If You Do Something Without A Mistake Are You Not Infallible?

[Winchester]

[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1289098403' post='2185484']
I can play Burgmuller's "La Chevaleresque" perfectly, without any mistakes!
But that doesn't make me an infallible pianist, because I will fail miserably if I try to play Weber's "Perpetuum mobile"
[/quote]
No, but it makes you an infallible performer of that piece.

In a similar way, those who wrote the Bible were infallible in that limited part of their lives. By the Grace of God. I doubt they went on to write infallible poems or mysteries.

The point is that anyone who believes the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, but also claims to believe a man cannot infallibly teach the Word of God is an imbecile.

Edited November 7, 2010 by Winchester

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1289138485' post='2185528']

The point is that anyone who believes the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, but also claims to believe a man cannot infallibly teach the Word of God is an imbecile.
[/quote]

That's OK if you think that just knowing the text without understanding is knowing the word of God.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1289158918' post='2185573']
That's OK if you think that just knowing the text without understanding is knowing the word of God.
[/quote]
I didn't mention knowing or understanding. That's yet another thing infallibility doesn't cover. Teh Poap does not necessarily understand what he writes. His arguments are not infallible. Only the conclusion is protected by God so as to be free from error. In the case of the Bible books, we have no idea if the writers understood what they transcribed, or if they correctly interpreted what they wrote and properly believed it. They might have written all that and held some heretical notion of the Faith.

[MIKolbe]

The correct answer is popery.

[Winchester]

dude

[MIKolbe]

you told me not to say it AFTER i said it...

I can't just go and edit it all willy-nilly.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1289223573' post='2185750']
I didn't mention knowing or understanding. That's yet another thing infallibility doesn't cover. Teh Poap does not necessarily understand what he writes. His arguments are not infallible. Only the conclusion is protected by God so as to be free from error. In the case of the Bible books, we have no idea if the writers understood what they transcribed, or if they correctly interpreted what they wrote and properly believed it. They might have written all that and held some heretical notion of the Faith.
[/quote]

Teh Bible can be considered to have a parallel to the Eucharist in that it has the 'accidents' of a book of txts. It becomes the word of God when it is understood by someone. But understood correctly by the power of the Spirit! If a person with evil motivation misinterprets the text to suit their own motive then it is not the word of God. All men are sinners therefore they cannot interpret every text infallibly, we are all subject to the delusions of the devil. However if you are saying that if a person teaches others the texts which are the containers of Gods word then they are not erring and if the purpose of their teaching is for God is their motive, then they are teaching infallibly and I would agree with you.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1289254622' post='2185852']
Teh Bible can be considered to have a parallel to the Eucharist in that it has the 'accidents' of a book of txts. It becomes the word of God when it is understood by someone. But understood correctly by the power of the Spirit! If a person with evil motivation misinterprets the text to suit their own motive then it is not the word of God. All men are sinners therefore they cannot interpret every text infallibly, we are all subject to the delusions of the devil. However if you are saying that if a person teaches others the texts which are the containers of Gods word then they are not erring and if the purpose of their teaching is for God is their motive, then they are teaching infallibly and I would agree with you.
[/quote]
This is the first time I've seen Quantum Exigesis.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1289254759' post='2185856']
This is the first time I've seen Quantum Exigesis.
[/quote]

Wait a minute while eye look that up

[s]
[/s]

Edited November 8, 2010 by Mark of the Cross

[Winchester]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1289254996' post='2185860']
Wait a minute while eye look that up
[/quote]
You just invented it. Why would you need to look it up?

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1289255104' post='2185864']
You just invented it. Why would you need to look it up?
[/quote]

You win.

[Tally Marx]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1289138485' post='2185528']
The point is that anyone who believes the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, but also claims to believe a man cannot infallibly teach the Word of God is an imbecile.
[/quote]


I think [i]The Church [/i]infallibly interprets Scripture.
A man can only teach infallibility insofar as the Church has interpreted infallibly.
If he attempts to interpret or teach something regarding Scripture which the Church has not infallibly interpreted and taught, then he is not infallible. And even if he happens to interpret/teach the truth, teach correctly, he would still not be infallible.
The Church is infallible because the Holy Spirit guides her, and prevents her from teaching any error in faith and morals. Infalliblity means you cannot be wrong, ever. Infallibility is that promise of the Holy Spirit.
No man has this guarantee.

That's where the leaders of Protestant sects went wrong: they thought that they are led by the Spirit when they interpret Scripture, that they are infallible in their interpretations. That's why we have so many Protestant denominations with contradictory beliefs.



And no, I am not an infallible player [i]of that piece[/i]. I play it well. I am an expert in playing it. I rarely get it wrong. But I could still get it wrong the next time I play it.

[MissScripture]

[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1289261925' post='2185894']
I think [i]The Church [/i]infallibly interprets Scripture.
A man can only teach infallibility insofar as the Church has interpreted infallibly.
If he attempts to interpret or teach something regarding Scripture which the Church has not infallibly interpreted and taught, then he is not infallible. And even if he happens to interpret/teach the truth, teach correctly, he would still not be infallible.
The Church is infallible because the Holy Spirit guides her, and prevents her from teaching any error in faith and morals. Infalliblity means you cannot be wrong, ever. Infallibility is that promise of the Holy Spirit.
No man has this guarantee.

That's where the leaders of Protestant sects went wrong: they thought that they are led by the Spirit when they interpret Scripture, that they are infallible in their interpretations. That's why we have so many Protestant denominations with contradictory beliefs.



And no, I am not an infallible player [i]of that piece[/i]. I play it well. I am an expert in playing it. I rarely get it wrong. But I could still get it wrong the next time I play it.
[/quote]
The Pope can teach infallibly. That is the man to whom Winchester is referring.

[Tally Marx]

[quote name='MissScripture' timestamp='1289262163' post='2185898']
The Pope can teach infallibly. That is the man to whom Winchester is referring.
[/quote]

Then we are in perfect agreement.
I cannot remember saying anything which implies otherwise...

[Mark of the Cross]

error

Edited November 9, 2010 by Mark of the Cross

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='MissScripture' timestamp='1289262163' post='2185898']
The Pope [b]can[/b] teach infallibly. That is the man to whom Winchester is referring.
[/quote]
??? [b]Can[/b] implies not always, which would make him fallible. Anyone [u]can[/u] teach something which is [u]true[/u]. But to be infallible everything that he teaches must be correct. I don't think the Church claims that. They only claim him to be teaching truth in certain things otherwise we wouldn't have changes such as Vatican 2.

[Tally Marx]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1289263328' post='2185903']
??? [b]Can[/b] implies not always, which would make him fallible. Anyone [u]can[/u] teach something which is [u]true[/u]. But to be infallible everything that he teaches must be correct. I don't think the Church claims that. They only claim him to be teaching truth in certain things otherwise we wouldn't have changes such as Vatican 2.
[/quote]

The Pope speaks infallibly when he speaks Ex Cathedra, which he has only done a [i]very few [/i]amount of times.

More often, when I hear of "infallible teachings", the statements came from ecumenical councils.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Tally Marx' timestamp='1289264094' post='2185906']
The Pope speaks infallibly when he speaks Ex Cathedra, which he has only done a [i]very few [/i]amount of times.

[/quote]
Yes! That's what I understood and these are usually the obvious things such as the resurrection, historical accounts of Jesus etc.

[quote]More often, when I hear of "infallible teachings", the statements came from ecumenical councils.
[/quote]
Actually I'm still a bit in the dark on this subject and can't help but feel the word is misused which is the reason for attacks on the Church by other denominations. In the past the Church taught that un-baptised infants go to limbo. Now, realising how ridiculous this belief is they have hedged around it by stating that there is no mention of it in doctrine so the Church does not teach it. Can you be infallible in some things but not others? Can you answer the questions you know for sure and not answer ones you don't know for sure and therefore be infallible? It's like the word substantial, we have Transubstantiation because one is substantial and one is not. It is or it isn't. Jesus is substantial compared to bread., but not the reverse. Consubstantiation is an impossible condition. How can bread be substantial compared to Jesus? Therefore logically the Church is correct in it's interpretation of the Eucharist but is it infallible? We still don't know the full story of why it is necessary to physically eat the body of Christ.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1289256617' post='2185870']
You win.
[/quote]
I know.

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1289268972' post='2185917']
I know.
[/quote]

I know you know. That's why you call yourself WIN Chester.