The quiet despair of Protestants

[Albion]

The Bible was written by sinners, does that mean it is not infallible?

No, it means that it is--as Scripture says of itself--divine revelation. The humans involved were merely scribes.

God is quite able to reveal truths to people who nevertheless are sinners, and the revelation is going to be God's wisdom, will, and intentions, not ours. That, after all,is what revelation means--to reveal or disclose something not otherwise known.

 

[Major1]

The Church can claim the same thing with that verse.

I should hope so!

 

[Major1]

Yes, and the same Spirit can interpret Scripture, and Tradition for that matter, infallibly for man.

Care to explain how a tradition can be infallible?

The Catechism declares, “[a]s a result the [Catholic—MP] Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, ‘does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence’” Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994), (Mahwah, NY: Paulist Press).

But according to the BIBLE, church traditions must be subjected to the “litmus test” of the inspired Word of God. If church traditions contradict the scripture, it must be rejected. The BIBLE says in Isaiah 8:20...……
“To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them”.

Isaiah here directs men to the Word of God as the standard of truth and the guide to right living because in John 10:35 we read that...…..
“the scripture cannot be broken”.

Care to explain how men can be "infallible"?

Romans 3:23.……..
"ALL HAVE SINNED and come short of the approval of God".

 

[fhansen]

That’s incorrect. The effectual call is the means God uses for regeneration. Faith comes by hearing. It’s not potential faith, but actual faith. So when we are born again, we are more free than ever, and will freely chose Christ.

Care to explain how a tradition can be infallible?

The Catechism declares, “[a]s a result the [Catholic—MP] Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, ‘does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence’” Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994), (Mahwah, NY: Paulist Press).

But according to the BIBLE, church traditions must be subjected to the “litmus test” of the inspired Word of God. If church traditions contradict the scripture, it must be rejected. The BIBLE says in Isaiah 8:20...……
“To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them”.

Isaiah here directs men to the Word of God as the standard of truth and the guide to right living because in John 10:35 we read that...…..
“the scripture cannot be broken”.

Care to explain how men can be "infallible"?

Romans 3:23.……..
"ALL HAVE SINNED and come short of the approval of God".

Tradition is simply unwritten revelation, passed on orally or by continous practice. And SS adherents don't necessarily agree on the meaning of the law and the testimony anyway. Which is why a specified group, the church, is necessary. This is why the Eunuch couldn't understand Scripture on his own but needed Philip to explain. And answer me this, is your interpretation of Scripture fallible, or infallible?

 

[Albion]

Tradition is simply unwritten revelation, passed on orally or by continous practice. And SS adherents don't necessarily agree on the meaning of the law and the testimony anyway. Which is why a specified group, the church, is necessary. This is why the Eunuch couldn't understand Scripture on his own but needed Philip to explain. And answer me this, is your interpretation of Scripture fallible, or infallible?

Wait a minute. It is unfair to believers in Scripture as the supreme and infallible source of guidance for essential doctrine to talk all the time as though each individual person is on his own to interpret the Bible as he thinks best.

The churches that these people belong to certainly do not take that appoach, so in this respect, the situation is hardly different from what you think is a strength of your own denomination that believes in traditions as being the equal of Scripture.

 

[fhansen]

The point is that, regardless of the source of revelation, that which serves as the rule of faith, significant differences can arise between readers/interpreters. So do you believe your understanding of Scripture to be fallible? When one denomination insists that baptism is necessary for regeneration, while another asserts the opposite, both going by Scripture, which side is fallible, which infallible?

 

[Albion]

The point is that, regardless of the source of revelation, that which serves as the rule of faith, significant differences can arise between readers/interpreters.

Agreed.

So do you believe your understanding of Scripture to be fallible?

I believe everyone's understanding of Scripture can be fallible.

When one denomination insists that baptism is necessary for regeneration, while another asserts the opposite, both going by Scripture, which side is fallible, which infallible?

Infallible isn't the word here. You mean that one side may be right and the other wrong, but there's nothing special about observing that. It applies to every denomination that there is, yours as well as anyone else's, and it applies whether the guide is Scripture alone or Scripture and custom.

 

[fhansen]

Agreed.



I believe everyone's understanding of Scripture can be fallible.


Infallible isn't the word here. You mean that one side may be right and the other wrong, but there's nothing special about observing that. It applies to every denomination that there is, yours as well as anyone else's, and it applies whether the guide is Scripture alone or Scripture and custom.

Ok? So what does it mean to be right? Is fallibility an option there? I think we just need to take an honest look at the fact that we believe our positions to be, simply, right. We must believe so, especially about spiritual matters or we'd have no direction in which to walk.

And "custom", or Tradition, or lived experience certainly can have an advantage over the mere reading of the written Word. In a new thread a lapsed believer was concerned about the warnings in Heb 6 to those who've fallen away. The passage seems to indicate that such a one can never repent and return to the fold.

But the ancient churches in the east and west have always taught that one could have a genuine change of heart, repent, and return to God's grace. Where Scripture may be vague or seem contradictory at times, and even render opposing views, Tradition and practice often fill in the gaps .

 

[Albion]

The point is that, regardless of the source of revelation, that which serves as the rule of faith, significant differences can arise between readers/interpreters. So do you believe your understanding of Scripture to be fallible? When one denomination insists that baptism is necessary for regeneration, while another asserts the opposite, both going by Scripture, which side is fallible, which infallible?

What's your point? There are a lot of different churches and they each have a statement of beliefs. I doubt that any two are identical. What's more, it is common for individual members to dissent from some parts of their own church's creeds, and that is true whether it is a Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Mormon, or other church.

 

[fhansen]

What's your point? There are a lot of different churches and they each have a statement of beliefs. I doubt that any two are identical. What's more, it is common for individual members to dissent from some parts of their own church's creeds, and that is true whether it is a Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Mormon, or other church.

Members dissenting from the teachings of any denomination have no impact on the validity or falsehood of the teachings-and do not define those teachings. People will dissent. In Catholicism, even if a pope were to personally dissent, in private communication outside the office of the papacy, it means nothing in terms of impacting the faith.

But either way the point's already been made. Picking up a bible 1500 or more years after the fact and then pontificating on its meaning is very different from having a legacy of the faith dating from the beginning of Christianity, in addition to Scripture which is part of that legacy anyway. Scripture as the primary or sole rule of faith simply cannot and does not ensure understanding.

 

[Albion]

Members dissenting from the teachings of any denomination have no impact on the validity or falsehood of the teachings-and do not define those teachings. People will dissent. In Catholicism, even if a pope were to personally dissent, in private communication outside the office of the papacy, it means nothing in terms of impacting the faith.

But either way the point's already been made.

I'm afraid not. Different denominations claim to have gotten the Bible's teachings (or other ones) correct. But you keep coming back to "infallible," which doesn't seem to add anything to the discussion. If a certain belief is right; it's right; and if there is a disagreement between denominations, that is resolved by referring to the Bible--not in some "every man for himself" way, to be sure, but the Bible, being the word of God, is the guide. If infallible is an essential part of your approach, that is what is infallible.

Picking up a bible 1500 or more years after the fact and then pontificating on its meaning is very different from having a legacy of the faith dating from the beginning of Christianity, in addition to Scripture which is part of that legacy anyway. Scripture as the primary or sole rule of faith simply cannot and does not ensure understanding.

Neither does custom, folklore, the opinion of church leaders, etc. from some long past age. We have divine revelation (Bible) in order NOT to be left to speculate on the wisdom (or lack of same) involved with those other things.

And as has been mentioned before, being wrong for longer than some other denomination isn't a virtue.

 

[W2L]

Scripture as the primary or sole rule of faith simply cannot and does not ensure understanding.

Neither does church tradition.

 

[Albion]

Ain't that the truth! Compare all the churches/denominations that believe in Holy Tradition and claim that it solves all the vagueries of Scripture, and what do you find? No two of them agree on what Tradition tells them or even what counts as a tradition!

 

[zippy2006]

Neither does church tradition.

Yours is really not a great argument. 1.3 billion Catholics; one "denomination." 900 million Protestants; 30,000+ denominations.

That's just a quick example. If you look at the traditional churches (Catholic, Orthodox, etc.) you will see relative unity, if you look at Protestantism you will see relative disunity. To claim as a counterargument that there is some disunity in a traditional Church is a jaw-dropping red herring. There is some unity in Protestantism, there is some disunity in traditional Churches. Be that as it may, as soon as we look at the actual levels of unity and disunity the equivocation becomes clear.

 

[W2L]

Yours is really not a great argument. 1.3 billion Catholics; one "denomination." 900 million Protestants; 30,000+ denominations.

That's just a quick example. If you look at the traditional churches (Catholic, Orthodox, etc.) you will see relative unity, if you look at Protestantism you will see relative disunity. To claim as a counterargument that there is some disunity in a traditional Church is a jaw-dropping red herring. There is some unity in Protestantism, there is some disunity in traditional Churches. Be that as it may, as soon as we look at the actual levels of unity and disunity the equivocation becomes clear.

Actually there are denominations in the catholic church from what ive been told. You are broad brushing anyone who is not catholic. That is wrong.

 

[zippy2006]

Actually there are denominations in the catholic church from what ive been told.

Then you were misinformed.

 

[W2L]

Then you were misinformed.

Regardless, you are still broad brushing anyone not catholic. So what if there are thousands of denominations? How is that the fault of any one denomination but not the fault of your church too?

 

[fhansen]

Neither does church tradition.

Ain't that the truth! Compare all the churches/denominations that believe in Holy Tradition and claim that it solves all the vagueries of Scripture, and what do you find? No two of them agree on what Tradition tells them or even what counts as a tradition!

These are predictable enough responses. But mainly anti-Catholic protesters like to split hairs to come up with differences between beliefs of the ancient churches. But to me the similarities between EO & RCC are almost uncanny after centuries of isolation. Basically the same on: justification, infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, the Real Presence, the sacraments, the existence of an afterlife state or process of purification. Most of these can and are argued plausibly between Sola Scriptura followers (beginning practically from day one of the Reformation) but they are non-issues for these older churches. IOW, it would be impossible for one of them to look at Scripture now and say, "You know, we were wrong about this, infants should not be baptized after all", or, "Jesus isn't really present in the Eucharist". These were settled from the beginning, whether or not further clarified later on.

 

[fhansen]

Neither does church tradition.

I guess we should have a problem either way then.

 

[W2L]

These are predictable enough responses. But mainly anti-Catholic protesters like to split hairs to come up with differences between beliefs of the ancient churches. But to me the similarities between EO & RCC are almost uncanny after centuries of isolation. Basically the same on: justification, infant baptism, baptismal regeneration, the Real Presence, the sacraments, the existence of an afterlife state or process of purification. Most of these can and are argued plausibly between Sola Scriptura followers (beginning practically from day one of the Reformation) but they are non-issues for these older churches. IOW, it would be impossible for one of them to look at Scripture now and say, "You know, we were wrong about this, infants should not be baptized after all", or, "Jesus isn't really present in the Eucharist". These were settled from the beginning, whether or not further clarified later on.

I dont believe Jesus turns himself into bread every sunday. Or that he turns bread into human flesh.