The Not So Secret Rapture

reformed.org ^ | W. Fred Rice

[Cronos]

What the Church has stated in writing is what The Church believes. Anything else is hearsay. To take what a person on the street says and extrapolate that to what everyone of his religious group believes is silly.

You did make an error.

Prove your statement " Mark is not alone and it's not the first I've encountered this" --> I've already told you the Bible is inerrant to me and I've already shown you official Church doctrine on the same.

[Cronos]

Metmom -- stop talking rot.

you need to read something before commenting. One needs to read the Bible to understand that Jesus is God. On a lower level, one needs to read The catholic.com article by Karl Keating before commenting. Karl says in that article

Fallible means able to make a mistake or able to teach error. Infallible means the opposite: the inability to make a mistake or to teach error.

When we use these words, we use them regarding an active agent—that is, we use them about someone making a decision that either may or may not be erroneous (in which case that someone is fallible) or that definitely cannot be erroneous (in which case that someone is infallible).

==========================================================


But a rock is never infallible. Nor is it fallible. It is neither because it makes no decision about anything. Ditto for a plant. No sunflower ever made the right decision—or the wrong decision. In fact, no sunflower ever made any decision, properly speaking.

The same can be said of a book. No book, not even the Bible, is capable of making a decision (on it's own).

This means it would be wrong to say that the Bible is either infallible or fallible—such terms should not be used about it or about any other book.


The proper term to use, when we are saying that the Bible contains no error, is inerrant. In its teaching, a particular book may contain truth or may contain error; most likely it will teach some of each. The one exception is the Bible. The Church teaches that everything the Bible asserts (properly understood, of course) is true and therefore without error.

Stop repeating rot, Metmom

[Cronos]

in fact, prove that Mark denies the inerrancy --> he has not said this. If you read his post 2093 which you referred, he points out that it is not fallible/infallible -- no inanimate object is.

Even more specifically, Heb 4

Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.

This needs to be read not as random verses.

Scripture cannot be fallible or infallible --> as Mark said.

Scripture IS inerrant, i.e. without error.

SCripture does not make decisions, the ones reading/interpreting it make the decisions. Only a decision making living entity can be fallible or infallible.

do you understand the differences in a word?

You and I are fallible, but we are not errant.

A book by C.S. Lewis IS errant but not fallible

The Scriptures are INERRANT.

[HarleyD]

You did make an error. Prove your statement " Mark is not alone and it's not the first I've encountered this"

I'm not going to pull other Catholics from this site into this conversation. However, I would point to Catholic Answers where in an unscientific poll 40% of the Catholics believe the Bible to contain errors.

Here's another article Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible. If you believe this to be a hit piece on the Catholic Church, I suggest you read through the Del Verbum. Please pay close attention to how the pattern shifts from the word of God to the Church in around chapter 8.

But in order to keep the Gospel forever whole and alive within the Church, the Apostles left bishops as their successors, "handing over" to them "the authority to teach in their own place."(3) This sacred tradition, therefore, and Sacred Scripture of both the Old and New Testaments are like a mirror in which the pilgrim Church on earth looks at God, from whom she has received everything, until she is brought finally to see Him as He is, face to face (see 1 John 3:2).

8. And so the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time. Therefore the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all (see Jude 1:3) (4) Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.

As confirmed in this article and the Del Verbum, the scriptures mean nothing. They were only meant to exist until the Church could be established and serves the Church. It is the "holding fast to traditions" that is important. Now where did I hear that one before?

[metmom]

Not in Protestant Christianity. Once you become a Proddy, sin counts for naught. Talk about man made teahcings...

It appears that the distinction you're failing to make, is between the type of sin and the consequence of sin.

Men are the ones who categorize it into lessor sins, seemingly deserving of lessor punishment and greater sins, seemingly deserving of greater punishment.

The real issue is that , regardless of whether that were true or not, all sin has the same consequence. It all leads to separation from God. The wages are the same; death. And it all has the same solution; redemption by grace through faith in the FINISHED work of Christ on the cross. When we believe Him and believe IN Him, God does not count our sins against us and we become the righteousness of Christ.

Repent and throw yourself on the mercy of the court because there sure isn't any other way to have the debt we owe for our sins canceled out.

[metmom]

The Church was not persecuting. They did their best to convince them to return to the Faith because the Church was afraid for their very souls. What lengths would you go to to stop another from going over to satan?

What did Jesus do in the NT?

How does God do it today?

How did the Roman Catholic church historically do it?

Like this???

Inquisition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition

God doesn't force anyone to believe. The church, ANY church, can never be justified in taking any other stand.

[Hacksaw]

Obama uses fancy talk, you use fancy loud graphics

I just scroll past them whenever I see them, kind of like ads that come up on some websites.

[Iscool]

There are many here whose god is the image in the mirror. They keep it on the hall stand and pat its head for luck when they walk by...

Now that's funny coming from people who hit the deck whenever in close proximity to an idol of Mary, or carry around a St. Christopher talisman hanging from their rear view mirror...

Are you sure you guys don't already practice this stuff??? After all, you call yourselves Christians and the bible calls you saints...

And according to the bible, you are already seated in heavenly places...

Eph 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:

I'll bet you guys pray to statues and pictures of yourselves...Would certainly fit right in with your theology...

[Cronos]

Yet one MUST believe that Jesus Christ is GOD. I gave you a number of bible references that prove that Jesus Christ is Lord. That should be sufficient to convince anyone who claims to believe the Bible that Jesus Christ IS God

[metmom]

You seem far more eager to say that I made an error when I assert that Catholics no longer believe in the infallibility of scripture than you are to correct Mark's assertions that the scriptures are not infallible. Mark is not alone and it's not the first I've encountered this. There are many Catholics on this site that do not believe in the inerrant word of God. If this is representative of Catholics in the Church today, which given writings I have read, I'll stand by my statement.

Having Catholics post to me the scriptures are not infallible and then for you to turn right around and tell me that I don't know Church teachings because the Church states they are infallible is a bit disingenuous. You're talking to the wrong person.

Catholics sure sing a different tune when it comes to using Scripture to support their favorite doctrines, such as the papacy, apostolic succession, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the priesthood, works based salvation, etc.

I find it ironic and hypocritical to claim that Scripture is not infallible or inerrant and then turn around and appeal to those very Scriptures top give the Roman Catholic church its authority.

Only if Scripture is infallible and inerrant, can it give the Catholic church its absolute authority, as it claims.

If the Catholic church *gave* us Scripture, as it claims, then its authority is based only on hearsay. It claiming to be authoritative with no legitimate basis for that authority is meaningless.

Is the church built on a rock or sand?

[Cronos]

thank you. None of what you excerpted from Dei Verbum in any way says that "the scriptures mean nothing." -- on the contrary it says that the Sacred scripture is "inspired books"

"They were only meant to exist until...." --> this is never said in the excerpts or the main Dei Verbum. The history AND belief is that the community of Christians existed before canon was closed, before many of the epistles were written.

It is the "holding ....is important. --> it is important, yet it does not supplant scripture.

In contrast, if you really looked at the Dei Verbum you would see:

For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit,

Those divinely revealed realities which are contained and presented in Sacred Scripture have been committed to writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings

God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.....no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out...

The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures just as she venerates the body of the Lord, since, especially in the sacred liturgy, she unceasingly receives and offers to the faithful the bread of life from the table both of God's word and of Christ's body.

Therefore, like the Christian religion itself, all the preaching of the Church must be nourished and regulated by Sacred Scripture. For in the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven meets His children with great love and speaks with them;

For the Sacred Scriptures contain the word of God and since they are inspired really are the word of God; and so the study of the sacred page is, as it were, the soul of sacred theology.

Dei Verbum clearly says For the Sacred Scriptures contain the word of God and since they are inspired really are the word of God; and it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error

[Cronos]

thank you.

You post an internet website poll which has just 41 participants as proof of what all Catholics think???

Wow, so if I put up a poll and get 40 Americans responding to it, do I state that that is the opinion of all Americans??? That's silly.

[Cronos]

thank you.

You post a link to the Times of London as proof for what the Catholic Church teachs?? I gave you concrete statements of what the Church teaches from both Vatican I and II, I pointed out how Dei Verbum says that the Scriptures are inerrant and you then say you don't believe what the Catholic Church says in writing, but you believe what the Main-Stream-MEDIA says??

[metmom]

Kosta — that’s only by the extreme loons among the Protestants, many of whom are no longer even Christian. They believe that they can sin more and more to get more grace.

First non-Catholics are accused of following Paul and then they're accused of believing something in direct contradiction to the teachings of Paul

Whatever works to best discredit them, I guess.

So maybe you could explain why you whine about non-Catholics misrepresenting the teachings of the Catholic church after that little diatribe.

[HossB86]

Ooohh.... Wa-POW!

left a mark.

:D

Hoss

[HarleyD]

Let's see.

1) I have a Catholic on this site tell me the scriptures contain errors (several times) and post the references . You ignore that.

2) I post a link to Catholic Answers that shows 40% do not believe in the inerrancy of scripture and this is illustrated by their answers. You ignore that.

3) I post an article by the Times of London that arrives at the same conclusion and you said that is wrong.

4) I post the Dei Verbum which is quoted in the Times of London and clearly shows a transition from the inerrant word of God to the Church. And your response is this is just a bunch of what the MSM says?!?

So much for serious scholarship.

[The Theophilus]

Not in Protestant Christianity. Once you become a Proddy, sin counts for naught. Talk about man made teahcings...

LOL!

I think the bulk of Luther's protest against Rome was the fact that Rome was making profit from sin by selling indulgences. Jesus apparently is an economic ignoramus (something one can afford to be when one can create ex nihlo and owns the cattle on a thousand hills) because He didn't see the loads of cash that could be derived by just simply selling forgiveness - instead He freely gave up His life in full payment for our sins.

Other than Sola Scriptura this is one of the largest differences between Christianity and Roman Catholicism - you folks are still paying for your own sins, albeit in Purgatory and Community Service rather than through the proxy of Rome.

[HossB86]

You expected something different?

;)

Hoss

[Cronos]

thank you.

You post a link to the Times of London as proof for what the Catholic Church teachs?? I gave you concrete statements of what the Church teaches from both Vatican I and II, I pointed out how Dei Verbum says that the Scriptures are inerrant and you then say you don't believe what the Catholic Church says in writing, but you believe what the Main-Stream-MEDIA says??

Firstly -- in typical MSM lies they distorted the headline -- and you and other non-Catholics AND Catholics fell for the MSM's tricks hook line and sinker

Secondly, the article barely quotes the article at all, only the journo giving his own free interpretation of what he wants to see in the original document posted by the bishops

Thirdly,The Church has consistently weighed in that the scriptures are INERRANT

The First Vatican Council taught:

These books [of the canon] the Church holds to be sacred and canonical, not because, having been composed by human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority; nor only because they contain revelation without error; but because, having been written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author (De Fide Catholica 2:7).

Pope Leo XIII stated that "it is absolutely wrong and forbidden either to narrow inspiration to certain parts only of Holy Scripture or to admit that the sacred writer has erred" and condemned "the system of those who, in order to rid themselves of these difficulties, do not hesitate to concede that divine inspiration regards the things of faith and morals, and nothing beyond" (Providentissimus Deus 20).

Pius XII stated that the Vatican I passage cited above was a "solemn definition of Catholic doctrine, by which such divine authority is claimed for the ‘entire books with all their parts’ as to secure freedom from any error whatsoever." He repudiated those who "ventured to restrict the truth of Sacred Scripture solely to matters of faith and morals" (Divino Afflante Spiritu 1).

Finally, the only truth in the article is at the end:

Steve Legg, head of the charity, said: “There are over 12 million children in the UK and only 756,000 of them go to church regularly. That leaves a staggering number who are probably not receiving basic Christian teaching."

Do stop repeating the basic anti-Catholic rot --> the main-stream-media publishes these distortions because the blogosphere anti-Catholics will pick up their distortions and say "see!!"

[Cronos]

There is a difference between Christians and non-Christians. Christians like CAtholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Anglicans, Pentecostals, Baptists etc. all believe that Jesus Christ IS God. Non-Christians don't believe Jesus Christ is God.

If you want more biblical proof that Jesus Christ is God besides the ones I have already given you, I can give you more.