That is quite a broad statement, and which applies to Rome and her "interpretation" of Scripture, history and tradition also, and more so, since her rigid certainty of such rests upon the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility.
For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
If millions of people practice using a small brown scapula to try to improve their behavior, that is a great thing.
It is not simply wearing a brown scapula, but what it represents and the teaching behind it.
If millions of people practice using a small Hindu bindi to try to improve their behavior, that is not a great thing, because the deception it represents is ultimately detrimental.
I see that your response resulted in a further exchange by you, which i would like to respond to.
that scripture is divinely protected from alteration, and that every word is literally true. It is an act of faith, in defiance of easily demonstrable facts. It can lead to extreme conclusions, when logic and judgement are suspended, or deemed to be overridden by divine authority.
Which, unless you are referring to the original autographs as per standard evangelical definition, would seem to place you at odds with your brethren who hold to historical RC teaching (not the Rome is always consistent with herself)
The traditional understanding of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is perhaps most powerfully and clearly expressed by St. Augustine in one of his letters to St. Jerome:
For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the MS. is faulty or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it . . . I believe, my brother, that this is your own opinion as well as mine.1In his great encyclical on biblical studies, Providentissimus Deus (1893), Pope Leo XIII cites these words of Augustine and adds that Augustine's insight was by no means singular, but it represented the consensus of the tradition: ". . . emphatically were all the Fathers and Doctors agreed that the divine writings, as left by the hagiographers, are free from all error . . ."2 Leo XIII re-asserted this teaching with fervor. Leo also stated in no uncertain terms the traditional teaching that the inerrancy of the Bible may not be restricted to matters of faith and morals, but rather is plenary in scope:
But 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. For 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, because (as they wrongly think) in a question of the truth or falsehood of a passage, we should consider not so much what God has said as the reason and purpose which He had in mind in saying it — this system cannot be tolerated.3
In addition, Leo draws attention to the weight of this teaching:
And so far is it from being possible that any error can coexist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error, but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. This is the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church, solemnly defined in the Councils of Florence and of Trent, and finally confirmed and more expressly formulated by the Council of the Vatican.4 - https://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8441There are conflicts in scripture
Estimated to be about one half of one percent of actual ones which do not have reasonable explanations, if that many, in contrast to Islamic and skeptic claims, and none of which would alter any necessary doctrine.
Christian Apologist Norman Geisler states: "There is widespread misunderstanding among critics about 'errors' in the biblical manuscripts. Some have estimated there are about 200,000 of them. First of all, these are not 'errors' but variant readings, the VAST MAJORITY of which are strictly grammatical. Second, these readings are spread throughout the more than 5300 manuscripts, so that a variant spelling of one letter in one verse in 2000 manuscripts is counted as 2000 'errors.' Textual scholars Westcott and Hort estimated that only ONE IN SIXTY of these variants have significance. This would leave a text 98.33 percent pure. Philip Schaff calculated that, of the 150,000 variants known in his day, only 400 changed the meaning of the passage, ONLY FIFTY were of real significance, and NOT EVEN ONE affected 'an article of faith or a precept of duty which is not abundantly sustained by other and undoubted passages, or by the whole tenor of Scripture teaching' (Schaff, 177)
"Most other ancient books are not so well authenticated. New Testament scholar Bruce Metzger estimated that the Mahabharata of Hinduism is copied with only about 90 percent accuracy and Homer's Illiad with about 95 percent. By comparison, HE ESTIMATED THE NEW TESTAMENT IS ABOUT 99.5 PERCENT…" (Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, pp. 532-533; bold and capital emphasis ours)
There are varied versions
Indeed, as there are varied church versions, neither of negates the preservation of the word of God or His church, which can be seen manifest amidst the tares.
There are non-literal allegorical statements in scripture, like the parables told by Jesus.
Indeed, as Fund. affirm, despite the Cath. strawman of them. But the latter have taught liberal revisionism for decades, teaching in their own Bible commentary that OT historical accounts were fables or folk tales, though the NT (the integrity of which they also impugn) references them as literal.
There are timelines (like the flood) which don’t hold up to archeological evidence.
Thus the Lord and Peter referenced a fable, while the conclusions of archeological evidence - and sometimes the evidence itself - has often been shown to be disputable and subject to change. It also did not find warrant for the existence of Bethlehem in times past, among other Scriptural facts.
Councils of people selected what was to be included and excluded.
Rather, both men and writings of God were discerned and progressively established as being of God by the people, before conciliar decisions which basically can only officially ratify the best consent, but not as possessing ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility. And which establishment was essentially due to their unique and endurng Divine qualities and attestations.
Meanings and usage change over time. If I were to note in my journal in 1970 that someone was cool, by 2570 a reader might think it miraculous that their body temperature was abnormally low.
This is true, which is why Caths engage in etymological fallacy in defending giving presbuteros/episkopos the formal title of hiereus (priest from "preost," and which was due to imposed functional equivalence), which the NT never does for its ordained pastors, as hiereus uniquely only is used for Jewish or pagan sacerdotal priests.
Which was recently dealt with here by God's grace.
You (anyone) must interpret words to comprehend their meaning. If you insist that you absolutely understand the scripture correctly, you are claiming to know God’s mind - quite a bit of hubris in that.
Which - unless one is claiming 100% correct understanding - means that God commands us to believe and obey what we cannot be sure of, or that a perpetual infallible magisterium is essential for this, that being the historical magisterium, to dissent from which is disallowed (which effectively nukes the NT church).
What if that bit about scripture is to be read, rather than interpreted, was added by a doctrinaire cleric hundreds of years after Christ, who was in tiff arguing with someone over meaning, and wanted to shut down debate?
Which is basically what RCs have claimed here, that Rome does not interpret Scripture but declares what it means. However, all communication is to be interpreted, meaning understood. And which, as in everyday speech, does require taking into account genre, and immediate and larger contexts, and linguistical meanings, as evangelical scholars recognize.
It is a circular argument to say that you must accept the absolute authority of a document, based on the document itself.
Indeed. Souls came to recognized men and writings of God as being so in the light of evidence. And is was upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power the the Lord and His church established their Truth claims, as Scripture, as written, became the standard the assured word of God and the standard for obedience and testing Truth claims, as is abundantly evidenced .
However, a faithful RC is not to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by examination of evidences (for that reason). For to do so would be to doubt the claims of Rome to be the assuredly infallible magisterium by which a RC obtains assurance of Truth.
You deny that there are conflicts within scripture. Try Google. Do you know why Matthew, Mark and Luke are called the synoptic gospels? Because John is so different.
Google is also useful for providing sources which testify to the remarkable preservation of Scripture, refuting typical Islamic/skeptic claims, which it seems you have swallowed some of. .
(You may also wanted to prayerfully use Google's own Apologetics search of approx 135 Christian apologetics websites and blogs. Or my own here ).
Which would include the idea that John being different represents a real conflict with the synoptics, which instead all 4 gospels are complimentary, not contradictory.
The passion narratives dealt with here are helpful (and with a nice chart) as well as here . Also useful .
If parables are not allegories (despite the generally accepted definitions of theses words), do you believe that Jesus was actually concerned with raising grain, grapes, fishing and sheep herding, rather than making (allegorical, non-literal) teaching points about human behavior?
I am not sure where you get the idea that being a Fund. means that you take all of Scripture as literal genre, rather than literally being the word of God, even when stating the conclusion of the natural man (some of Ecclesiastes) or in using similes, figurative language, or allegory, etc. It is Caths who impose literal language which makes Christ into requiring consumption of human flesh via priests in order to obtain spiritual life.
Parables use allegory, using known physical realities which correspond to unseen spiritual realities, and which never use real names. Which is why Lk. 16:19-31 is not a parable, as if it were and annihilationists are correct, then for the first and only time then the Lord was using science fiction, that of souls being physically dead but sentient, to correspond to a spiritual reality (of Gentiles being saved and the Jews damned).
People absorbed by such dogmatic interpretation are likely to get sidetracked into quibbling over doctrinal differences of interpretation and generate schisms within the Christian community, rather than focusing on bringing everyone together and improving their holiness and happiness.
Then see to thine own house as a RC, while the ambiguous non-dogmatic non-literal approach to Scripture which you seem to advocate is what is contradictory with Scripture, and is also judgmental and divisive, while its unity is in error, and defies solidity.
And if you insist on literal fundamentalism, isn’t there all of the Old Testament genocide, slavery, rape and torture to reinstate?
No, as this ignores the differences btwn basic universal moral laws and culturally applied laws based on them, and restrictions, and those which allowed something, vs commanded it, and covenantal distinctions.
You sem to have spent too much time reading atheists versus refutation. If you want more, then get back to me on each issue, and by Go';s grace i may respond to it. And once you are born again, then you will realize how true and powerful the word of God is.
The point is the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law, when it comes to spiritual realm - a very central message of Jesus to the legalistic and ritualistic religious leaders of his days on Earth.
Out of context, for while keeping the letter of the entire law as the standard of holiness and means of salvation is opposed to seeking to keep the spirit or intent of it after being justified by faith in the One who perfectly fulfilled the entire Law, yet keeping the spirit usually means keeping the Lord letter of the moral Law. Which Christ certainty upheld, as does the rest of the NT.
But the liberal hermeneutic allows for rejecting the condemnation of such things as literal adultery.
The fundamentalist muslims of ISIS and al Quaeda are derisively called takfiri by other muslims. Takfiri means “those who declare others to be heretics”. Anyone who varies from their reading of scripture (and the rules they use to interpret it) they attack as heretics
Again, you are certainly at odds which your RC brethren here, or blatantly duplicitous, as it is Rome which has historically specialized in defining and punishing "heretics" even by the use of the sword of men (if not unique to her), while Scripture condemns her as being so, as it teaches there is such a thing as being heretical.
Thus the modern fund. evangelical movement arose to combat liberal revisionist denials of such things as the integrity of Scripture, the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, etc., which also means contending against Cath. inventions not in Scripture and contrary to it.
kind of like another apparently fundamentalist poster accused me of blasphemy, for using the word “interpret” in reference to understanding scripture.
Well, you do have fringe elements here that are usually shunned by the majority once known.
Is your view the New Testament completely supersedes the Old Testament, and that it is therefore not scripture?
Again, where are you getting these ideas? Do you really think rejecting genocide, slavery, rape and torture bcz they are not taught in the NT means rejecting the Old Testament as Scripture???
the politically correct term “manservant” might have been used instead of slave
In fact, Hebrew slaves were basically indentured servants, usually by selling themselves, which even non-Israelis could own for 6 years, and who were to be offered freedom with generous severance pay. This was an alternative to declaring bankruptcy, or prison, or poverty.
Both there are many references to how slaves are to be distinctly legally treated in the Old Testament.
Indeed, and the taking of which was not commanded, but as in the OT, God regulated an existing institution which was a deeply rooted integral part of the ANE economy, and which God made morally tolerable, unlike the image we have from the antebellum South. Slavery was not a monolithic institution, and under Biblical regulation an escaped slave was not to be returned, and was to be set free even because his master knocked a tooth out, which in principle could be used for similar injuries obtaining the same. And as circumscribed, they were partakers of the salvific covenant, and would have much rest on the 7th day and year. And unlike so many without, they had ensured provisions of bed and board. And most slaves became so due to their family selling them or they themselves. Non-Israelis being perpetual property was a means of keeping enemies in subjection. This was a tough world.
In the NT, in a world in which slave revolts did not go well, equal pay was required for slaves, and threatnings forbidden, and obtaining freedom was advocated. And an escaped converted slaves was to be received back as a brother, not a slave, but as Paul himself. Meanwhile, the first organic church had no slaves, and the outworking of the Christian ethos of brotherly love worked toward dispensing of slavery as a hitherto tolerated appendage when it became culturally able to do so. . However, the Romanization of the church and other political factors hindered this on a large scale. And evangelicals were at the forefront of the modern abolition movement.
See more on this complex issue here and here .
There is plenty of scripture on genocide, rape, torture and such; far too much to list - literally thousands of morally questionable references.
In which distinction must be made btwn the record of such, versus Divine command. And the latter case was rare, and limited to certain tribes in a certain place, unlike Islam, whose Qur'an lack the historical context and theological teaching to make such distinctions. And the manifest supernatural attestation that God was leading the Hebrews, which preceded the covenant the Hebrews choose to enter into, and the commands to exterminate the Canaanites and Amaklekites, while the Flood was not by the hands of man.
And in so doing the Lord saved the innocent from becoming like their fathers and incurring the same eternal damnation, taking them to Heaven, while finally - after long-suffering generations of them - preventing a terminally immoral destructive people from replicating themselves further, and infecting the nation whom God raised up to show the world who the one true God was, to be benefit of all. And cannot the Giver of life take it, and make it work out for the good of those who love God, and thus good?
But atheists complain that God does not deal with Islamic type extremism (and rationalize away the culpability of what atheism did and does under Communism, etc.) and then complain when He decisively does. And presume moral supremacy and omniscience in judging God as being a murderer, as if the Giver of life is immoral for taking life, and as if He does not make it work out not only justly but mercifully. Eternity will reveal why and how God justly allowed the Holocaust and the positive effects it had.
You just have to have your own moral compass, guided by the principles of Christian teaching, rather than by literal adherence to every word. That is the liberal moral relativism that prohomosexual apologists engage in (dealt with here and here by God's grace), and which negates Scripture as providing any coherent transcendent moral absolutes, esp as regard sexual aspects.
Is the Old Testament no longer scripture in your view? It explicitly prescribes rules concerning slavery practices. Jesus did not specifically address slavery in the New Testament, except to use cases of slavery to make other points, as I cited previously.
Which is just what prohomosexual apologists invoke in trying to negate the Scriptural injunctions against homosexual relations. See here .
Rape has many prescriptions: If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman Deuteronomy 22:28.
Indeed (unless she was betrothed, in which he was a dead man). And unlike others, he can never put her away. And thus rape is not sanctioned, but penalized, and rather than leaving the violated women as a widow, or devaluing virginity, care for here was mandated for the rest of her life. And even you think neglect of wives was allowed, then you ignore that even a second wife (concubines were wives) taken out of those who were slaves was to be set free if the husband did not get her equal care (including children) as wife #1. And we can see from Gn. 34 and other places the accountability souls could be expected to face in taking wives.
If you want to a literal fundamental reading of scripture, then either you do away with the old testament, or you carry over a bunch of war crimes, tortures, stoning, slavery and so on. A lot of it reads like the Quran.
If you ignore the critical distinctions such as the unmistakable supernatural attestation that it was God who was leading them, not just some dreams in the night. The Qur'an is much a corruption of what it takes from Scripture, thus similarities are to be expected.
So it boils down to these choices: 1. Reject Old Testament outright. 2. Accept the Old Testament prescriptions as scripture - therefore they should be reinstated. 3. Make moral judgements about what to accept and how to interpret conflicts - therefore reject fundamentalism.
Wrong, as this is simply a false dilemma, for the Old Testament prescriptions being as scripture does not translate into all that is written as being in the same class of laws, so that laws such as forbid eating shellfish are literally universal enjoined for all time in all places for all places, as are basic moral laws on human behavior. Which obfuscation again what pro sodomitic apologists use in attempting to invalidate the injunctions against sodomy. See here .
The OT clearly reveals God would provide a new covenant, which is distinctly "not according" to the Sinaitic one, and the NT clearly states such differences, Col. 2:16,17; Heb. 4:3; 9:10; 10:1-22; Gal. 4:10).
And how the kingdom of God into which all believers are placed is not of this world, (JN. 18:36) thus its means of warfare are not, (2Co. 10:3,4; Eph. 6:12) though the state is sanctioned to use the sword of men, (Rm. 13:1-7; 1Pr. 2:14) can carry out Biblical penalties against moral sins.
And which historical Christian fundamentalism manifests it understands, and thus do not fly planes into airplanes like an Islamic fundy find sanction to do, if following post Medenic Muhammad.
Unable to refute a single point on substance. Resorting to personal attack. I accept your surrender.
I would say that "If you don't understand the OT and the NT and how they operate, I will not be able to make it clear to you," since your postings indicate willful ignorance and indoctrination by liberals and atheists, means you marginalized yourself as unfit for meaningful dialog on this pro-God anti liberal site. Sad to see you seem to believe the latter.
Requires saving faith in only Lord Jesus Christ to lead one to the true wisdom of God, evidenced by the living Word of God and enlightened daily by the Holy Spirit. God testifying to God.
Other manners of human education are all vanity and fruitless, but you both probably know that already.
Thank you
Wow. Right up front, I’d like to say that I appreciate your thoughtful response, and the time that you took to prepare it. Also, that I feel sincerity and concern in your thinking which I admire, and which I believe reflect a Christian spirit.
We don’t have full agreement, and sometimes I believe that some of your points are unfair or descend a bit into ill will. But I fall prey to to the same shortcomings, so it is not difficult for me to forgive these, in light of what seems to me to be your basic goodness of character and intent.
Whenever we deal with people, we can’t realistically expect perfection, and that goes for Church leaders, Popes and such as well. I would offer that Pope Leo may personally have had a stronger tendency toward authoritarianism, or a more decisively judgmental habit of mind than average.
The current Catholic Church catechism on the inerrancy of scripture is artfully vague. That is probably the best that anyone can do, if you are motivated by the goals of helping the most people, but still protecting against an “anything goes” descent into chaos, and maintain an ongoing organizational authority to avoid schism and in-fighting. I don’t find it unusual that the Catholic Church has not been consistent concerning the inerrancy of scripture - we are talking about billions of people over many centuries.
By the same token, Protestant denominations have not been consistent. Positions have changed, schisms have occurred, and individuals have expressed varied opinions.
Some Catholics have adopted a concept of absolute inerrancy, as have some Protestants, some Muslims, some Jews, etc.
It can help many people, by giving them a firm feeling of certainty, which strengthens their resolve and commitment. It has a powerful effect in keeping an organization together over time, which itself has great value.
But there are major downsides to adopting such a doctrine. Disintegration of the Christian community, even to the point of civil war, has occurred. Bigotry and condemnation of essentially good things that don’t conform to a particular rigid interpretation can get carried to hurtful and destructive extremes.
In some cases, your arguments supported non-literal interpretation of scripture, that reason and morality may temper explicit text, that there are some things that are to be applied always while others are not, or that translation is very good (but imperfect), and so on. In other instances, you didn’t refute a point itself, but instead criticized some historical Catholic doctrine or statement for doing the same thing. In other instances, you seem to simply re-assert inerrancy.
I think that is a natural outcome of struggling to reconcile all the great mass of scripture against a consistent doctrine and moral standard. In my view, we are all ultimately in that same difficult position, and would be wise to be kind to each other, as our knowledge and comprehension improves over time.
Again, I appreciate you taking the time to explain things. Although I do not agree with everything that you said, I did find some of it informative and helpful. So I offer a prayer for your health and happiness, and for God’s grace to increase your wisdom and kindness further.