If the Bible is infallible, why do so many Christians disagree on theology?

BNR32FAN said:

This is not surprising which is why it is imperative that the church be led by ecumenical council and not by a single individual to ensure that a more comprehensive knowledge be taken into consideration during these decisions being made as well as greatly reducing the possibility of corrup individuals misleading the church.

Click to expand...

Surely you are not implying the popes can be corrupt! Besides this, even with an ecumenical council, which i in principal support, the issue is who defines corrupt. When a church presumes ensured infallibility then Scripture, tradition and history can only surely mean what they say in any conflict.

When the premise for this is that being the magisterium over the people of God who produced Scripture, and the official discerners and stewards of it, mean that they possess this ensured infallibility, then you end up with a very Big problem.

Erik Nelson said:

As an Orthodox Christian. You acknowledge That living church tradition. Can continuously add to scripture?

Obviously. No tradition can flat out conflict or contradict or invalidate scripture. But because the Holy Spirit. Inspires the church. It's living tradition can continuously add to and update. The total composite corpus of authority. Both written scripture. And oral church tradition.

the filioque is just that. It adds to the Nicene Creed. But it does not in any way contradict or invalidate or overturn the Creed. It merely adds a word to it. Just as living church tradition as authoritative words to written scripture.

You are in some sense. Treating the Creed. With a Protestant like Sola Scriptura mentality. Only what is written, only the scripted Creed.

Just as Protestants effectively imply that the Holy Spirit abandoned the church after the first century. So that no later church traditions are authoritative. Because they "just can't" be inspired...

So you are implying that the Holy Spirit abandoned the (Roman Catholic) Church after the seventh or eighth century. So that nothing they said afterwards could be authoritative any more.

Click to expand...

The filioque does far more than just add a few words to the Creed. It creates God in the image of the fallen, and therefore imbalanced human tripartite nature, instead of just leaving us as fallen creatures who were initially created in the image and likeness of God, in Whom there is no sin and therefore no imbalance.

The filioque is an expression of the logos bias. It was formulated as the result of men introspecting into the nature of their own tripartite constitutions, and is therefor a product of the thinking of flawed men, rather than Divine revelation. This "logos bias" exists in this world because of the fall. God is not fallen, and therefor His Spirit does not eternally proceed from the Father and the Son, but from the Father (John 15:26).

BNR32FAN said:

It’s most unfortunate that so many have been misled but I think a few key questions they need to ask themselves are where did the church go for the first 1500 years of Christianity? Was it silent or hidden during that time? Did the Holy Spirit take a long vacation forsaking so many generations allowing them to be misled by a corrupted church? Did the gates of hell prevail over the church for the first 1500 years of Christianity? One of the biggest problems is most people think that the Roman Church is the Catholic Church and unfortunately their actions have dragged the Catholic Church’s name thru the mud for centuries. Few people know the history of the church and that the name Orthodox was only a change of the name not the beginning of a new church.

Click to expand...

The Church didn't disappear. A large portion of it just veered onto a path that would result in it injuring itself, and the Church everywhere. The Church doesn't exist in a vacuum. What Rome did when they veered in a poor direction effected all of us.

Mountainmike said:

I have read more than you think: Which is why I think what I think.

And I am echoing what orthodox say - such as Kallistos Ware.

The revisionism or sanitisation of history really does not help.
Or the pretence that somehow "we split from you". Sure there was a dispute, and parting but it was neither as clean as pretended, nor was it at the often quoted date, nor was it a simple split. Orthodox is a group of churches not just one - so complex. A group of orthodox almost agreed a joint declaration with the see, but Russian refused to join them. Thats the problem with autonomous and autocephalous churches some more attached to the state than others. You dont speak with one voice.

We still have the bishop of Rome as primacy, a position acknowledged even in some fourteenths century orthodox writings whether you like it or not: so that means orthodox split away, if it must be expressed like that at all. Becuase where the head is , there is the church..

So reconciling points of difference is better than trying to highlight them.
Which was always a part of the problem.

Click to expand...

Orthodox Christians believe in primacy, but not in the way its been defined in Rome. The filioque is false doctrine. The way in which it was derived was not theology proper, but rational philosophy. Theology as practiced in most of western Christianity ever since is not Theology proper, which comes from the direct revelation of God through the Word and in the Holy Spirit, but rather, it has been the product of abstract reasoning on passages of Scripture by flawed human beings, who very often produce theological doctrines which are every bit as flawed as they themselves are.

There are very few who carry the title "Theologian" in the Church. The holy Apostle John, "the Theologian" is one such person. John's Gospel records Christ as saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Christ is never recorded as saying that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. In the Holy Trinity, all three agree in one, because all three are one. What the Father is doing the Son and the Holy Spirit are doing: The Son being eternally generated by the Father and the Spirit eternally proceeding from the Father, working together in unison, not one "before" the other, as in us fallen beings who proceed (Holy Spirit) to intentionally do something only after being convinced to do it in our thoughts (logos). In the Godhead, the Holy Spirit already agrees with the Father, without the need of the pronouncement of the Divine Logos. The Word and Spirit are generated by and proceed from the Father at once, in unison. There is no Hierarchy in the Trinity except for that of the Father, who generates His Word and Whose Spirit proceeds from Him.

PeaceByJesus said:

Surely you are not implying the popes can be corrupt! Besides this, even with an ecumenical council, which i in principal support, the issue is who defines corrupt. When a church presumes ensured infallibility then Scripture, tradition and history can only surely mean what they say in any conflict.

When the premise for this is that being the magisterium over the people of God who produced Scripture, and the official discerners and stewards of it, mean that they possess this ensured infallibility, then you end up with a very Big problem.

Click to expand...

Who was it that sanctioned the inquisitions for 686 years? Answer, 99 popes of the Roman Church. The apostles overruled the scriptures concerning circumcision of their own accord at the first ecumenical council. Did they have the authority to do so?

truefiction1 said:

The Church didn't disappear. A large portion of it just veered onto a path that would result in it injuring itself, and the Church everywhere. The Church doesn't exist in a vacuum. What Rome did when they veered in a poor direction effected all of us.

Click to expand...

I think at the time of the schism it wasn’t such a large portion that veered away. Their numbers have just risen drastically afterwards and I can’t help but to think that 686 years of forcing nonbelievers to convert to Roman Catholicism during the inquisitions played a huge role in those numbers.

BNR32FAN said:

I think at the time of the schism it wasn’t such a large portion that veered away. Their numbers have just risen drastically afterwards and I can’t help but to think that 686 years of forcing nonbelievers to convert to Roman Catholicism during the inquisitions played a huge role in those numbers.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure what the population of the Roman Church was at that time. I have a sense that it was substantial, because it would've been all the Christians in western Europe at that time, which I think was quite a few.

truefiction1 said:

I'm not sure what the population of the Roman Church was at that time. I have a sense that it was substantial, because it would've been all the Christians in western Europe at that time, which I think was quite a few.

Click to expand...

Yes I’m not sure about the population but as far as geographical it looks like an even split.

Our Theology is prayer, fasting, and "pouring on oil and wine" (Luke 10:34).

Go and do thou likewise.

quintessentialramble said:

See title. See, like if it was just a thing here or thing there...this probably wouldn't bother me...but no, it's like on every single biblical teaching people are divided over...EVEN LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF....About the only one the vast majority of Christians agree on is Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected to save you from your sins...but after that...there is virtually no unity on theology...so how can anyone believe when nobody is sure of the correct belief, while still teaching it as flawless?

Click to expand...

Maybe it is so that we would love and seek God and not trust man with our salvation . Since I believe and it makes sense to me that we will all give an account to God personally , we should all endeavor to know and love God . As you point out , this is through Christ Jesus . And how do I believe that to be true ? " Learn of me , I am meek and lowly of heart . " That is soooo contrary to natural man , it MUST be God . ( And I think God's humility in contrast to his awesome ability in creating all things is more beautiful than words can ever do justice. )

quintessentialramble said:

See title. See, like if it was just a thing here or thing there...this probably wouldn't bother me...but no, it's like on every single biblical teaching people are divided over...EVEN LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF....About the only one the vast majority of Christians agree on is Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected to save you from your sins...but after that...there is virtually no unity on theology...so how can anyone believe when nobody is sure of the correct belief, while still teaching it as flawless?

Click to expand...

This is true about virtually every pattern of thought, politic, and even science. The reality of human existence is that people have their own minds and can think. I disagree with many people on how to read the scripture and what they mean... but those who are Christian all agree about Jesus and that He died for our sins according to the scripture and that he was buried, and rose from the dead.

disagreement in theology is an issue of sufficiency not infallibility.

James Murphy said:

Unfortunately, those interpretations are now supported by a majority of the Bishops including the current Pope. The Modernist heretics took over the Catholic Church in the 1960s and they've been sliding into apostasy ever since.

Click to expand...

Morally, it was once worse:

Referring to the schism of the 14th and 15th centuries, Cardinal Ratzinger observed,

"For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution.“

"It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196). Who’s in Charge Here? The Illusions of Church Infallibility – White Horse Inn)

Catholic historian Paul Johnson additionally described the existing social situation among the clergy during this period leading up to the Refomation:

“Probably as many as half the men in orders had ‘wives’ and families. Behind all the New Learning and the theological debates, clerical celibacy was, in its own way, the biggest single issue at the Reformation. It was a great social problem and, other factors being equal, it tended to tip the balance in favour of reform. As a rule, the only hope for a child of a priest was to go into the Church himself, thus unwillingly or with no great enthusiasm, taking vows which he might subsequently regret: the evil tended to perpetuate itself.” (History of Christianity, pgs 269-270)

Cardinal Bellarmine:

"Some years before the rise of the Lutheran and Calvinistic heresy, according to the testimony of those who were then alive, there was almost an entire abandonment of equity in ecclesiastical judgments; in morals, no discipline; in sacred literature, no erudition; in divine things, no reverence; religion was almost extinct. (Concio XXVIII. Opp. Vi. 296- Colon 1617, in “A History of the Articles of Religion,” by Charles Hardwick, Cp. 1, p. 10,)

The Consilium de Emendanda Ecclesia (a report commissioned by Pope Paul III on the abuses in the Catholic Church in 1536) testified,

The first abuse in this respect is the ordination of clerics and especially of priests, in which no care is taken, no diligence employed, so that indiscriminately the most unskilled, men of the vilest stock and of evil morals, adolescents, are admitted to Holy Orders and to the priesthood, to the [indelible] mark, we stress, which above all denotes Christ. From this has come numerous scandals and a contempt for the ecclesiastical order, and reverence for the divine worship has not only been diminished but has almost by now been destroyed... Another abuse of the greatest consequence is the bestowing of ecclesiastical benefices, especially parishes and above all bishoprics, in the matter of which the practice has become entrenched that provision is made for the person on whom the benefices are bestowed, but not for the flock and Church of Christ. (pg. 188; Consilium de emendanda ecclesia (1537), Part I | Societas Christiana (1.0))

BNR32FAN said:

It’s most unfortunate that so many have been misled but I think a few key questions they need to ask themselves are where did the church go for the first 1500 years of Christianity? Was it silent or hidden during that time? Did the Holy Spirit take a long vacation forsaking so many generations allowing them to be misled by a corrupted church? Did the gates of hell prevail over the church for the first 1500 years of Christianity?

Click to expand...

Not a vacation, but giving souls choices, and as with before there was a NT church, leading and saving a remnant within the general body with its trappings of traditions of men. The church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

Yet only a relative remnant were saved, or would be, as instead of implicit faith in the historical leadership, followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

One of the biggest problems is most people think that the Roman Church is the Catholic Church and unfortunately their actions have dragged the Catholic Church’s name thru the mud for centuries. Few people know the history of the church and that the name Orthodox was only a change of the name not the beginning of a new church.

Click to expand...

You mean including what the above post describes?

BNR32FAN said:

Who was it that sanctioned the inquisitions for 686 years? Answer, 99 popes of the Roman Church. The apostles overruled the scriptures concerning circumcision of their own accord at the first ecumenical council. Did they have the authority to do so?

Click to expand...

Based on your premise that apostles overruled the scriptures, Rome]s so-called successors could claim they have the authority to do the same as regards the use of the sword of men in order to enforce theological conformity.

However, the apostles and elders and early church (together) did not such overruling of scripture (which is nigh to a blasphemous charge!), but instead they acted in accordance with scripture, which promised a new covenant. (Jer. 31:31-34) Under which manifest grace, in contrast to salvation under the Law "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins," (Acts 10:43) And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:8-9)

Thus seeing as Scripture promised a new covenant, and manifested to the disciples of Christ that they were under it, treating Gentiles just as circumscribed believing Jews, then they could hardly be acting consistent with Scripture in requiring born again members of Christ to be circumscribed and keep the law (which was what the issue was, as circumcision represented this).

Thus Peter's response, "Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?" (Acts 11:17)

Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. (Acts 15:10-11)

Then James issued the final judgment, substantiating it by Scripture, invoking prophecy of what God would do in the latter days, and proposing what to do, to which all concurred.

Thus rather than overruling Scripture, Scripture overruled the Judaizers as the NT overruled the Old, as it said it would, being distinctively "Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: (Jeremiah 31:32)

However, the men such as the apostles could speak and write as wholly inspired of God at times, and also provide new public revelation thereby, neither of which even Rome's leadership claims to do.

fhansen said:

What was so awesome about her was that she was one of the most down to earth, hard-working, practical woman anyone can imagine, and the most spiritual. For anyone who bothers to read her I think they'll only grow in understanding of our faith.

Click to expand...

The Interior Castle was a brilliant read.

redleghunter said:

Explain. Your own Catechism calls Sacred Scriptures the Word of God. How can the Word of God be fallible?

Click to expand...

I would suggest that if we had the original manuscripts as written by the original authors then I would be fine with calling it infallible, but alas we don't have the originals we only copies of copies of translations of translations. So the one in your hands right now is most likely fallible.

PeaceByJesus said:

Based on your premise that apostles overruled the scriptures, Rome]s so-called successors could claim they have the authority to do the same as regards the use of the sword of men in order to enforce theological conformity.

However, the apostles and elders and early church (together) did not such overruling of scripture (which is nigh to a blasphemous charge!), but instead they acted in accordance with scripture, which promised a new covenant. (Jer. 31:31-34) Under which manifest grace, in contrast to salvation under the Law "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins," (Acts 10:43) And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:8-9)

Thus seeing as Scripture promised a new covenant, and manifested to the disciples of Christ that they were under it, treating Gentiles just as circumscribed believing Jews, then they could hardly be acting consistent with Scripture in requiring born again members of Christ to be circumscribed and keep the law (which was what the issue was, as circumcision represented this).

Thus Peter's response, "Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?" (Acts 11:17)

Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. (Acts 15:10-11)

Then James issued the final judgment, substantiating it by Scripture, invoking prophecy of what God would do in the latter days, and proposing what to do, to which all concurred.

Thus rather than overruling Scripture, Scripture overruled the Judaizers as the NT overruled the Old, as it said it would, being distinctively "Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: (Jeremiah 31:32)

However, the men such as the apostles could speak and write as wholly inspired of God at times, and also provide new public revelation thereby, neither of which even Rome's leadership claims to do.

Click to expand...

But there is no mention that circumcision would be abolished and the apostles only taught that salvation doesn’t come by obedience to the law my friend. However they did still teach that obedience to the law is still greatly encouraged. My point is that they reached this decision overruling the necessity of circumcision without any direct reference from the scriptures. If it were written in the OT scriptures there would’ve been no need to meet together to reach their decision. The same was done with the Saturday Sabbath a few centuries later in the same manner. Thru the guidance of the Holy Spirit the church leaders determined that both circumcision and the Saturday Sabbath were not necessary for salvation and also not necessary in order to honor God. The ecumenical councils have always met together with the intention of honoring God in the highest. That is their highest priority always. I don’t understand why it seems that so many people look upon these men as evil greedy men with the intention of misleading the church into apostasy. They really don’t deserve this type of criticism as they are our brothers in Christ who have devoted their lives to serving God more than most of the Christians who persecute them. Honestly if anything they deserve our respect for their devotion to bringing God’s word to us as we know it today. We shouldn’t criticize them having almost no knowledge at all of who they were and their level of devotion to God. I believe they deserve the benefit of the doubt.

PeaceByJesus said:

Based on your premise that apostles overruled the scriptures, Rome]s so-called successors could claim they have the authority to do the same as regards the use of the sword of men in order to enforce theological conformity.

However, the apostles and elders and early church (together) did not such overruling of scripture (which is nigh to a blasphemous charge!), but instead they acted in accordance with scripture, which promised a new covenant. (Jer. 31:31-34) Under which manifest grace, in contrast to salvation under the Law "To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins," (Acts 10:43) And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. (Acts 15:8-9)

Thus seeing as Scripture promised a new covenant, and manifested to the disciples of Christ that they were under it, treating Gentiles just as circumscribed believing Jews, then they could hardly be acting consistent with Scripture in requiring born again members of Christ to be circumscribed and keep the law (which was what the issue was, as circumcision represented this).

Thus Peter's response, "Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?" (Acts 11:17)

Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they. (Acts 15:10-11)

Then James issued the final judgment, substantiating it by Scripture, invoking prophecy of what God would do in the latter days, and proposing what to do, to which all concurred.

Thus rather than overruling Scripture, Scripture overruled the Judaizers as the NT overruled the Old, as it said it would, being distinctively "Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the Lord: (Jeremiah 31:32)

However, the men such as the apostles could speak and write as wholly inspired of God at times, and also provide new public revelation thereby, neither of which even Rome's leadership claims to do.

Click to expand...

Oh and about Rome’s successors having the authority to overrule scriptures, they lost that authority when they were excommunicated from the Catholic Church in 1054AD for trying to overrule the ecumenical council. Four of the five bishops of the pentarchy sided against Rome and were in favor of Rome’s excommunication. The fifth being the bishop of Rome obviously didn’t side against himself.