When Did God Lose The Ability To Confer Infallibility?

[Winchester]

I'm not certain of the exact date, but apparently, according to some schools of thought, God cannot confer infallibility, anymore. Many Christian groups out there claim the Bible is the infallible Word of God. None that I know of believe God Himself wrote the Bible.

Another problem is the "edition" issue. Which infallible publisher is currently publishing the infallible Bible?

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Winchester' date='17 December 2009 - 05:33 AM' timestamp='1260988382' post='2021839']
I'm not certain of the exact date, but apparently, according to some schools of thought, God cannot confer infallibility, anymore. Many Christian groups out there claim the Bible is the infallible Word of God. None that I know of believe God Himself wrote the Bible.

Another problem is the "edition" issue. Which infallible publisher is currently publishing the infallible Bible?
[/quote]
The Bible is mostly a collection of hard to understand ramblings of people. It has been translated to English and as everyone knows translations are far from accurate, so is the individuals interpretation. But through it is a general gist of the wisdom of the teachings of Jesus. It's real infallibility occurs when we read it with contrite hearts for the purpose of finding an answer to something we will be guided by the Spirit. A reading can speak to a person in one way and to another in an entirely different way, but both will receive the word of God. We can also read the Bible in a negative way interpreting readings for the purpose of judging others. It then is not the infallible word of God.

[Winchester]

So you're of the Schrodinger school of Biblical interpretation.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='16 December 2009 - 03:20 PM' timestamp='1260994828' post='2021915']
The Bible is mostly a collection of hard to understand ramblings of people. It has been translated to English and as everyone knows translations are far from accurate, so is the individuals interpretation. But through it is a general gist of the wisdom of the teachings of Jesus. It's real infallibility occurs when we read it with contrite hearts for the purpose of finding an answer to something we will be guided by the Spirit.[/quote]

What happens when you have 20,000 people going into 20,000 different directions all claiming to be led by the Spirit? How many Christian churches claim to NOT be lead by the Spirit?

[quote]A reading can speak to a person in one way and to another in an entirely different way, but both will receive the word of God. We can also read the Bible in a negative way interpreting readings for the purpose of judging others. It then is not the infallible word of God.
[/quote]

That an infallible teaching?

[dairygirl4u2c]

in theory, cause i dont say it's necessarily infallible.

the same way the old testament was infallible- the church just put it together under the acts of God. why did we need an infallible heiracrcy continuing on and on, for the old testament, but not for then new?

or, without or without that last idea- the church just put it together under the acts of God, period. it just happened to be the roman bishop who finalized it, as he was the leader at the time.
kinda of like that quote that is often taken out of context- 'rome has spoken, the case is closed' really was effectively something like 'we got some final word from those church, those churches, and rome. the issue is at an end, let the whole matter be at an end'

Edited December 16, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

"the same way the old testament was infallible- the church just put it together under the acts of God. why did we need an infallible heiracrcy continuing on and on, for the old testament, but not for then new?"

switch 'new' and 'old', here.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Winchester' date='17 December 2009 - 07:35 AM' timestamp='1260995708' post='2021919']
So you're of the Schrodinger school of Biblical interpretation.
[/quote]
I guess you could say that! Thanks to everyone for the minuses. Positive points appeal to my vanity and ego. Negative ones make me humble. The latter is better and more Christ like.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' date='17 December 2009 - 10:02 AM' timestamp='1261004555' post='2021990']
What happens when you have 20,000 people going into 20,000 different directions all claiming to be led by the Spirit?
[/quote]
Phatmass.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Mark of the Cross

[Jaime]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='16 December 2009 - 10:21 PM' timestamp='1261020064' post='2022114']
I guess you could say that! Thanks to everyone for the minuses. Positive points appeal to my vanity and ego. Negative ones make me humble. The latter is better and more Christ like.
[/quote]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that I don't think Jesus would refer to the bible as " a bunch of ramblings".

[Winchester]

Isn't there a "Book of Ramblings"?

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Winchester' date='17 December 2009 - 05:33 AM' timestamp='1260988382' post='2021839']
I'mnot certain of the exact date, but apparently, according to someschools of thought, God cannot confer infallibility, anymore. ManyChristian groups out there claim the Bible is the infallible Word ofGod. [u]None that I know of believe God Himself wrote the Bible.[/u]

Another problem is the [u]"edition" issue. Which infallible publisher is currently publishing the infallible Bible?[/u]
[/quote]

[quote name='Winchester' date='17 December 2009 - 04:24 PM' timestamp='1261027463' post='2022190']
Isn't there a "Book of Ramblings"?
[/quote]

Didn't you write something similar to what I wrote? If you are about to be mugged by a crazed drug user [i]like me[/i] will you turn the other cheek? Scriptures are not very clear in many cases, that's why scholars spend years studying them. The Power of the Bible is the way it speaks to us. Someone asked the question "What should a Special Minister of the Eucharist do if someone presents and is obviously making foolishness of the rite?" Another person opened the Bible and it opened mysteriously at Matthew 7.6 ( [sup]6[/sup]"Do not give dogs whatis sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they maytrample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.) Here was just one classical example of the power of the Bible to speak Gods word even though it has undergone translation and may not be the same as what it's writers originally wrote.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Mark of the Cross

[Socrates]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='16 December 2009 - 03:20 PM' timestamp='1260994828' post='2021915']
The Bible is mostly a collection of hard to understand ramblings of people. It has been translated to English and as everyone knows translations are far from accurate, so is the individuals interpretation. But through it is a general gist of the wisdom of the teachings of Jesus. It's real infallibility occurs when we read it with contrite hearts for the purpose of finding an answer to something we will be guided by the Spirit. A reading can speak to a person in one way and to another in an entirely different way, but both will receive the word of God. We can also read the Bible in a negative way interpreting readings for the purpose of judging others. It then is not the infallible word of God.
[/quote]
I think what you're trying to say is "The bible is only infallible when one's personal 'reading' of it is politically-correct."

Of course, one of the purposes of the Bible is to help us correctly judge what actions are right and wrong.
Contrary to popular liberal opinion, God is not a moral relativist.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='17 December 2009 - 02:13 AM' timestamp='1261034017' post='2022214']
Didn't you write something similar to what I wrote? If you are about to be mugged by a crazed drug user [i]like me[/i] will you turn the other cheek? Scriptures are not very clear in many cases, that's why scholars spend years studying them. The Power of the Bible is the way it speaks to us. Someone asked the question "What should a Special Minister of the Eucharist do if someone presents and is obviously making foolishness of the rite?" Another person opened the Bible and it opened mysteriously at Matthew 7.6 ( [sup]6[/sup]"Do not give dogs whatis sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they maytrample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.) Here was just one classical example of the power of the Bible to speak Gods word even though it has undergone translation and may not be the same as what it's writers originally wrote.
[/quote]
That's why we have the teaching authority of the Church to guide us on difficult matters.
People's personal interpretations are subjective and often contradict one another's.
And it's the Church that originally gave us the Bible.
That's an inconvenient truth for protestantism.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Socrates' date='18 December 2009 - 12:28 PM' timestamp='1261099722' post='2022520']
That's why we have the teaching authority of the Church to guide us on difficult matters.
People's personal interpretations are subjective and often contradict one another's.
And it's the Church that originally gave us the Bible.
That's an inconvenient truth for protestantism.
[/quote]

Yes I know those things and I do obey Church rules. I just like to stir you people up! Seriously I like to propose my idea's and have people respond and see what they think. This is a discussion forum is it not? The terms 'heresy' or 'it's an infallible teaching' or 'wise Fathers have said...' etc are not really appropriate here. I can learn infallible teachings from my priest friends. I decided to give you a pus 1 because essentially your post is correct.

Edited December 18, 2009 by Mark of the Cross

[T-Bone _]

[quote name='Winchester' date='16 December 2009 - 01:35 PM' timestamp='1260995708' post='2021919']
So you're of the Schrodinger school of Biblical interpretation.
[/quote]

Wouldn't that mean the at LOL Cats translation is the correct one?

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' date='16 December 2009 - 02:20 PM' timestamp='1260994828' post='2021915']
The Bible is mostly a collection of hard to understand ramblings of people. It has been translated to English and as everyone knows translations are far from accurate, so is the individuals interpretation. But through it is a general gist of the wisdom of the teachings of Jesus. It's real infallibility occurs when we read it with contrite hearts for the purpose of finding an answer to something we will be guided by the Spirit. A reading can speak to a person in one way and to another in an entirely different way, but both will receive the word of God. We can also read the Bible in a negative way interpreting readings for the purpose of judging others. [i]It then is [b]not [/b]the infallible word of God[/i].
[/quote]

This might be the first -1 I've ever given on Phatmass. I couldn't disagree with [i]this [/i] poster's rambling any more vehemently. No disrespect, but I just wholly disagree with this post; it is contradictory to some of my most important beliefs.

Edited January 1, 2010 by Veridicus

[Happy_Catholic]

I have to be honest, I view the bible as something that has to be taken cautiously. It could be used to a-okay drug use, and there are verses in there about slashing open pregnant womens' bellies and dashing the heads of the babies against rocks, there's so much antithesis in there, its a wonder anyone, anywhere can base religions on it.

With that said, I beleive it was [i]inspired[/i] by God as opposed to being the infallible word of God. God whispered His intentions and words into the ears of man, and well, men aren't known for their listening skills and can often get the wrong end of the stick. I accept the Gospels as they are written as being full truth given the whole Christian faith is based on Christ, and the Gospels are about Christ.

But as it has been mentioned, the bible now, is a translation, from Greek and Latin and all kinds of old languages and dialects. Its like the whole "two men are fighting, one strikes a pregnant woman and she [i]looses[/i] the baby" debacle. Some use it to argue that God has no love of the foetus as only a fine is required. However, the orginal Hebrew uses a word that means "give birth prematurely" not "miscarriage", thereby, the child is not killed, only born early, the fine is to compensate for the early birth of a child and the sudden financial issues it rises, it does not lessen the value of the child by placing a "fine" on its life.

Or, you only have to sit down with a Protestant to see how different people determine teh "infallible" word of God. They think the "do this is in memory of me" is simply an action and not the Eucharist, whereas, we take it to be literal, that Jesus really was giving His physical body.

[Winchester]

I think a greater caution is needed against defining one's own doctrines.

[Rosedelima]

I've never heard the word "infallible" used to refer to the Word of God. "Infallible" means not capable of making mistakes, never failing, always effective. Because of the first part of this definition "not capable of making mistakes" the term is more generally only assigned to what a person can do (not an inanimate object like a book). Specifically I've heard it more often used to refer to what people think of the Pope (some even inside the Church use it this way). But really it officially only is to be used to refer only to what the Pope says "ex cathedra" (from the chair), meaning what he delivers to us to highlight or clarify some important point of doctrine/dogma that you have to believe to even consider yourself Catholic. There are very few things that have been delivered from the chair, which I find comforting because it means we've had the fullness of Truth ever since Jesus, and the rest was/has been just paperwork. The reason why the Pope cannot make mistakes when speaking from the chair is because he is just the mouthpiece of God given him by the power of the Holy Spirit, the real guiding force of the Church. What people really mean when they use it to generally refer to the Pope himself actually implies "impeccability," which means the inability or lack of liability to sin (only Mary in her Immaculate Conception, was awarded this as a creature). While we hope our popes are constantly removing themselves further and further from sin as they move in the sanctification of the Lord, we don't consider them to be impeccable. Consider how few popes have actually been made saints and you will see the Church does not hold that position. Back to the Word of God. If we use "never failing," and "always effective" we are hitting closer to the reality of the Word of God being infallible. A person's ability to be sufficiently open and surrendering to the Word and to be sufficiently engaged with it to have it be constantly speaking to them is another matter. Though God the Father Almighty Himself is not said to have written the Bible, God the Son lived it in the New Testament, and God the Holy Spirit guided the pens of all who wrote in/for it, ofttimes perhaps without their knowledge of how they were being guided. Any person of the Trinity is God; they cannot be separated. As such, perhaps if you believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church today, why wouldn't He also have led the psyches of an entire people towards Him with every book written and included in the final canon?

The more succinct answer is that no one said God couldn't pronounce something infallible, but man can judge it to be so or not and continues to attempt to do so and misunderstanding the term sometimes in the process. But again, if, by the Word of God you mean the Person of the Holy Spirit having written through the pens of men the Word and continually inspiring men with it, then I think you can use infallible for the Word of God. After all, if it is inspired by God and you truly believe that, it begs the question, can God do anything incompletely or "wrong?" Read Isaiah 55 again and maybe this idea will settle more firmly into the crevices of your brain. I love that chapter, especially the part that always gets included in Mass . . . "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, nor my ways your ways. As high as the heavens are above the earth, so high are my thoughts above your thoughts. For just as from the heavens rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return until they have watered the earth . . . So shall my word be that goes forth from my mouth." In the Old Testament the Israelites couldn't tolerate the voice of God and sent Moses back up to confront Him alone. We can do the same thing with the written Word, shutting our ears and hearts to it by discounting it as the true Word of God, or by not being able to bear it in some way. It always reveals and asks more of us. Just like you can't really get away with thinking Jesus was just a great teacher, prophet, or good man, you have to ask of the Bible: "Did God speak or did He stutter?" Sorry if this was way over the top of any response you were seeking.