective for the problems we face today.
But I have to remember again that you believe that the Bible is inerrant based on the same authority that you believe that extra-scriptural Tradition is inerrant. If a committee votes that the Bible is inerrant, and another committee votes that the writings of a particular Saint are also inerrant, then why wouldn't that Saint be on a par with the Apostles?
No, that won't happen. The Apostles were singularly blessed as being infallible. Both their oral and written teachings were directly from God. While God certainly can inspire saints to give teachings, the Church does not bind other people to heed such private revelation. We bind ourselves to the public revelations of the Apostles, in matters of faith and morals. While the Church might say that the writings of St. Francis de Sales are edifying and highly suggest us to read them and meditate on them, the Church would not equate his writings to Scriptures.
Really? So let me get this straight. Everyone believed in an infant baptism, but further explanation was needed as to whether Jesus ever said anyone should get baptized? (What was the additional info?) And, everyone believed in a sinless Mary, but further explanation was needed as to whether she was the mother of Jesus? And finally, everyone knew that Jesus went down into hell, but further explanation was needed that He even died on the cross? Seems like the cart is before the horse in all these cases. Odd ducks, these early Christians.
Quack! These are all different examples... On infant baptism, I would say that in the beginning, it wasn't much of an issue. The Church was still growing and were looking for ADULT converts to continue the faith. Once settling in, once they saw that Christ wasn't about to come again in glory in the next week, I think they saw that it was time to allow or expand the practice (to loosen, as their authority was given to do) to include infants. Paul teaches the parallelism to circumcision in Colossians, one of his later writings. I would think in the 60's, 30 years after the Passion, the Church realized that it was time to look to the long haul. The Church Fathers also witness to the "ancient practice of infant baptism". There is thus historical evidence of the practice. There really is no reason to doubt that this was practiced by the first generation of Christians - the Bible never states that infants CANNOT be baptised - so we look to other sources. I think the issue you have is theologically based.
On Mary being sinless, this would likely be more of a "feeling" based on the total teachings given. Being that the Apostles were around her for the entire three years of Jesus' ministry, she was in the Upper Room during Pentacost, was alive and under John's care for a number of years, I would say theologically AND historically, they had the evidence available to them to make the statement. I think the Church first writes about it in 150 AD - the comparision of Mary as being the New Eve. The teaching was widely accepted - as if the people had a "sense" of its truth. In this case, we look to the Holy Spirit in His role of guiding the faithful to deeper realization of God's Revelation. If Christ is the Body of the Church, the Spirit is the Soul of the Church - the will and the intellect. We believe that the entire Church together has a correct sense on such development of theology.
As to Jesus going to "Hades", this reflects the idea the Christ redeemed ALL men, not just in space, but in time. Thus, His work is retroactive in time, being that He is ALSO a timeless Person. His work transcends time. Thus, those, in time, who were righteous in the Old Testament, were brought out of "Hades" and into heaven. Again, this reflects the faith of the Church based on the idea of Whom Christ was and His mission.
As you know, I believe that the scripture proves itself to be infallibly correct.
It proves itself? That is a huge circular argument! We have been TOLD that the Bible is the Word of God. We either believe this or not. But it is not obvious on its own merits. I do not consider it impossible to write "Scripture" - as the Gnostics did - and Paul was quite concerned about this possibility in several of his epistles. We rely on the Church's mind to tell us that we have legitimate Scriptures and nothing more.
No, if you said "this is God's word ...", I would ask you to show me where it says that in God's word, the Bible. If you couldn't, then I would know that it's baloney. :)
Again, you start with the argument and presumption that the Bible IS the Word of God as if by magic. You are begging the question...
There is a big difference. The only things written from God are the 66 books of the Bible.
I can't believe that God chose "66" as the number for His perfect written work to mankind! Don't you see the symbolic meaning of that? Let's say 73 books, perfection given by the Trinity...
I don't think very much. The Commandment itself notes that it is a symbolic remembrance, which is, of course, good. But I don't think God is too hung up on whether the actual day is a Saturday or a Sunday, or a Wednesday
AH! So YOU DO pick and choose what YOU think is important! Apparently, you think "FK's bible interpretation" = the "Word of God". Jesus' attitude was about placing man above the sabbath - thus, we can bend the sabbath "rules" to take care of a person in need, or walk a mile to feed someone. This doesn't mean we pick and choose what day to give to God!
Regards