can the bible be infallibly interpreted?

[racer]

So, fwiw...more than 30,000...

Do you even know from where this number comes?

 

[Albion]

Do you even know from where this number comes?

Well, it's inaccurate, and that has been explained many times here already. Of course, I also agree that the twisted way it's been used is worse than the figure itself.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

What makes you think we are either going to get one or need one? Do you not understand John 3:16, for example, such that you feel the need to presume that some other person is endowed with infallibility?

I am not claiming that anyone (aside from Christ himself) is infallible. I just don't think it possbile to get any closer to that source than through the path that he left.

Forgive me...

 

[squint]

Do you even know from where this number comes?

I don't really care.

Paul told us ALL the scriptures reflect our OWN individual hearts...

I do NOT believe we ALL have 'absolutely identical reflections' nor do I believe it's even possible at the present time.

So, if you want to stick a PIN in that number I don't really care....the 'real' number comes down to the individual reflectors, which none of us are going to be able to get any kind of an accurate count on NOR is that even important to the general observation.

I am willing to say that logically, reasonably speaking that EVERY SINGLE MEMBER of the RCC will have different and UNIQUE reflections on EVERY MATTER of scripture because of their 'individual' subjective experiences. This is a reasonable view of FACT.

There is NO WAY to 'measure' the amount of various THOUGHT PROCESSES that go on within the individuals in 'reactions' to the scriptures and the words therein.

A veritable HORDE of individual reflections are possibly going on simultaneously at any given moment no matter WHAT we may view on the outside (10 or 30,000 or MORE denominations) that will always logically defy complete CAPTURE or complete DEFINITION.

The flags of cohesiveness on this basis are rather void except by extreme generality.

One may as well put up the word ME and see if everyone on the planet has the same reflection of just that ONE WORD...

I'm saying it's NOT possible. Make as much as you want out of the observations herein. Those also are your own reflections.

s

 

[Albion]

I am not claiming that anyone (aside from Christ himself) is infallible.

All right, but then you are claiming that a group of people is infallible, right?

My reaction remains the same in that case. What is this need for believing in absolute answers to questions that are not in need of an answer?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

All right, but then you are claiming that a group of people is infallible, right?

My reaction remains the same in that case. What is this need for believing in absolute answers to questions that are not in need of an answer?

No... I'm saying the teachings were infallible when they were deposited by Christ, and that they could not have any other origin.

Forgive me...

 

[racer]

I don't really care.

Well, as a Christian you should care. That number is inaccurate to put it politely. Down right wrong, actually. Be careful of spreading falsehoods intentially or not . . . .

 

[JAL]

even if it be such that the bible be infallibly 'written', yet can the bible be infallibly 'interpreted'?

God is willing to provide infallibility to everyone because everyone needs it. For instance, God's will is love that does ZERO harm to my neighbor (Romans 13). I am, in myself, incapable of figuring out what behavior is harmless to my neighbor. Who should I vote for? Should I enroll in the military, and encourage my kids to do the same? How strict should I be raising my kids. Should I support my leaders in war? Which products should I purchase and consume, as some might be harmful to the environment? What foods should I eat? What should I feed my family? How should I, if am a church leader, run the church? How should I conduct evangelism? We NEED reliable, infallible answers to these questions in order to fulfill the law of love.

Therefore: If God isn't committed to infallible revelations of His will, then He isn't comitted to love. He gave the apostles a gift of infallible inspiration. If He were unwilling to do the same for us, He would be guility of having shown them favoritism.

Infallibility should be the number one priority of every religious person, because until one is 100% sure that he has it, he cannot even rightly presume to have found the correct religion. He can only say he has mere opinons. 100% certainty JUSTIFIES a person in claiming to be infallible. That is to say, if you are fully convinced that you are infallible, then I can't fault you for so claiming; you are blameless in that claim.

Jesus put it like this. Speaking to His disciples, He said, "You shall KNOW the truth, and the truth shall set you free." Note He did not say, "You shall labor all your lives in uncertain opinions, you won't even be fully certain whether Christianity is the true religion."

WHEN did the disciples come to "know the truth" as Christ promised? "When the Spirit of Truth comes, He shall guide you into all truth."

God has the ability to guide each of us into all truth. If he were unwilling to do it, He would be an irresponsible deity. "Ye have not, because ye ask not." For the last 2000 years, the church, instead of praying for infallibility, has insisted that God is unwilling to grant it to all believers. In effect, the church has discouraged the pursuit of it. How tragic.

Paul was clear enough that all of us are to seek the gift of infallible inspiration. "Follow the way of love, and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, ESPECIALLY the gift of prophecy" (1cor 14:1).

 

[marksman007]

At the last count I believe it is 35,000 denominations.

 

[squint]

Well, as a Christian you should care. That number is inaccurate to put it politely. Down right wrong, actually. Be careful of spreading falsehoods intentially or not . . . .

Well, if you cared you'd understand the observation was not about that whatsoever, so spin it however you want if it makes you feel better.

 

[Albion]

At the last count I believe it is 35,000 denominations.

...and why not? In my short time on CF, hearing this same claim, the number has gone from 20,000 to 22,000 to 30,000 to 33,000 and now 35,000. I have no doubt that--in allegation if not in reality--we'll be passing the 40,000 barrier any day now, even though this would mean that about a thousand new denominations are being created every month, as if that's credible, and the total number of denominations doubling since about the turn of this century!

 

[Albion]

God is willing to provide infallibility to everyone because everyone needs it.

Let's try to get this straight. Not only does no one "need it" but no one is infallible. No human is endowed with infallibility, Jesus excepted because of his divine nature. The most that can be postulated is that someone or anyone can be CORRECT, not infallible, which means that he'd have no possibility of being wrong.

For instance, God's will is love that does ZERO harm to my neighbor (Romans 13). I am, in myself, incapable of figuring out what behavior is harmless to my neighbor. Who should I vote for? Should I enroll in the military, and encourage my kids to do the same? How strict should I be raising my kids. Should I support my leaders in war? Which products should I purchase and consume, as some might be harmful to the environment? What foods should I eat? What should I feed my family? How should I, if am a church leader, run the church? How should I conduct evangelism? We NEED reliable, infallible answers to these questions in order to fulfill the law of love.

And you've got 'em, in the Bible. That has nothing to do, either way, with any speculation about having powers of infallibility.

Therefore: If God isn't committed to infallible revelations of His will, then He isn't comitted to love.

But no one is questioning God's infallibility. The question is about the powers (infallible or not infallible) of the reader of the Bible, not the revelator.

He gave the apostles a gift of infallible inspiration.

There is no verse in scripure which says that.

If He were unwilling to do the same for us, He would be guility of having shown them favoritism.

What a surprise! You mean that the God who selected an entire "chosen race" is not permitted to show "favoritism" elsewhere? Want to think that one through again?

Infallibility should be the number one priority of every religious person,

No, accuracy in interpretation should be the number one priority (if indeed it is the number one).

because until one is 100% sure that he has it, he cannot even rightly presume to have found the correct religion. He can only say he has mere opinons. 100% certainty JUSTIFIES a person in claiming to be infallible.

Well, no one can be 100% certain.

That is to say, if you are fully convinced that you are infallible, then I can't fault you for so claiming; you are blameless in that claim.

If you think you are infallible, you are living in a dream world. None of us has been endowed with infallibility.

Speaking to His disciples, He said, "You shall KNOW the truth, and the truth shall set you free."

Which is NOT the same as saying that they were being made infallible, just that they would know the truth.

]Paul was clear enough that all of us are to seek the gift of infallible inspiration. "Follow the way of love, and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, ESPECIALLY the gift of prophecy" (1cor 14:1).

Paul said nothing there about us being infallible, if you notice.

 

[squint]

...and why not? In my short time on CF, hearing this same claim, the number has gone from 20,000 to 22,000 to 30,000 to 33,000 and now 35,000. I have no doubt that--in allegation if not in reality--we'll be passing the 40,000 barrier any day now, even though this would mean that about a thousand new denominations are being created every month, as if that's credible, and the total number of denominations doubling since about the turn of this century!

I've heard the 30,000 number for a number of years

From "Christianity Today's" website:

Number of Christian Denominations:
There are approximately 38,000 Christian denominations in the world. This statistic takes into consideration cultural distinctions of denominations in different countries.
World Christian Encyclopedia (2001)

 

[Albion]

I've heard the 30,000 number for a number of years

From "Christianity Today's" website:

Number of Christian Denominations:
There are approximately 38,000 Christian denominations in the world. This statistic takes into consideration cultural distinctions of denominations in different countries.
World Christian Encyclopedia (2001)

Ah, then we've gained 3000 denominations in only the past half-hour. My prediction about 40,000 seems safe.

The point here is that the "denominations" claimed are not actual denominations as understood by most people and so it's only a weapon to use against other churches by those who want to say that "there are 30,000 denominations, ergo none can be correct (a logical fallacy), except for "my church" because it doesn't call itself a denomination, so it isn't one of them (another logical fallacy) and must, therefore, be united and correct (one more logical fallacy)."

As a claim, it's not any more meaningful than saying "Catholics worship the Pope" or "Protestants just don't like authority." In other words, it has no value at all except as a misunderstanding deliberately used inaccurately in order to look down on other Christian churches.

 

[JAL]

Albion, thanks for sharing your opinions, but until I am 100% certain that your opinions are infallibly correct, I for one am not about to stake my eternal destiny on ANY of them. And anyone else around here would likewise be a fool to stake his eternal destiny on anything less than 100% certainty. The goal must be 100%.

Let's try to get this straight. Not only does no one "need it" but no one is infallible. No human is endowed with infallibility, Jesus excepted because of his divine nature. The most that can be postulated is that someone or anyone can be CORRECT, not infallible, which means that he'd have no possibility of being wrong.

Interesting opinion, but obviously incorrect. That's the whole danger of mere opinions, isn't it? We tend to come up with the wrong answers. Consequently, God has an antidote to human error, in fact, God's antidote (inspiration), when fully administered by Him, is infallible and, by virtue of His infallibility, renders the recipient infallible. That's the difference between a seminary professor and Paul. When a seminary professor writes a book, it is almost certain to be full of errors. When Paul wrote Romans, there was NO POSSIBILITY of error (i.e., assuming God was fully administering inspiration at the moment which, in my opinion, He was).

And you've got 'em, in the Bible. That has nothing to do, either way, with any speculation about having powers of infallibility.

The Bible has all the answers to all my ethical questions? It fully informs me about all my decisions? Please. That's patently absurd. The Bible doesn't even tell me whether I should show up for work tomorrow. Ever heard of 911? Do you think Jesus, if he were here, would have gone to work that today? Or Paul? Or David? Or Elijah? Nope. They would have asked the Father, who would have replied, "A bunch of Muslims are planning to bomb the building. Don't go to work tomorrow."

What a surprise! You mean that the God who selected an entire "chosen race" is not permitted to show "favoritism" elsewhere? Want to think that one through again?

Paul said that God is "no respecter of persons." Apparently, you are the one who needs to rethink your theology.

No, accuracy in interpretation should be the number one priority (if indeed it is the number one).

As long as I am less than 100% certain of my interpretations, I am unwarranted in presuming them to be accurate.

Well, no one can be 100% certain.

Patently absurd. God is incapable of imparting to someone, during inspiration, a feeling of 100% certainty? If I do not tire of this discussion, perhaps I'll take the time to show some hard evidence from Scripture that He CAN and DOES provide this feeling.

If you think you are infallible, you are living in a dream world. None of us has been endowed with infallibility.

I am not infallible nor do I pretend to be (see my signature). And yes, Paul, Christ, Moses, and all the rest were living in a dream world. They should have realized that the inspiration given to them was quite fallible. When Paul wrote Romans, he should have admitted, "I really don't know for sure what the heck I'm talking about. These are just some opinions of mine." Please.

Which is NOT the same as saying that they were being made infallible, just that they would know the truth.

As I already suggested, the nearest I would aspire to infallibility is 100% certainty whereby I, at the moment of receiving it, would naturally view myself infallible (with respect to any issue that I'm 100% certain of). I do NOT believe that God imparts 100% certainty on ALL issues at once. Even Jesus said that He didn't know the day or the hour of His return.

Paul said nothing there about us being infallible, if you notice.

He implied his own infallibility. If you think Paul and the rest were fallible, then you shouldn't put your trust in Scripture. Why trust a bunch of fallible men who wrote a bunch of fallible books?

 

[JAL]

People at large didn't have Bibles until the printing press was invented 500 years ago. For the first 5500 years of church history, then, the average believer didnt' even have a Bible. If redemptive economy were supposed to be bibliocentric, God would be a lousy leader for neglect of providing a printing press at an early date.

Fact is, Albion, God isn't a lousy leader. He's just a bit smarter than you - smart enough to realize that the Bible can never fully suffice as a satisfactory source of information if fallible humans are going to interpret it. God has a much better tool than fallible exegesis, namely infallible inspiration. In fact, it's easy to demonstrate that exegesis is doomed from the start. It can never yield full certainty.

To the extent that we lack inspiration, we fall back on exegesis as a crutch. it's better than nothing. But it's hardly a satisfactory substitute for inspiration. Realizing that, Paul wrote, "Follow the way of love and eagerly desire spiritual gifts, ESPECIALLY the gift of prophecy" (1Cor 14:1).

 

[squint]

He's just a bit smarter than you - smart enough to realize that the Bible can never fully suffice as a satisfactory source of information if fallible humans are going to interpret it. God has a much better tool than fallible exegesis, namely infallible inspiration.

YEAH Albion. 38,000 infallible inspired groups CANNOT be one whit WRONG. No, it's NOT possible...that would NEVER happen. An 'inspired error?' What are you thinking Albion? They are ALL 100% certifiably RIGHT.

Every last one of 'em.

 

[squint]

Ah, then we've gained 3000 denominations in only the past half-hour. My prediction about 40,000 seems safe.

The point here is that the "denominations" claimed are not actual denominations as understood by most people and so it's only a weapon to use against other churches by those who want to say that "there are 30,000 denominations, ergo none can be correct (a logical fallacy), except for "my church" because it doesn't call itself a denomination, so it isn't one of them (another logical fallacy) and must, therefore, be united and correct (one more logical fallacy)."

As a claim, it's not any more meaningful than saying "Catholics worship the Pope" or "Protestants just don't like authority." In other words, it has no value at all except as a misunderstanding deliberately used inaccurately in order to look down on other Christian churches.

Yeah, all O dat.

That's why I said earlier in this thread, were the Pope, speaking ex-cathedra, to come right out in public and state that God put a devil on him to keep him humble and that he had EVIL PRESENT with him (what happened to Paul in Romans 7:17-21 & 2 Cor. 12:7) as the preamble to his speech, the world of 'christiandom' would be utterly SHOCKED....

and I'd probably rejoin. One can be infallibly truthful even with EVIL PRESENT if one speaks truthfully about same.

I won't be holding my breath for that much honesty however unfortunately. When the supposed leader of the 'biggest group' can't stand up to the simplicity of these facts, what do we expect from the balance?

s

 

[vnct]

Only by those who were taught by the infallible teacher, Christ God Himself.

I am speaking of the Apostles.

okay.

Let me further the question...

If the infallible teachings do not lie in the hands of the Apostles and the Churches that were their families... where else are we going to get an infallible interpretation.

i'm not aware. how would we know any better how to interpret the ancient texts than the apostles and their direct successors?

That's right. The apostles were taught be Jesus, and those apostles taught other men. Those men also have writings available to be read. Also, those men that the apostles taught, were the teachers of other men, and these teachings and this passing on of those teachings continues today. All one has to do is read what has been written by those that were taught by the apostles and compare to what is taught today. And where you find those that teach what has been taught then, today, then you will find what was taught by Jesus.

which specific early authors are you referring to?

The salvation-specific verses were intended be clear to us. To say that our interpretation is infallible implies that we understand Scripture beyond all doubt and beyond all mystery.

are 'salvation-specific' verses infallibly interpretable? while 'peripheral' (non-'salvation-specific') verses are not?

 

[racer]

Well, if you cared you'd understand the observation was not about that whatsoever, so spin it however you want if it makes you feel better.

Honestly, "you lost me at hello . ."