Announcement

Collapse

Message to all users:

https://carm.org/forum-rules

Super Member Subscription
https://carm.org/carm-super-members-banner-ad-signup

As most of you are aware, we had a crash to forums and were down for over two days a while back. We did have to do an upgrade to the vbulletin software to fix the forums and that has created changes, VB no longer provide the hybrid or threaded forums. There are some issues/changes to the forums we are not able to fix or change. Also note the link address change, please let friends and posters know of the changed link to the forums. For now this is the only link available, https://forums.carm.org/vb5/ but if clicking on forum on carm.org homepage it will now send you to this link. (edited to add https: now working.

Again, we are working through some of the posting and viewing issues to learn how to post with the changes, you will have to check and test the different features, icons that have changed. You may also want to go to profile settings,since many of the notifications, information in profile, also to update/edit your avatar by clicking on avatar space, pull down arrow next to login for user settings.

Edit to add "How to read forums, to make it easier."
Pull down arrow next to login name upper right select profile, or user settings when page opens to profile,select link in tab that says Account. Then select/choose options, go down to Conversation Detail Options, Select Display mode Posts, NOT Activity, that selection of Posts will make the pages of discussions go to last post on last page rather than out of order that happens if you choose activity threads. Then be sure to go to bottom and select SAVE Changes in your profile options. You can then follow discussions by going through the pages, to the last page having latest responses. Then click on the other links Privacy, Notifications, to select viewing options,the forums get easier if you open all the tabs or links in your profile, user settings and select options. To join Super Member, pull down arrow next to login name, select User Settings and then click on tab/link at top that says Subscriptions.

Thank you for your patience and God Bless.

Diane S
https://carm.org/forum-rules
See more
See less

Does the Bible claim to be the Inerrant Word of God?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Romishpopishpapist View Post

    If God's authority speaks through the Church and Tradition, then obviously they are inerrent too.
    Total rubbish. No man is infallible. And God does not speak through the Catholic Church and its Tradition which ad infinitum dismisses the word of God for their false teachings. God speaks to us through His word.

    Catholics assert that God speaks in Scripture, Tradition, and the Church. Protestants assert that God speaks ONLY in Scripture.
    And if one of you folks could lead us to any source other than the bible which contains the inerrant, infallible word of God, we might have something to discuss. As it is, you can't and we don't.




    We are either in the process of resisting God's truth or in the process of being shaped and molded by his truth … Charles Stanley

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Romishpopishpapist View Post

      If God's authority is found in the Church and Tradition, obviously it is the same God and therefore must have equal authority.
      God's authority is found in His word. Your Church and its sacred oral Lies are in direct opposition to the word of God.

      One day the Catholic Church will stand accused of falsifying Holy Writ and will pay dearly for the millions of people who were lied to and unfortunately believed your Church over the word of God.
      We are either in the process of resisting God's truth or in the process of being shaped and molded by his truth … Charles Stanley

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Romishpopishpapist View Post

        No Catholic has ever offered anything? Catholics HAVE repeatedly offered evidence for their claims.
        That's a load of cow cookies. If what you said is true, perhaps you could point us to one, just one, source of the evidence you folks have repeatedly offered.
        We are either in the process of resisting God's truth or in the process of being shaped and molded by his truth … Charles Stanley

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Romishpopishpapist View Post

          Catholic unity requires oneness in Faith, life and worship. Keating and I both believe in Mary's Assumption. That is what matters. Keating and I may disagree on whether the NT reflects the doctrine. But so what? We agree where it matters.

          And let me be clear: my Faith and belief in the Assumption does NOT depend on whether the NT reflects the doctrine. Remember? Catholics are not Sola Scriptura. You are the ones that are Sola Scriptura. Thus, if Keating is correct--it does not matter. I am only interested in showing that Scripture reflects the doctrine because this is a Protestant fundamentalist website where I am debating Protestants. Protestants do not accept the authority of Tradition or the Church, so obviously my appeal to the Church or Tradition as evidence of the doctrine is futile, now isn't it?
          I love the ole bait n switch. Seems when catholics get caught trying to argue their dogmas from scripture and they fail, all of a sudden its a matter of sola scriptura. Remember, this is what YOU said, not me.
          Originally posted by Romishpopishpapist View Post


          Yes, our teachings DO have Scriptural basis.
          So no one is talking about sola scriptura here. You made a claim and i'm simply asking for you to validate that claim. You can't, as we've seen. So start talking about sola scriptura to deflect. Either your teachings have a scriptural basis or they don't. Your post clearly shows they do not or you would have offered a verse.


          I have no idea. I haven't heard Paqua speak to the issue, nor have I read anything at the Called to Communion website concerning the Assumption.
          You don't have to have heard them. They have to preach what rome preaches therefore what Staples, Pacwa or Anders says will be lock step in line with rome, not scripture.

          No kidding! Of course it is authoritative and inerrent. Who claimed otherwise? The question isn't whether Scripture is inerrent and authoritative. The question is not whether Scripture is God's Word. We agree on that point and always have. The question is whether Scripture is the ONLY/SOLE locus of God's authority on Earth. The question is whether ONLY Scripture is infallible. If God's authority speaks through the Church and Tradition, then obviously they are inerrent too.
          And all you need to do is prove that tradition or your church is inerrant. Catholics have been offering their opinions here for over a decade now and not one has ever offered anything that your s.t. or church is either inspired or inerrant.

          Catholics assert that God speaks in Scripture, Tradition, and the Church. Protestants assert that God speaks ONLY in Scripture.
          God can speak through His people when they align themselves to His word. His word is the standard, everything is tested by it. You've handed that authority over to mere men.


          Equal authority? If God's authority is found in the Church and Tradition, obviously it is the same God and therefore must have equal authority. But that does not entail that God speaks in the SAME WAY in Scripture, Tradition and the Church. God speaks equally, but in distinct ways, according to the proper role of each.
          Where exactly did God give your tradition equal authority with scripture? Where exactly did God give sinful men equal authority with scripture? If everyone has equal authority then no one has any authority. You are your own standard for truth. And when men disagree with scripture, who is right?


          No Catholic has ever offered anything? Catholics HAVE repeatedly offered evidence for their claims.
          Opinions don't count.

          Tie salvation to dogmas? Tell me, if I was Joe Protestant and I belonged to Pastor Bob's Bible Church, would my salvation be tied to accepting Sola Scriptura? Can I be saved while rejecting that doctrine?
          Sola scriptura doesn't save anyone. Jesus does. So ya, you can reject it and still be saved. Its a tool or way of thinking. So when you have competing doctrines and the bible is your standard you can make Godly decisions, not fleshly ones.

          Is the child of the women a "sign" also and not to be taken literally?
          Does the verse use the word 'sign' or not? Hermenutics 101.
          Eph 5:11 And do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them NASB

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Romishpopishpapist View Post

            Catholic unity requires oneness in Faith, life and worship. Keating and I both believe in Mary's Assumption. That is what matters. Keating and I may disagree on whether the NT reflects the doctrine. But so what? We agree where it matters.

            And let me be clear: my Faith and belief in the Assumption does NOT depend on whether the NT reflects the doctrine. Remember? Catholics are not Sola Scriptura. You are the ones that are Sola Scriptura. Thus, if Keating is correct--it does not matter. I am only interested in showing that Scripture reflects the doctrine because this is a Protestant fundamentalist website where I am debating Protestants. Protestants do not accept the authority of Tradition or the Church, so obviously my appeal to the Church or Tradition as evidence of the doctrine is futile, now isn't it?



            I have no idea. I haven't heard Paqua speak to the issue, nor have I read anything at the Called to Communion website concerning the Assumption.



            No kidding! Of course it is authoritative and inerrent. Who claimed otherwise? The question isn't whether Scripture is inerrent and authoritative. The question is not whether Scripture is God's Word. We agree on that point and always have. The question is whether Scripture is the ONLY/SOLE locus of God's authority on Earth. The question is whether ONLY Scripture is infallible. If God's authority speaks through the Church and Tradition, then obviously they are inerrent too.

            Catholics assert that God speaks in Scripture, Tradition, and the Church. Protestants assert that God speaks ONLY in Scripture.



            It doesn't need to be said. We agree on that point.



            Equal authority? If God's authority is found in the Church and Tradition, obviously it is the same God and therefore must have equal authority. But that does not entail that God speaks in the SAME WAY in Scripture, Tradition and the Church. God speaks equally, but in distinct ways, according to the proper role of each.



            No Catholic has ever offered anything? Catholics HAVE repeatedly offered evidence for their claims.



            Tie salvation to dogmas? Tell me, if I was Joe Protestant and I belonged to Pastor Bob's Bible Church, would my salvation be tied to accepting Sola Scriptura? Can I be saved while rejecting that doctrine?



            Is the child of the women a "sign" also and not to be taken literally?
            Regarding your question if your salvation is tied to sola scriptura, see your own CCC 130. It specifically states that Gods salvation is found therein.

            So it appears to me your own CCC contains the answer there. Even Catholic experts say no new revelation besides scripture is required.

            It (The Catholic Church) acknowledges the sufficiency of that revelation witnessed by the Bible in the sense that no
            new revealer or no new special revelations are necessary for men and women to find the will of God and the grace
            of salvation.""
            Fr. Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers on the Bible, p139 Imprimatur

            JohnR

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Romishpopishpapist View Post

              Yeah, no duh.

              We aren't asserting that Mary "ascended" in to heave, we are asserting that Mary was "assumed" in to heaven. The difference? When one "ascends" into heaven, as Jesus did, they do it by their own power. When one is "assumed" in to heaven, they are not doing it under their own power. The Assumption, again, is just another word for "Resurrection of the dead." It is something down by the power of God, something God does to us.



              Why?
              Because it is made up. Never taught by any apostle.

              JohnR

              Comment


              • Originally posted by nan View Post

                That's a load of cow cookies. If what you said is true, perhaps you could point us to one, just one, source of the evidence you folks have repeatedly offered.
                Roman Catholics need to learn that "offering evidence" and "producing evidence" are two entirely different things.
                RC's do know God, but the Bible indicates that it is a knowledge in condemnation, a knowledge enabling them to know things about themselves and the world around them, even though they suppress the truth of God which makes such knowledge possible.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Romishpopishpapist View Post

                  Catholic unity requires oneness in Faith, life and worship. Keating and I both believe in Mary's Assumption. That is what matters. Keating and I may disagree on whether the NT reflects the doctrine. But so what? We agree where it matters.

                  And let me be clear: my Faith and belief in the Assumption does NOT depend on whether the NT reflects the doctrine. Remember? Catholics are not Sola Scriptura. You are the ones that are Sola Scriptura. Thus, if Keating is correct--it does not matter. I am only interested in showing that Scripture reflects the doctrine because this is a Protestant fundamentalist website where I am debating Protestants. Protestants do not accept the authority of Tradition or the Church, so obviously my appeal to the Church or Tradition as evidence of the doctrine is futile, now isn't it?



                  I have no idea. I haven't heard Paqua speak to the issue, nor have I read anything at the Called to Communion website concerning the Assumption.



                  No kidding! Of course it is authoritative and inerrent. Who claimed otherwise? The question isn't whether Scripture is inerrent and authoritative. The question is not whether Scripture is God's Word. We agree on that point and always have. The question is whether Scripture is the ONLY/SOLE locus of God's authority on Earth. The question is whether ONLY Scripture is infallible. If God's authority speaks through the Church and Tradition, then obviously they are inerrent too.

                  Catholics assert that God speaks in Scripture, Tradition, and the Church. Protestants assert that God speaks ONLY in Scripture.



                  It doesn't need to be said. We agree on that point.



                  Equal authority? If God's authority is found in the Church and Tradition, obviously it is the same God and therefore must have equal authority. But that does not entail that God speaks in the SAME WAY in Scripture, Tradition and the Church. God speaks equally, but in distinct ways, according to the proper role of each.



                  No Catholic has ever offered anything? Catholics HAVE repeatedly offered evidence for their claims.



                  Tie salvation to dogmas? Tell me, if I was Joe Protestant and I belonged to Pastor Bob's Bible Church, would my salvation be tied to accepting Sola Scriptura? Can I be saved while rejecting that doctrine?



                  Is the child of the women a "sign" also and not to be taken literally?
                  ropopa - the very fact that the NT writers assumed their writings were as binding as the OT, just that in it'self asserts a great deal. Such writers were orthodox Jews who believed God's Word was heretofore confined to the known OT canon. To add to this body of holy writings was a terrible presumption unless inspiration were clearly present. But their recognition of inspiration is not so surprising. The very fact of the arrival of the long prophesied Messiah and the "new covenant," taken along with the incarnation and the atonement of God Himself, demanded a corresponding body of divine literature to explain and expound these events. This was also true for the activity of God in the old covenant.
                  God didn't have any more likely candidates for this revelation than the apostles of His own Son, or those they approved. And, for perhaps even more credibility ropopa, the former skeptic and persecutor of the church, the greatly blessed Paul, the apostle, was actually commissioned by God Himself to write a full fourth of the entire new revelations.
                  RC's do know God, but the Bible indicates that it is a knowledge in condemnation, a knowledge enabling them to know things about themselves and the world around them, even though they suppress the truth of God which makes such knowledge possible.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by utilyan View Post

                    The Christians like the scripture says "our adequacy is from God".

                    Its like saying the bible is always accurate unless the bible itself claims someone else is accurate.


                    Paul tells you the FAITH/CONFIDENCE he has in GOD -->4Such confidence we have through Christ toward God. 5Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God,

                    The Christian is upheld by God.


                    Plenty of folks would swear up and down a christian isn't enough. If all scripture disappeared tomorrow, we wouldn't miss a beat the highest priority is agape, love , kindness, compassion, patience.

                    You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; being manifested that you are a letter of Christ.

                    When people are left to make their own judgement they like to think no one can be trusted we can trust writings more than people its more reliable. God doesn't call the qualified, he qualifies the called. If he can ride in on a donkey its nothing that he keeps Christianity alive thru the christian.


                    Believers of the bible actually believe the claims made in the bible. So when it claims a Christian has the word they do, when it claims you can bind and loose, then actual binding and loosing happens, when it claims you can forgive and retain sins, a person actually does do forgiving.



                    uti - Is it credible to believe that Jesus thought the Holy Spirit, the "Spirit of Truth," who inspired the New Testament would corrupt His own words or inspire error?
                    RC's do know God, but the Bible indicates that it is a knowledge in condemnation, a knowledge enabling them to know things about themselves and the world around them, even though they suppress the truth of God which makes such knowledge possible.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by tester View Post
                      http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html

                      Article X.

                      WE AFFIRM that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

                      WE DENY that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

                      Transmission and Translation

                      Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents was inspired and to maintain the need of textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appear to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.

                      Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autographa. Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach. Indeed, in view of the frequent repetition in Scripture of the main matters with which it deals and also of the Holy Spirit's constant witness to and through the Word, no serious translation of Holy Scripture will so destroy its meaning as to render it unable to make its reader "wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:15).


                      Autographic texts are the original documents inspired by God. There are no autographic texts in existence today, nor were there any known autographic texts to have existed at the start of great protest. And there were no autographic texts found prior to the 1978 evangelical conference in Chicago. Consequently, the affirmation presented in your post rings hollow in its first statement, “We affirm”.

                      Secondly, without benefit of the autographic text the evangelical conference attests and confirms that the text presently available “faithfully represent the original”. Hence, the affirmation of current copies being “representative” is based solely on opinion, ignoring the historical evidence of affiliation with the Catholic Church.

                      Thirdly, the conference seemingly indorses imperfection in various translations ‘since’ the existence of autographic text. Therefore, the conference supports an imperfect rendition of a ‘perfect Word of God’. The conference teaches that their opinion is equivalent to the Divine Word. The question then becomes, how much or how little of the Divine Word remains in Sacred Scripture. Is Scripture 99% true, 75% true, or 50% true according to the Divine Word? Concluding then is evangelical conference proposes that teaching a partially true Divine Word is the expressed intent of the Holy Spirit.

                      In summary, the Word of God, the Sacred Scripture which were written by the Apostles for the authority of the Catholic Church to teach and baptize the Divine Word divinely is relegated and subject to the ‘opinion of men’ as half truths. The evangelical conference in Chicago in 1978 merely ratified their opinion that they could subjugate the will of God to the will of man. Sacred Scripture cannot be read and understood outside the light of the Catholic Church.

                      JoeT
                      Sigillum Militum Χρisti † / "Truth exists. The Incarnation happened."

                      Totus Tuus, "Totally yours . . . Keep me in this union".

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by tester View Post

                        the Scriptures , (the original autographs) are without error
                        Produce them.

                        JoeT
                        Sigillum Militum Χρisti † / "Truth exists. The Incarnation happened."

                        Totus Tuus, "Totally yours . . . Keep me in this union".

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JoeT View Post

                          Produce them.

                          JoeT
                          Why?
                          do you think they have errors?
                          One of the ekklēsia

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by JoeT View Post

                            Produce them.

                            JoeT
                            joeT - Answer this..... how could the incarnate God teach the infallibly of the divinely inspired Old Testament and not know the same condition would apply to the divinely inspired New Testament?
                            RC's do know God, but the Bible indicates that it is a knowledge in condemnation, a knowledge enabling them to know things about themselves and the world around them, even though they suppress the truth of God which makes such knowledge possible.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by tester View Post

                              Why?
                              do you think they have errors?
                              My motivation is unimportant, the point is you can't produce the autographic text of Scared Scripture. Thus, you must rely on an authority to validate what is true and what isn't. The point is that the only authority on earth that can in fact validate Scared Scripture is the Catholic Church.

                              JoeT
                              Sigillum Militum Χρisti † / "Truth exists. The Incarnation happened."

                              Totus Tuus, "Totally yours . . . Keep me in this union".

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by JoeT View Post

                                My motivation is unimportant, the point is you can't produce the autographic text of Scared Scripture. Thus, you must rely on an authority to validate what is true and what isn't. The point is that the only authority on earth that can in fact validate Scared Scripture is the Catholic Church.

                                JoeT
                                validly of what?
                                that writings breathed out by God are inerrant?

                                prove your claim!

                                Originally posted by JoeT View Post
                                The bible does indeed have errors.
                                Last edited by tester; 02-17-19, 03:26 PM.
                                One of the ekklēsia

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X