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

[redleghunter]

The Bible is not "infallible".

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

 

[redleghunter]

Yes - I use Genesis as an example to providing us an introduction to God and his relationship to our universe and this world.

I don't feel a need to take all aspects literally ie - there was light then he created earth and populated it with gardens and animals and ultimately man.

As a science student I can take it as accepted, that the universe was created and that in fact, it took some time before the universe experienced life and much longer still, for the formation of our planet. I also accept that it needed to cool, create an atmosphere and then finally life emerged...... and that took a long time

So that's an example. But others include Noahs Ark, Tower of Babylon etc.

I have to accept that theres parts that contradict - a tiny example is: who is the father of Joseph. Additionally there are parts of the OT that are frankly detestable; filled with retribution in the form of genocide, rape and human violation.

Whilst the writers may well have been inspired, ultimately they wrote the story hundreds of years after the events occurred. On that basis I have to accept that error could have quite easily have been introduced.

I try not to get stuck on the literal word, but rather embrace the paradigm the bible provides.

So it’s not a matter of literal language with you but literal history?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I am a member of Gods church and am not catholic.

Depending on what century you live in, Catholics would contend whether you are even part of the universal church, For after years of papal and conciliar teaching such as states that “We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, "the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing," "in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors," "whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church," "subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ's faithful," "The sacrosanct Roman Church...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart into everlasting fire...unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that..no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church;”

Another council comes along and creates distinct divisions such as by asserting,

there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (Cf. Jn. 16:13) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ," …those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church,” the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation...”

[And even] the Moslems, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God," "They adore one God, living and enduring, merciful and all-powerful, Maker of heaven and earth." Sources .

 

[W2L]

Depending on what century you live in, Catholics would contend whether you are even part of the universal church, For after years of papal and conciliar teaching such as states that “We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff, "the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing," "in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors," "whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church," "subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ's faithful," "The sacrosanct Roman Church...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart into everlasting fire...unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that..no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church;”

Another council comes along and creates distinct divisions such as by asserting,

there are many who honor Sacred Scripture, taking it as a norm of belief and a pattern of life, and who show a sincere zeal. They lovingly believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ, the Son of God and Saviour. (Cf. Jn. 16:13) They are consecrated by baptism, in which they are united with Christ," …those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church,” the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation...”

[And even] the Moslems, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God," "They adore one God, living and enduring, merciful and all-powerful, Maker of heaven and earth." Sources .

Im simplistic. I see simplicity in scripture not Catholicism.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

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

Because as PaulCyp1 said: ↑ "Anything that has to be read has to be interpreted in order to be understood..Which is why Jesus Christ founded ONE Church,..." which means that the Interpreter - in the form of the Catechism - can be subject to interpretation. Because "Anything that has to be read has to be interpreted in order to be understood."

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Im simplistic. I see simplicity in scripture not Catholicism.

And i do not see Catholic distinctive doctrines in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation. Deformation of the New Testament Church and history relevant to the Reformation

 

[Tutorman]

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

The Bible is inerrant. The reason so many disagree is because they have shunned the authority of the Apostles vested in the Church for their own authority and now there is a mess were everyone thinks they know what the Bible says.

 

[W2L]

The Bible is inerrant. The reason so many disagree is because they have shunned the authority of the Apostles vested in the Church for their own authority and now there is a mess were everyone thinks they know what the Bible says.

Truth is they are all wrong. Some are more wrong than others though.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

The Bible is inerrant. The reason so many disagree is because they have shunned the authority of the Apostles vested in the Church for their own authority and now there is a mess were everyone thinks they know what the Bible says.

That is just what the RC basically said with his argument by assertion being how his church was the one true church and interpreter, after interpreting his church as teaching that the Bible is fallible. Meanwhile you have Episcopalians misinterpreting Scripture contrary to God only joining (biological) male and female in marriage.

You simply cannot escape the problem of the need for varying degrees of interpretation, nor the need for the magisterial office to settle controversies, just as see in the civil system. The problem is that of the basis for the veracity of conciliar decisions, that of the collective weight of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as we see in Acts 15, or the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults).

 

[Tutorman]

Can't help it, the Bible says the Church is it not people saying what the Bible says

 

[truefiction1]

I am a member of Gods Church and i am not EO

Well, that may be so, because while we Orthodox know where the Church is, we can't know where the Church is not.

 

[redleghunter]

Because as PaulCyp1 said: ↑ "Anything that has to be read has to be interpreted in order to be understood..Which is why Jesus Christ founded ONE Church,..." which means that the Interpreter - in the form of the Catechism - can be subject to interpretation. Because "Anything that has to be read has to be interpreted in order to be understood."

Yes that was quite a confusing and contradictory statement by that poster.

Perhaps a little Hippolytus for Catholics is in order:

"Some others are secretly introducing another doctrine, who have become disciples of one Noetus, who was a native of Smyrna, and lived not very long ago. This person was greatly puffed up and inflated with pride, being inspired by the conceit of a strange spirit. He alleged that Christ was the Father Himself, and that the Father Himself was born, and suffered, and died....But the case stands not thus; for the Scriptures do not set forth the matter in this manner....the Scriptures themselves confute their senselessness, and attest the truth...The Scriptures speak what is right; but Noetus is of a different mind from them. Yet, though Noetus does not understand the truth, the Scriptures are not at once to be repudiated....The proper way, therefore, to deal with the question is first of all to refute the interpretation put upon these passages [of scripture] by these men, and then to explain their real meaning....For whenever they wish to attempt anything underhand, they mutilate the Scriptures. But let him quote the passage as a whole, and he will discover the reason kept in view in writing it....if they choose to maintain that their dogma is ratified by this passage [of scripture], as if He owned Himself to be the Father, let them know that it is decidedly against them, and that they are confuted by this very word....Many other passages [of scripture], or rather all of them, attest the truth. A man, therefore, even though he will it not, is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God, who, being God, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject, Himself excepted, and the Holy Spirit; and that these, therefore, are three. But if he desires to learn how it is shown still that there is one God, let him know that His power is one....What, then, will this Noetus, who knows nothing of the truth, dare to say to these things? And now, as Noetus has been confuted, let us turn to the exhibition of the truth itself, that we may establish the truth, against which all these mighty heresies have arisen without being able to state anything to the purpose. There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man, if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practise piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things, then, the Holy Scriptures declare, at these let us took; and whatsoever things they teach, these let us learn; and as the Father wills our belief to be, let us believe; and as He wills the Son to be glorified, let us glorify Him; and as He wills the Holy Spirit to be bestowed, let us receive Him. Not according to our own will, nor according to our own mind, nor yet as using violently those things which are given by God, but even as He has chosen to teach them by the Holy Scriptures, so let us discern them." (Against the Heresy of One Noetus, 1-4, 7-9) ​

CHURCH FATHERS: Against Noetus (Hippolytus)

 

[Zoii]

So it’s not a matter of literal language with you but literal history?

Well, in this case, the language is espousing the history. In that regard you can't separate the two.

However, in terms of language, we get an expression of ethics and morals that are very much influenced by the the prevailing culture at that time. For example, the description of what women should wear. I wouldn't take the literal language as being important, but rather the expression of a paradigm that some modesty should be shown. Additionally, I would argue against the culture which, at that time, was patriarchal. If I were to take the bible literally then I would have to accept a patriarchal view of the world, with men leading in all spheres of life..... and I dont.

 

[redleghunter]

Well, in this case, the language is espousing the history. In that regard you can't separate the two.

You have to put your stake in the ground somewhere.

Would you accept the literal history of the ministry of Jesus Christ, His death and Resurrection?

I mean it takes a miracle for a dead man to rise three days later with an incorruptible body. That's the literal history of the New Testament.

Why would it be so far out to believe the same God Who raises people from the dead can also part a sea to deliver Israel?

Additionally, I would argue against the culture which, at that time, was patriarchal. If I were to take the bible literally then I would have to accept a patriarchal view of the world, with men leading in all spheres of life..... and I dont.

Well that is a very post modern view being impressed upon the Holy Scriptures and frankly not only going against what the Apostles taught in Scriptures but what God revealed in Genesis as Adam was created first.

And what I mean about putting a post modern spin on this is how the post modern defines patriarchy. To them it's a dirty word which is influenced by the likes of Hollywood productions like the Handmaiden's Tale. In Scriptures it's a means of familial relations which are complimentarian.

 

[truefiction1]

Which one true church? The representative i just responded to promotes his church as uniquely being the one true and apostolic church, which remains in conflict with you all after over 1,000 years.

As for me, I look to the most ancient church teaching, the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (including how they understood the OT and gospels), which is Scripture, especially Acts thru Revelation.

In which i do not see distinctive Roman Catholic doctrines manifest (nor the EOs, if less aberrant), thus they cannot claim to be the one true and apostolic church.

Meanwhile, the only one true church is that of the spiritual body of Christ, (Colossians 1:18) to which He is married, (Ephesians 5:25) the "household of faith," (Galatians 6:10) since it uniquely only and always consists 100% of true believers, and which spiritual body of Christ is what the Spirit baptizes ever believer into, (1Co. 12:13) while organic fellowships in which they express their faith inevitably become admixtures of wheat and tares, with Catholicism and liberal Protestantism being mostly the latter.

Who changed the wording of the Nicene Creed, when Ecumenical councils had anathematized in advance anyone who would ever do it? I'll give you a clue: the Roman church did it, and in doing so have excommunicated themselves as per the rulings of councils that they themselves declare to be authoritative. You can look to Scripture as the only authoritative means of defining doctrine, but you can't deny that an Ecumenical council of the Church proclaimed which of the many Christian manuscripts of the time belonged in the Bible and which did not. Revelations was a book that did not have the vote of everyone, some thinking it should not be included in the Bible. The Church deemed it Scripture, like it did all the other books of the Bible, so that we can be confident about what we're reading.

The Church is not just spiritual. It has a physical subsistence, which is why Christ commanded us to Baptize with water, for example, and to eat and drink bread and wine which is His body and blood. We gather together in His name in "physical" bodies in physical places and worship together. We convene councils to make dogmatic and practical decisions which are put into physical writings. All these things are highly visible in a physical sense, and they connect to the spiritual reality of Life in Christ by the Holy Spirit. This physical Church which is also spiritual in that it lives by the grace of the Holy Spirit, is the Orthodox Church. There should not be all these divisions that we see. These divisions are the chaos created by the evil one with the intended purpose of ridding the world of the presence of Christ through ultimately toppling the Church altogether (2 Thessalonians 2:6-7). The false philosophy of the "spiritual church" is an instrument of anti-christ, among many such instruments, because it basically states that division in Christianity is okay, normal, and not a really a problem, since the church is "spiritual and invisible" anyway. The enemy wants the Church to be "invisible". That is the whole game plan: to make it so that Christ can no longer be seen in the world. The Bible teaches against division and disunity, and against those who foster it.

 

[truefiction1]

Im simplistic. I see simplicity in scripture not Catholicism.

Get too simplistic, and one starts to see in Scripture the Father alone as God, and His Son Jesus Christ, the Word of God, as a created being. It's a lot simpler than explaining a Tri-une Godhead in the face of Scripture that clearly proclaims God to be "One".

Not everything can be simple all the time for everyone, and still be true.

 

[HatGuy]

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

Not true.

Read Thomas Oden and you'll realise this isn't true.

There is a heck of a lot Christians actually do agree on theologically. Often it's an issue of language and usage, but you find there is a real consensus when you think deeply enough about it.

 

[redleghunter]

Get too simplistic, and one starts to see in Scripture the Father alone as God, and His Son Jesus Christ, the Word of God, as a created being. It's a lot simpler than explaining a Tri-une Godhead in the face of Scripture that clearly proclaims God to be "One".

Not everything can be simple all the time for everyone, and still be true.

How could one claim the Divine Logos God the Son Jesus Christ a created being? Your own statement simply refutes this as do the Holy Scriptures. John 1 teaches the Incarnation of The Word.

Paul confirms the Deity of Christ in Colossians :

Colossians 2: NASB

8See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. 9For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,10and in Him you have been made complete, and He is the head over all rule and authority;

 

[thesunisout]

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?

There is unity on most theology. The vast majority of Christians believe the same things about the Trinity, the substitutionary atonement, sin, sanctification etc. There are certain hot button issues that sincere Christians disagree on, of course, such as once saved always saved, water baptism versus sprinkling, the age of the Earth, tithing, the Sabbath etc. That doesn't mean there isn't a correct interpretation or that scripture is wrong. Some things we will only find out when we get to Heaven.

 

[Zoii]

You have to put your stake in the ground somewhere

My stake in the ground is about the paradigm - not the literal word.
The notion of a God and what that means to me as a human being is the big picture issue. Getting wrapped up in the meaning of a single verse isnt helpful to me. In fact my observation is that an approach such as that, leads to conflict inside and outside of the Christianity. It leaves no room for discussion and cohesion between religions. Its more focused on what an apostle may or may not have said, instead of spirituality.

Well that is a very post modern view being impressed upon the Holy Scriptures and frankly not only going against what the Apostles taught in Scriptures but what God revealed in Genesis as Adam was created first.

Yes of course its modern - its meant to be. My whole point was that verses were written within a culture that does not prevail now. We don't stone. We don't offer our daughter up to her rapist. And women lead in all walks of life and are not dependent on men. They were at the time those verses were written.

As for the Adam and Eve story - I do not take that as a literal story. If you want to use any lesson from the story.... Well my pastor describes it as a story that Eve was deceived, but Adam wasn't. Adam's act was a wilful crime contradicting Gods law, and compounded his ineptitude by attempting to blame Eve. Eve was tricked, but took the rap for it....I'm guessing that's what we need to understand from the tale.... I see it as a 'Be wary of men and liars' story.