Inerrancy

[TB2]

Can you imagine needing brain surgery, and some guy comes up to you and said he's personally read several books on brain surgery, cover to cover, and he thinks he understands it all and would like to do the surgery for you? What would you tell him? He could claim that the books on surgery were the best in the world, and acknowledged by Wikipedia as being completely without error.

I like your analogy. We must never forget that Scripture as important as it is can never trump Who Scripture is about. And knowing *about* God is by itself not as important as personally *knowing* God. I believe the term is *functional deism*. As believers we don't simply want to read, but experience what we read in Scripture.

 

[Augustin56]

I like your analogy. We must never forget that Scripture as important as it is can never trump Who Scripture is about. And knowing *about* God is by itself not as important as personally *knowing* God. I believe the term is *functional deism*. As believers we don't simply want to read, but experience what we read in Scripture.

Good point! Strictly speaking, the Word of God is not a book. It is Someone, namely Jesus Christ. St. John begins his Gospel with, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." He is speaking here of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the Word of God. The Bible is one of the two main methods of transmission of the Word of God to us humans. (The other being Oral Tradition - see 2 Thes. 2:15).

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

Good point! Strictly speaking, the Word of God is not a book. It is Someone, namely Jesus Christ. St. John begins his Gospel with, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." He is speaking here of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the Word of God. The Bible is one of the two main methods of transmission of the Word of God to us humans. (The other being Oral Tradition - see 2 Thes. 2:15).

The Bible cannot be used to promote an oral tradition of miracle working down the line if it contains indications that such powers weren't always operative and the Church fathers wrote about them dying off in the early centuries.

That's the problem with Catholicism (not Catholics, they are just pawns in it) - it asserts falsehoods and doesn't intelligently consider alternative viewpoints that solve the problems.

Jesus is called the Word in the books of John only. That is something a lot of people don't understand. And it shows.

If you research whether the phrase "the word of God" is in the rest of the Bible, you come up empty. There must be a reason for that. Maybe there isn't. On the other hand it is phrased differently in the Old Testament as simply just phrases like "Your word".

You will be hard pressed to find a Jew alive that confuses the word with The Word, the latter meaning Jesus the physical man. John was not writing in a literal fashion, his writings are full of mysticism.

 

[TB2]

The Bible cannot be used to promote an oral tradition of miracle working down the line if it contains indications that such powers weren't always operative and the Church fathers wrote about them dying off in the early centuries.

I'm not sure we can go by that. Usually the Holy Spirit is more willing then we are to operate that way just like times when we are close or far in our personal relationship with God due to us not Him. That said, there are historical records of miracles continuing past the apostolic age. I believe Craig Keener has a massive two volume tome on miracles throughout church history and in the Bible (btw, fyi I'm Protestant)

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

I'm not sure we can go by that. Usually the Holy Spirit is more willing then we are to operate that way just like times when we are close or far in our personal relationship with God due to us not Him. That said, there are historical records of miracles continuing past the apostolic age. I believe Craig Keener has a massive two volume tome on miracles throughout church history and in the Bible (btw, fyi I'm Protestant)

I didn't say anything about miracles today. I was talking obviously about the Apostles doing miracles that died off in the early church.

 

[TB2]

I didn't say anything about miracles today. I was talking obviously about the Apostles doing miracles that died off in the early church.

Right, I'm saying there are records of miracles into the second and third centuries going past the apostolic age

 

[Augustin56]

The Bible cannot be used to promote an oral tradition of miracle working down the line if it contains indications that such powers weren't always operative and the Church fathers wrote about them dying off in the early centuries.

That's the problem with Catholicism (not Catholics, they are just pawns in it) - it asserts falsehoods and doesn't intelligently consider alternative viewpoints that solve the problems.

Jesus is called the Word in the books of John only. That is something a lot of people don't understand. And it shows.

If you research whether the phrase "the word of God" is in the rest of the Bible, you come up empty. There must be a reason for that. Maybe there isn't. On the other hand it is phrased differently in the Old Testament as simply just phrases like "Your word".

You will be hard pressed to find a Jew alive that confuses the word with The Word, the latter meaning Jesus the physical man. John was not writing in a literal fashion, his writings are full of mysticism.

Well, the New Testament came FROM the oral teachings (tradition) that St. Paul refers to in 2 Thes. 2:15. Jesus didn't write a book, nor did He tell anyone else to write a book. He taught the Apostles orally, and commanded them to do likewise (Matt. 28:20). Eventually, some of what was taught orally was written down. We call that the New Testament. When we speak of Tradition, as in 2 Thes. 2:15, we are not using the word in the modern sense, meaning common practices, etc. Tradition in this sense means "teaching."

That aside, it was the Catholic Church, in the late 4th century that decided which 27 of the over 300 documents, books, letters, etc., were worthy of being called Scripture. They did so at the following Councils:

1. Council of Rome (382 AD): This council, held under the authority of Pope Damasus I, compiled a list of canonical books for the Old and New Testaments.
2. Council of Hippo (393 AD): This regional council in North Africa confirmed the same list of canonical books that had been accepted at the Council of Rome.
3. Third Council of Carthage (397 AD): This council, also in North Africa, reaffirmed the previous decisions regarding the canon and reiterated the list of canonical books.

The one Church founded by Christ, the Catholic Chuch was one until 1054 A.D., when the Orthodox splintered off. They retained Apostolic Succession, and, therefore, all seven Sacraments given mankind by Christ. Protestantism didn't start until the 16th century, by an ex-Catholic monk, Martin Luther. And it has continaully splintered ever since, into more and more man-made, doctrinally disagreeing denominations, all based on some individual's personal interpretation of Scripture, which St. Peter warns against in 2 Peter 1:20-21.

Recall when Saul (St. Paul's Hebrew name) was going around persecuting the Church. Then, Jesus knocked him off his horse and asked him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" Note that Jesus didn't say, "...why are you persecuting My Church?" which he was, but, "...why are you persecuting Me?" Christ identifies as one with His Church! In fact St. Paul refers to the Church as the Body of Christ.

For Protestantism to make a case for validity, it would have to prove that somehow Christ or an angel came back to earth to "straighten things out" from what was originally taught, since the Catholic Church received the fullness of Divine Revelation from Christ who gave it to the Apostles, and who passed it on to their successors, the bishops, who have done likewise for 2000 years now. Not once has the Catholic Church ever changed any of the teachings of Christ! Those who claim it has are (almost?) always comparing the Catholic Church's teaching to their own personal interpretation of Scripture, which St. Peter warns against! Unless, of course, they can prove that Christ came back and told them personally what was wrong and gave them the right teaching. Well, I guess the Mormon's kind of claim that, right? With their stones that couldn't be interpreted except by a special rock given them by an angel, and then somehow they misplaced all that.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

Right, I'm saying there are records of miracles into the second and third centuries going past the apostolic age

And I'm saying after that age they died out.

 

[TB2]

2 Thes. 2:15, we are not using the word in the modern sense, meaning common practices, etc. Tradition in this sense means "teaching."

Particularly in relation to the gospel message

That aside, it was the Catholic Church, in the late 4th century that decided which 27 of the over 300 documents, books, letters, etc., were worthy of being called Scripture

There was already agreement on most of the NT books prior to the origin of the Catholic church.

The one Church founded by Christ, the Catholic Chuch was one until 1054 A.D., when the Orthodox splintered off. They retained Apostolic Succession

Primacy of the bishop of Rome is an added doctrine; second century church recognized each local church with bishop as part of the church universal handed down through apostolic succession

The one Church founded by Christ, the Catholic Chuch was one until 1054 A.D., when the Orthodox splintered off.

I suspect Orthodox would say it was the other way around

the 16th century, by an ex-Catholic monk, Martin Luther. And it has continaully splintered ever since, into more and more man-made

Not sure it was any more "man-made" than some of the corruption that seeped into the Catholic church.

Recall when Saul (St. Paul's Hebrew name) was going around persecuting the Church. Then, Jesus knocked him off his horse and asked him, "Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?" Note that Jesus didn't say, "...why are you persecuting My Church?" which he was, but, "...why are you persecuting Me?" Christ identifies as one with His Church! In fact St. Paul refers to the Church as the Body of Christ.

Hope you're not suggesting Protestants are persecuting Christ's Church. No matter, Christ's Church in the early first century was significantly different from the later Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant branches of Christianity. The Catholic Chuch did not yet exist. Orthodox claims they're the true Church.

The Body of Christ is also not made up of brick and mortar or steeples and cathedrals but Spirit-filled believers in Christ.

Well, I guess the Mormon's kind of claim that, right

No comparison to Mormonism

For Protestantism to make a case for validity, it would have to prove that somehow Christ or an angel came back to earth to "straighten things out" from what was originally taught, since the Catholic Church received the fullness of Divine Revelation from Christ who gave it to the Apostles, and who passed it on to their successors, the bishops, who have done likewise for 2000 years now. Not once has the Catholic Church ever changed any of the teachings of Christ! Those who claim it has are (almost?) always comparing the Catholic Church's teaching to their own personal interpretation of Scripture, which St. Peter warns against!

Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant all have their pros and cons. None of them are a simple succession from the first century church but represent additions and changes to ecclesiastical structure and so on. Have never understood the compulsion to try to up stage each other ("my church is the real one and better than yours"). Misses the whole point of the gospel message.

Not once has the Catholic Church ever changed any of the teachings of Christ!

Filioque clause? Primacy of bishop of Rome? Mariology? And then there's the whole history of NT manuscript transmission itself that has not remained constant.

 

[TB2]

And I'm saying after that age they died out.

Yes, I understand, but we have historical testimony (from both Christians and pagans in the second, third, and fourth centuries) that shows miracles continued after the apostles, even on a mass conversion scale into the second and third centuries. In addition to Keener's two volume tome, I direct you to the book Christianizing the Roman Empire by eminent Roman historian Ramsay McMullen who reviews the historical evidence for this. Pretty amazing actually, since McMullen is an agnostic/atheist who concludes that the rapid spread of Christianity in the early centuries (second to fourth) was due to mass conversions resulting from miraculous events (he doesn't believe in miracles, but he says this is what both pagans and Christians were claiming as the reason).

 

[Augustin56]

Particularly in relation to the gospel message

There was already agreement on most of the NT books prior to the origin of the Catholic church.

Primacy of the bishop of Rome is an added doctrine; second century church recognized each local church with bishop as part of the church universal handed down through apostolic succession

I suspect Orthodox would say it was the other way around

Not sure it was any more "man-made" than some of the corruption that seeped into the Catholic church.

Hope you're not suggesting Protestants are persecuting Christ's Church. No matter, Christ's Church in the early first century was significantly different from the later Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant branches of Christianity. The Catholic Chuch did not yet exist. Orthodox claims they're the true Church.

The Body of Christ is also not made up of brick and mortar or steeples and cathedrals but Spirit-filled believers in Christ.

No comparison to Mormonism

Orthodox, Catholic, and Protestant all have their pros and cons. None of them are a simple succession from the first century church but represent additions and changes to ecclesiastical structure and so on. Have never understood the compulsion to try to up stage each other ("my church is the real one and better than yours"). Misses the whole point of the gospel message.

Filioque clause? Primacy of bishop of Rome? Mariology? And then there's the whole history of NT manuscript transmission itself that has not remained constant.

The Catholic Church is the original Church founded by Christ. St. Ignatius of Antioch, the bishop of Antioch ordained by St. Peter, was captured by the Romans. While they were transporting him to be martyred for the faith, he wrote a letter to the Smyrnaeans around 107-110 A.D., referring to the "Catholic Church," not in such a manner as if he were coining the term, but in such a manner in which he fully expected the Smyrnaeans to understand what he was talking about. It says in paragraph 8, "Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." This indicates not that the Catholic Church was founded around 107 A.D., but that it had already been founded and was clearly recognized by the faithful long before then. So, the agreement to the writings, could hardly have happened before the Catholic Church was formed.

See the entire letter here: https://www.orderofstignatius.org/files/Letters/Ignatius_to_Smyrnaeans.pdf

Split with the Orthodox explained here:

The Church founded by Christ, the Catholic Church, has always had corruption amongst some of its members. Begin with Judas Iscriot, who betrayed Our Lord. And Peter, the one He chose to first lead His Church after He ascended to heaven. Peter denied Him three times. And the rest, except for John, deserted Him in His our of need like cowards! THIS is the Church founded by Christ! He knew there would be sinners within, but He promised that the "gates of hell" would never prevail over His Church! See Matt. 16:18, "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it."

I see you relying on confusion in your post as a way of justifying separation from Christ's Church. That's a sign of Satan. Remember when the serpent tempted Eve in the garden. He first tried to confuse her. In Gen. 3:1 he said “Did God really say, ‘You shall not eat from any of the trees in the garden’?” Both he and Eve knew otherwise, that God said they could eat of any of the trees in the garden except the tree in the middle of the garden.

It's not about "my" Church vs other churches, but about the Church, founded by Christ! The Catholic Church is different in that it is not just an institution. It is a Divine Entity! His Mystical Body! It has, as its soul, the Holy Spirit! Why would anyone feel entitled to found a different Church than the one founded by Christ?! History is clear that the Catholic Church was, by a long way, first.

 

[TB2]

I see you relying on confusion in your post as a way of justifying separation from Christ's Church. That's a sign of Satan

I see you making unfounded assumptions about me. I'm pretty sure God did not appoint you judge over me.

I see you relying on confusion in your post as a way of justifying separation from Christ's Church. That's a sign of Satan. Remember when the serpent tempted Eve in the garden. He first tried to confuse her. In Gen. 3:1 he said “Did God really say, ‘You shall not eat from any of the trees in the garden’?” Both he and Eve knew otherwise, that God said they could eat of any of the trees in the garden except the tree in the middle of the garden.

It is inappropriate to compare a fellow believer to Satan.

Matt. 16:18, "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it."

Yes, but there is no doctrine of succession in there much less primacy of the bishop of Rome.

History is clear that the Catholic Church was, by a long way, first

The first century church was first by about 300-400 years.

It's not about "my" Church vs other churches, but about the Church, founded by Christ! The Catholic Church is different in that it is not just an institution. It is a Divine Entity! His Mystical Body! It has, as its soul, the Holy Spirit! Why would anyone feel entitled to found a different Church than the one founded by Christ?!

Orthodox would disagree

The Catholic Church is the original Church founded by Christ.

Historically that is false. The Catholic Chuch didn't exist until the late fourth century

, "Where the bishop is present, there let the congregation gather, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." This indicates not that the Catholic Church was founded around 107 A.D., but that it had already been founded and was clearly recognized by the faithful long before then.

Great quote by Ignatius (and the earliest use of the term "catholic," which is a Greek word simply meaning the "whole," or "universal."). This is actually one of the historical sources I was alluding to that shows no central head church in the second century, but bishops over local churches recognized as equals, established by the apostles (with each bishop holding the "chair/see of Peter" by extension; multiple Sees, not one; as additional sources show). This was the historical reality after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD there was no centralized Jerusalem church (and most apostles were already dead/martyred prior to this).

The apostles established local churches/assemblies (usually in homes) throughout the Roman Empire. These churches all trace back to the apostles directly; not through the church/assembly at Rome. Bishops over local churches were seen as equals, and recognized as belonging to the universal ('catholic') church if they could trace their origin back to the apostles and taught orthodox doctrine. "Catholic" became an important term in the 2nd-3rd century to distinguish orthodoxy from the growing gnostic heresies.

But again, and most importantly, the term "catholic" in the second century was not a reference to the Roman Catholic Church, and to read that understanding back into Ignatius would be anachronistic.

 

[EarlyActs]

I see you making unfounded assumptions about me. I'm pretty sure God did not appoint you judge over me.

It is inappropriate to compare a fellow believer to Satan.

Yes, but there is no doctrine of succession in there much less primacy of the bishop of Rome.

The first century church was first by about 300-400 years.

Orthodox would disagree

Historically that is false. The Catholic Chuch didn't exist until the late fourth century

Great quote by Ignatius (and the earliest use of the term "catholic," which is a Greek word simply meaning the "whole," or "universal."). This is actually one of the historical sources I was alluding to that shows no central head church in the second century, but bishops over local churches recognized as equals, established by the apostles (with each bishop holding the "chair/see of Peter" by extension; multiple Sees, not one; as additional sources show). This was the historical reality after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD there was no centralized Jerusalem church (and most apostles were already dead/martyred prior to this).

The apostles established local churches/assemblies (usually in homes) throughout the Roman Empire. These churches all trace back to the apostles directly; not through the church/assembly at Rome. Bishops over local churches were seen as equals, and recognized as belonging to the universal ('catholic') church if they could trace their origin back to the apostles and taught orthodox doctrine. "Catholic" became an important term in the 2nd-3rd century to distinguish orthodoxy and growing gnostic heresies.

Good points. I noticed recently in Acts that there is a 'catholic/universal' sense already in 9:31. It's all of them at that time, although things were stirring everywhere that Pentecost visitors returned to in the empire, but there was no regular contact.

I urge you all to examine the three rational defenses thread in Apologetics as it has a very important statement on the 'handoff.'