Do Fundamentalists believe that they are infallible when interpreting Scripture?

[LivingWordUnity]

Since I have been debating the Fundamentalists on here, none of them has ever been willing to give an inch and say that they could be wrong and that the Catholic Church could be right with an interpretation of Scripture. They believe that I, Mr. Catholic, am always wrong and that they are always right.

This leads me to think that they believe that they are infallible when interpreting Scripture.

I asked this question in another thread, and one Fundamentalist denied that Fundamentalists believe that they are infallible when interpreting Scripture.

But if Fundamentalists believe that no one has the authority to interpret Scripture with infallibility how can Fundamentalists know for certain the interpretation of Scripture?

And if Fundamentalists believe that no one can know for certain how to interpret Scripture how can they hold to Luther's novel doctrine of "Sola Scriptura" (Bible Alone)?

Also, how can Fundamentalists claim to know for certain that the Catholic Church is wrong in her interpretation of Scripture if Fundamentalists don’t believe that they themselves are infallible when interpreting Scripture?

[Hentenza]

Is the magisterium ever wrong in interpreting scripture? ;):scratch:


You'all started this, ya know?:D:P

[LivingWordUnity]

Is the magisterium ever wrong in interpreting scripture?Why do you ask this question when you already know that the answer is no. See Papal Infallibility (http://www.catholic.com/library/papal_infallibility.asp) .

Now how about you answering the questions asked in the OP? :)

The point of this thread is to find out if Fundamentalists believe that they are fallible or infallible when interpreting Scripture.

[PaladinGirl]

Why do you ask this question when you already know that the answer is no. See Papal Infallibility (http://www.catholic.com/library/papal_infallibility.asp) .

Now how about you answering the questions asked in the OP? :)

The point of this thread is to find out if Fundamentalists believe that they are fallible or infallible when interpreting Scripture.
Oh come on! We all know that papal infallibility only applies in certain cases and I honestly don't believe in papal infallibility anyway. Of course the magisterium can be wrong sometimes but it can also be right sometimes.

[LivingWordUnity]

Oh come on! We all know that papal infallibility only applies in certain cases and I honestly don't believe in papal infallibility anyway. Of course the magisterium can be wrong sometimes but it can also be right sometimes.The thread isn't asking about papal infallibility.

The question is about if Fundamentalists believe that they are fallible or infallible when they are interpreting scripture.

How many times do I have to repeat this before getting an answer to the question?

[DeaconDean]

Pinky, are you pondering what I’m pondering?

I think so, Brain, but Tuesday Weld isn’t a complete sentence.



This thread is temporarally closed while staff discusses a few issues.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[tisamy]

The post appears to be open so...
I believe the bible is the inerrant word of God and is infallible. I, as a human being am fallible. That being said, the RCC is not an infallible interpreter of scripture either. I give you Galileo Galilei vs the Inquisition.

[Vambram]

The post appears to be open so...
I believe the bible is the inerrant word of God and is infallible. I, as a human being am fallible. That being said, the RCC is not an infallible interpreter of scripture either. I give you Galileo Galilei vs the Inquisition.

:amen::thumbsup::hug:

[LivingWordUnity]

:doh:Still no answer to the question.

[LightHorseman]

This leads me to think that they believe that they are infallible when interpreting Scripture.It certainly seems this way top me as someone who has also spent a fair degree of time discussing matters with fundamentalists.

I'd also make the minor point that the upper ecclesiarchy of the Catholic Church have spent years of their life devoted to the study of theology and theological doctrine. Now, of course, that is not to say that they are infalible... but it does seem slightly odd that the average Fundamentalist layman considers themselves superior to senior Catholic Clergy in terms of Biblical interpretation as a matter of spec... as though they are OF COURSE more learned than any given Cardinal.

No. Your average Fundamentalist, in my experience, will never for a moment consider the possibility that they are mistaken, and will go through massive contortions of both logic and theology to avoid having to admit that they may have been in error. See also the common tactic when they are absolutely, utterly and incontrivertibly mistaken, that they will disappear from the discussion, and next be seen spouting the same gflawed doctrine, as though the correction had never taken place.

It sometimes seems that they would much rather be knowingly mistaken, than in anyway out of sync with their bretheren.

[LightHorseman]

The post appears to be open so...
I believe the bible is the inerrant word of God and is infallible. I, as a human being am fallible. That being said, the RCC is not an infallible interpreter of scripture either. I give you Galileo Galilei vs the Inquisition.

I give you Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis vs. Reality

[LivingWordUnity]

The post appears to be open so...
I believe the bible is the inerrant word of God and is infallible. I, as a human being am fallible. That being said, the RCC is not an infallible interpreter of scripture either. I give you Galileo Galilei vs the Inquisition.Straw men.

The Catholic Church never claimed to be infallible in matters of science, only in matters of faith and morals. Galileo had nothing to do with faith and morals.

The popular story of the Inquisition was greatly exaggerated by the Protestant Reformers who had an anti-Catholic agenda. The only way for them to feel justified in leaving the only Church that was founded by Christ was for them to try their best to convince themselves and others that the Church had fallen into complete apostasy and corruption. The same Protestant Reformers who promoted the popular myth of the Inquisition are the same ones who claimed that the Pope was the anti-Christ.

Historians who specialize in medieval history have generally come to the conclusion, after close examination of the historical evidence, that the story of the Inquisition is more fiction than fact.

The Inquisition argument is an emotional argument to get people to be angry at or to fear the Catholic Church. This gets people to stop using reason and is a distraction from the million dollar question of "Which church was the Church founded by Christ?".

[tisamy]

I've read the papal statement and Galileo's recantation. The church said his beliefs - the earth not the center of the world - were contrary to [thier interpretation of] scripture.

[tisamy]

:doh:Still no answer to the question.
I gave you an answer. No I am not infallible in interpreting scripture. I cannot name one single fundamentalist that would claim to be infallible in thier interpretation of God's word. I hold God's word to be inerrant and infallible, not man's.

[LightHorseman]

I gave you an answer. No I am not infallible in interpreting scripture. I cannot name one single fundamentalist that would claim to be infallible in thier interpretation of God's word. I hold God's word to be inerrant and infallible, not man's.

Nadiine, Floating Axe, and AngelforTruth... there's 3 right here on our own forum.I'm sure if you looked around much you'd find a few more.

[LightHorseman]

Oh, and Phineas2... hes another absolutely inerrant Fundamentalist whose personal interpretation of the Bible is utterly perfect, you might as well be talking directly to God, his Biblical understanding is so good.

[tisamy]

Nadiine, Floating Axe, and AngelforTruth... there's 3 right here on our own forum.I'm sure if you looked around much you'd find a few more.

Okay, I can't comment on that since I'm too new here to be familiar with everybody's various standpoints. :) Let me add a disclaimer....
none I know in person.

[tisamy]

I give you Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis vs. Reality


I have no comment on Ken Ham. However, I referenced a real trial in which a man was accused of holding and teaching a false doctrine that was contrary to scripture and RCC teaching. The RCC taught an erroneous doctrine. It took until 1992 for the RCC to formally admit Galileo's view was correct.

The statements of parties involved are available at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, in English, to those interested. I am unable to post a link. If you google 'Galileo and the Catholic Church' the link comes up about halfway down the page with the header title 'Trial of Galileo Galilei.'

[Vambram]

I have no comment on Ken Ham. However, I referenced a real trial in which a man was accused of holding and teaching a false doctrine that was contrary to scripture and RCC teaching. The RCC taught an erroneous doctrine. It took until 1992 for the RCC to formally admit Galileo's view was correct.

The statements of parties involved are available at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Law, in English, to those interested. I am unable to post a link. If you google 'Galileo and the Catholic Church' the link comes up about halfway down the page with the header title 'Trial of Galileo Galilei.'

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileo.html (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileo.html)

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileoaccount.html (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/galileo/galileoaccount.html)



:thumbsup::cool::groupray:

[LivingWordUnity]

I've read the papal statement and Galileo's recantation. The church said his beliefs - the earth not the center of the world - were contrary to [thier interpretation of] scripture.His beliefs about what? Show me the official Papal document so that I can read the whole thing for myself and not have to rely on a second-hand source.

[LivingWordUnity]

I have no comment on Ken Ham. However, I referenced a real trial in which a man was accused of holding and teaching a false doctrine that was contrary to scripture and RCC teaching. The RCC taught an erroneous doctrine. It took until 1992 for the RCC to formally admit Galileo's view was correct.I've been a Catholic since 1993, and I have never heard of a Catholic doctrine based on Galileo.

This is a good article about Galileo and the Catholic Church:

If you ask people what Galileo Galilei is famous for, most will say that he invented the telescope, used it to prove the earth goes around the sun, and that the Catholic Church condemned him for his discoveries. That much is common knowledge, no?

In fact, none of those things is true.

Galileo did not invent the telescope. When and where the telescope was invented is not certain, but what is certain is that in 1609 Galileo heard about the new invention and made one for himself. Soon he turned it on the heavens, and it was at that moment that his destiny turned to fame.

Every night brought new discoveries. He discovered that the Milky Way is not a soft band of light but a cloud of millions and millions of stars, that the moon is covered with craters, that Venus has phases like the moon, even that the sun has spots on its face. (Looking at the sun through a telescope is probably what doomed Galileo to blindness later in his life.) Excited beyond measure by his discoveries, Galileo in 1610 published a little book, Siderius Nuncius (The Starry Messenger), detailing his discoveries.

The Starry Messenger made Galileo an overnight celebrity, and his discoveries did not go unnoticed by officials of the Catholic Church, many of whom were scholarly individuals with an interest in the sciences. Some of the leading cardinals of the Church were fellow members of the scientific society to which Galileo belonged and took great interest and pride in the discoveries of their most famous member.

The Church also lauded Galileo publicly. He had a friendly audience with Pope Paul V, and in 1611 the Jesuit Roman College held a day of ceremonies to honor Galileo. When in 1614 a Dominican monk criticized Galileo from the pulpit, the leader of the Dominicans reprimanded the monk and apologized to Galileo on behalf of the entire order.

What did get Galileo into a bit of hot water with the Church was a conclusion he drew from one of his telescopic discoveries: He discovered that Jupiter has four moons that orbit around it just as the moon does the earth. He was fascinated by this, and from this and from observing the phases of Venus (which indicated that Venus orbits the sun, not the earth) he concluded that the earth goes around the sun (a view known as heliocentrism), not the sun around the earth (known as geocentrism).

Today Galileo's conclusion seems obvious. But it was not obvious at the time, and the truth is that Galileo was jumping to conclusions unsupported by the facts. The fact that four moons orbit Jupiter does not in any way prove that the earth goes around the sun and neither does the fact that Venus shows phases as it orbits the sun.

A popular theory at the time (known as the Tychoan theory after Tycho Brahe, the famous Danish astronomer who had formulated it) proposed that all the planets orbit the sun, and the sun with its retinue of planets then orbits the earth. This theory explained Galileo's observations quite well, and many pointed that out to Galileo. But Galileo insisted that what he had found was proof of the earth orbiting the sun. He eventually turned out to be right, but what he had at the time was not proof.

It was that lack of proof, along with his own abrasive personality, that precipitated his troubles with the Church. Galileo was known for his arrogant manner, and during his career there were a great number of people whom he had slighted, insulted, or in some way made into enemies. In 1615 some of them saw a chance to get back at Galileo by accusing him of heresy for his assertion that heliocentrism was proven fact. And so it was that the Church was prompted to inquire whether Galileo was holding views contrary to Scripture.

It must be pointed out that at the time the Church did not have an official position on whether the sun goes around the earth or vice versa. Though geocentrism was the prevailing view, both views were widely held, and it was a matter of frequent debate among the science-minded.

Indeed, most of the resistance to heliocentrism came not from the Church but from the universities. Within the Church some believed heliocentrism to be contrary to the Bible, others believed it was not. In fact, Galileo had wide support within the Church, and Jesuit astronomers were among the first to confirm his discoveries.

So when Galileo was accused of statements contrary to Scripture, the matter was referred to Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, the Church's Master of Controversial Questions (quite a title, isn't it?). After careful study of the matter and of Galileo's evidence, Cardinal Bellarmine-who was later canonized and made a doctor of the Church-concluded that Galileo had not contradicted Scripture. But he did admonish Galileo not to teach that the earth moves around the sun unless he could prove it. Not an unreasonable admonition, really, but it had the effect of muzzling Galileo on the matter, because by then he realized he really did not have proof, though he still thought he was right.

And so it was that Galileo chafed under the cardinal's admonition for most of a decade, until in 1623 the luckiest event in his life occurred: Cardinal Maffeo Barberini, a member of Galileo's scientific society and a great fan of Galileo, became Pope Urban VIII.

This was Galileo's dream come true: a pope who was learned in the sciences, who had not only read all of Galileo's works but was a friend and admirer as well. Galileo was soon summoned to Rome for an audience with the Pope to discuss the latest in astronomy, and Galileo took the opportunity to ask the Pope for his blessing to write a book about the motions of the solar system.

Pope Urban VIII readily agreed to Galileo's request, with one condition: The book must present a balanced view of both heliocentrism and geocentrism. The Pope also asked Galileo to mention the Pope's personal view of the matter, which was that bodies in the heavens perhaps move in ways that are not understood on earth (not an unreasonable view at the time). Galileo agreed, and set forth to write his book.

Had Galileo written his book as promised there would have been no problem. But as he had many times before, Galileo was bent not only on arguing his case but on humiliating those who disagreed with him, and he wrote a book far different from what he had promised.

As was common at the time, he wrote the book in the form of a discussion among three men: one a proponent of heliocentrism, one a proponent of geocentrism, and an interested bystander. Unfortunately, the "dialogue" was one-sided-Galileo portrayed the proponent of heliocentrism as witty, intelligent, and well-informed, with the bystander often persuaded by him, while the proponent of geocentrism (whom Galileo named "Simplicius") was portrayed as slow-witted, often caught in his own errors, and something of a dolt. This was hardly a balanced presentation of views.

But Galileo's greatest mistake was his final twisting of the knife: He fulfilled his promise to mention the Pope's view of the matter, but he did so by putting the Pope's words in the mouth of the dim-witted Simplicius. This was no subtle jab-the Pope's views were well-known, and everyone immediately realized that it was a pointed insult. This was too much for the Pope to bear. He was furious, and Galileo was summoned to Rome to explain himself.

This time things did not go well for Galileo. He was charged with a number of offenses, and though he was not imprisoned or tortured, he was shown the implements of torture. Galileo, by then an old man, was terrified, and agreed to something of a plea bargain: In return for publicly recanting his heliocentric view, he was allowed to return home with a sentence of permanent house arrest. He lived out his remaining years in his home, eventually going blind. Curiously, it was during his years of house arrest that he wrote his finest work, a book dealing with motion and inertia that is a cornerstone of modern physics.

It's interesting to note that during all of Galileo's conflicts with the Church, other astronomers, including the equally famous Johannes Kepler, were openly writing and teaching heliocentrism. Kepler even worked out and published the equations that describe the orbits of the planets about the sun. Yet he never had the problems Galileo did, in part because he had less to do with the Catholic Church but also because he did not have Galileo's biting arrogance.

So it was that Galileo's spiteful manner, his knack for turning even his best friends into enemies, repeatedly got him in trouble. His accomplishments cannot be overstated-Galileo is truly one of the giants of science-but in recounting his famous run-in with the Church, it's also important to remember that the root of his problems were not his scientific views but his own unbridled arrogance.
Source (http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9911fea4.asp)

[DeaconDean]

I'd also make the minor point that the upper ecclesiarchy of the Catholic Church have spent years of their life devoted to the study of theology and theological doctrine. Now, of course, that is not to say that they are infalible... but it does seem slightly odd that the average Fundamentalist layman considers themselves superior to senior Catholic Clergy in terms of Biblical interpretation as a matter of spec... as though they are OF COURSE more learned than any given Cardinal.

Can you tell the difference between "Theology" and "Hermeneutics?"

Do you even know the difference?

God Bless

Till all are one.

[LightHorseman]

Can you tell the difference between "Theology" and "Hermeneutics?"

Do you even know the difference?

God Bless

Till all are one.I don't see your point. Are you saying that professional theologians and christian philosophers can't be expected to have a better than average grasp of the Bible and Biblical interpretation?

[DeaconDean]

I don't see your point. Are you saying that professional theologians and christian philosophers can't be expected to have a better than average grasp of the Bible and Biblical interpretation?

To a certain degree, yes.

In seminary, my major was Systematic Theology. In fact, I got a "A+" for the entire course.

There is a difference in theology and defining doctrine, as opposed to hermenutics that deals specifically with interpretation and translation.

Now isn't that what you boasted of earlier?

the upper ecclesiarchy of the Catholic Church have spent years of their life devoted to the study of theology and theological doctrine.

So I put it to you again, there is a world of difference in theology and hermenutics.

According to Millard Erickson, Theology is defined as:

Christian Theology seeks to understand the God revealed in the Bible and to provide a Christian understanding of God's creation, particularly human beings and their condition, and God's redemptive work

Introducing Christian Doctrine, Millard Erickson, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids, Mi., 49516, 1992, 2001, "What is Theology", p. 15

He goes further to point out:

Christian doctrine is simply statements of the most fundamental beliefs that the Christian has, beliefs about the nature of God, about His action, about us who are His creatures, and about what He has done to bring us into relationship with Him...1) Theology is Biblical: It takes its primary content from the Old and New Testament scriptures...it is primarily God's word that constitues the content of theology. 2) Theology is Sysytematic: It does nt look at each of the books of the Bible separately, but atemps to draw together into one coherant whole what the entirety of scriptures says on a given topic, such as human sinfulness. 3) Theology is done in the context of human culture. Theology, particularly in its more advanced or technical sense, must relate the teachings of scripture to data found in other disiplines that deal with the same subject matter. 4) Theology is comtemporary. The aim of the theological enterprise is to restate timeless biblical tuths in a form that is understandable to the people who are living today. 5) Theological is practical. Paul expounded doctrine not merely to inform his readers, so that they might have more data. Rather, he intended that the doctrine he expounded be applied to everyday life.

Ibid, The Nature of Theology, p. 16-17

Whereas "Hermeneutics" is defined as:


In the interpretation of a text, hermeneutics considers what language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language) says, supposes, doesn't say, and implies. The process consists of several theories for best attaining the Scriptural author's intended meaning(s). One such process is taught by Henry A Virkler (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_A_Virkler&action=edit&redlink=1), in Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation (1981):

Lexical-syntactical method: This method looks at the words used and the way the words are used. Different order of the sentence, the punctuation, the tense of the verse are all aspects that are looked at in the lexical syntactical method. Here, lexicons and grammar aids can help in extracting meaning from the text.
Historical/cultural method: The history and culture surrounding the authors is important to understand to aid in interpretation. For instance, understanding the Jewish sects of the Palestine and the government that ruled Palestine in New Testament times increases understanding of Scripture. And, understanding the connotations of positions such as the High Priest and that of the tax collector helps us know what others thought of the people holding these positions.
Contextual method: A verse out of context can often be taken to mean something completely different from the intention. This method focuses on the importance of looking at the context of a verse in its chapter, book and even biblical context.
Theological method: It is often said that a single verse usually doesn't make a theology. This is because Scripture often touches on issues in several books. For instance, gifts of the Spirit are spoken about in Romans, Ephesians and 1 Corinthians. To take a verse from Corinthians without taking into account other passages that deal with the same topic can cause a poorer interpretation.
Special literary methods: There are several special literary aspects to look at, but the overarching theme is that each genre of Scripture has a different set of rules that applies to it. Of the genres found in Scripture, there are: narratives, histories, prophecies, apocalyptic writings, poetry, psalms and letters. In these, there are differing levels of allegory, figurative language, metaphors, similes and literal language. For instance, the apocalyptic writings and poetry have more figurative and allegorical language than does the narrative or historical writing. These must be addressed, and the genre recognized to gain a full understanding of the intended meaning.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_hermeneutics

There is a big difference between "Theology" and "Hermeneutics."

So if my translation and interpretation of scripture is different than what your Pope says, I'm going to stick with what I know.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[tisamy]

I've been a Catholic since 1993, and I have never heard of a Catholic doctrine based on Galileo.

This is a good article about Galileo and the Catholic Church:

If you ask people what Galileo Galilei is famous for, most will say....<snipped for the sake of space>
.............So it was that Galileo's spiteful manner, his knack for turning even his best friends into enemies, repeatedly got him in trouble. His accomplishments cannot be overstated-Galileo is truly one of the giants of science-but in recounting his famous run-in with the Church, it's also important to remember that the root of his problems were not his scientific views but his own unbridled arrogance.


The doctrine was not based on Galileo himself in any way but what was understood to be the center of the world. The RCC referenced scripture, their teaching and referred to their view as 'doctrine' in the Papal Condemnation. However their teaching was wrong.

".......We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be prescribed by us for you....."
Excerpt from the 'Papal Condemnation', Source: Giorgio de Santillana, The Crime of Galileo (University of Chicago Press 1955), pp. 306-310


"Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture…” – Pope John Paul II, L’Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) - 4th November, 1992

Even when one holds the bible as the literal word of God, that does not mean every passage is to be interpreted literally.

If Galileo can be accused of arrogance, then the RCC must stand right up there with him. When one teaches error and threatens torture to suppress other views, then I must come to the conclusion that the teacher is more concerned about their doctrine than the truth.

[Hentenza]

The only one that is infallible is God. I guess that rules out the magisterium.;)

[LivingWordUnity]

The doctrine was not based on Galileo himself in any way but what was understood to be the center of the world. The RCC referenced scripture, their teaching and referred to their view as 'doctrine' in the Papal Condemnation. However their teaching was wrong.

".......We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of the matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgment of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely, of having believed and held the doctrine—which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the center of the world; and that an opinion may be held and defended as probably after it has been declared and defined to be contrary to the Holy Scripture; and that consequently you have incurred all the censures and penalties imposed and promulgated in the sacred canons and other constitutions, general and particular, against such delinquents. From which we are content that you be absolved, provided that, first, with a sincere heart and unfeigned faith, you abjure, curse, and detest before use the aforesaid errors and heresies and every other error and heresy contrary to the Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church in the form to be prescribed by us for you....."
Excerpt from the 'Papal Condemnation', Source: Giorgio de Santillana, The Crime of Galileo (University of Chicago Press 1955), pp. 306-310Two problems with this quote:

1) Who is the “we” in “We say”?
2) I asked you to provide an official Papal document, not a second-hand source.



"Thanks to his intuition as a brilliant physicist and by relying on different arguments, Galileo, who practically invented the experimental method, understood why only the sun could function as the centre of the world, as it was then known, that is to say, as a planetary system. The error of the theologians of the time, when they maintained the centrality of the Earth, was to think that our understanding of the physical world’s structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture…” – Pope John Paul II, L’Osservatore Romano N. 44 (1264) - 4th November, 1992

Even when one holds the bible as the literal word of God, that does not mean every passage is to be interpreted literally.

If Galileo can be accused of arrogance, then the RCC must stand right up there with him. When one teaches error and threatens torture to suppress other views, then I must come to the conclusion that the teacher is more concerned about their doctrine than the truth.It’s ironic that a Fundamentalist is condemning the Pope for allegedly holding to a Fundamentalist view of the Bible.

But anyway, there are two problems with this quote:

1) It is an excerpt taken from a second-hand source. If it is part of something official written by John Paul II, the reference to the official document is not given, and it is taken out of context.
2) Just because a Catholic theologian said something doesn’t make it Catholic doctrine.

[tisamy]

Two problems with this quote:

1) Who is the “we” in “We say”?
2) I asked you to provide an official Papal document, not a second-hand source.



It’s ironic that a Fundamentalist is condemning the Pope for allegedly holding to a Fundamentalist view of the Bible.

But anyway, there are two problems with this quote:

1) It is an excerpt taken from a second-hand source. If it is part of something official written by John Paul II, the reference to the official document is not given, and it is taken out of context.
2) Just because a Catholic theologian said something doesn’t make it Catholic doctrine.

"We' :
F. Cardinal of Ascoli
B. Cardinal Gessi
G. Cardinal Bentivoglio
F. Cardinal Verospi
Fr. D. Cardinal of Cremona
M. Cardinal Ginetti
Fr. Ant. s Cardinal of. S. Onofrio
[Three judges did not sign the sentence: Francesco Barberini, Caspar Borgia, and Laudivio Zacchia.]

The Inquisition was supposed to defend the faith from error. Their purpose was to stamp out heresy so they would hold an official authority from the church regardless of any legal loopholes which served the RCC to keep it's hands clean from the methodology of the Inquisition. I am not arguing papal infallibility, or council infallibility but church infallibility - just plain making mistakes or errors. The 'doctrine of infallibility' allows the church to teach error and then when they are proved wrong, say it isn't dogma so it's okay. To me, that is a cope out. It's like saying I was wrong, but not officially wrong.

I cannot post a link yet. The Vatican website has a few historical documents from the Galileo trial that you can view and zoom in on. They are in Latin of course. They do not appear to have the original condemnation online.

The link Vambram posted for me - thank you :)- has the English translation. I have found several sources online and it's all the same English translation. I found a source from a law university as they should be a neutral and reliable source.

JPII's Galileo statement was very big in the news. Also in 2000 he made an apology, speaking for the RCC, for the sins and errors of the church in the last 2000 years. The PBS website has the transcript with follow up questions as usual for them. As a Christian I forgive, but that doesn't mean forget. I don't hate or condemn the RCC. I discern and disagree with many things that are taught.

The literal interpretation issue I addressed. Passages must be taken in context.
The forum fundamentalist definition gives the following:
2. Believes whatever the Bible says is so;

This is very broad and general. It does not say one must take every single word, phrase, and passage literally. For the passage to be taken literally correctly it must work in context IMO. Broad ranges allow for diversity. Just like there are liberal Catholics, charismatic Catholics, etc. Not every Catholic by any means agrees with all the RCC officially teaches. Then there are the so called 'cafeteria Catholics.'
Broad terms cannot specifically define all who fall under them.

[LivingWordUnity]

"We' :
F. Cardinal of Ascoli
B. Cardinal Gessi
G. Cardinal Bentivoglio
F. Cardinal Verospi
Fr. D. Cardinal of Cremona
M. Cardinal Ginetti
Fr. Ant. s Cardinal of. S. Onofrio
[Three judges did not sign the sentence: Francesco Barberini, Caspar Borgia, and Laudivio Zacchia.]None of these is the Pope.

The Catholic Church teaches that only the Pope or the Bishops in union with the Pope is infallible when teaching on matters of faith and morals to the universal Church. A cardinal can teach error.

The Catholic Church has never claimed to teach infallibly about science, and there has never been a Catholic Church doctrine about the world being flat. And the Catholic Church has never claimed to be without sinnners. You have been arguing against a straw man.

But again, where is the official papal document?

[tisamy]

None of these is the Pope.

The Catholic Church teaches that only the Pope or the Bishops in union with the Pope is infallible when teaching on matters of faith and morals to the universal Church. A cardinal can teach error.

The Catholic Church has never claimed to teach infallibly about science, and there has never been a Catholic Church doctrine about the world being flat. And the Catholic Church has never claimed to be without sinnners. You have been arguing against a straw man.

But again, where is the official papal document?

Again I understand the 'doctrine of infallibility' as defined by the RCC. I find it a cope out. A loophole. I refer to my previous statement.
Is it okay for a group of cardinals, given recognized authority by the RCC to bring a man to trial, threaten torture, and condemn him, on the basis of their teaching if they are incapable by the very definition of even being infallible in the first place? If they do not have the authority to speak infallibly why should they have the authority to condemn a person for having other views? It is inconsistent and unjust and arrogant.

No one said anything about doctrines concerning the world being flat. The issue was what was the center of the [known] world. At the time of the trial, most people accepted the world was round. Magellan's crew had already circumnavigated the globe 100 years prior to the trial of Galileo.

The English translation is available at the posted link provided earlier. This work has been used in faculty work and projects and for teaching at the university level. It is widely accepted as reliable. If the RCC has not chosen to publish it online, I'm not sure where else to find it. No one has doubted it exists in all my reading. All Catholic sources I've found in reading on Galileo acknowledge it's existence and I have yet to read a quibble about the English translation from any Catholic source. They merely point to the definition of papal infallibility which Protestants do not recognize on scriptural basis. The actual Vatican library itself is closed for three years for renovations beginning July 2007. Again I point to John Paul's statement concerning Galileo and the error of the church. Tell me in what way it is taken out of context. It seems very straight forward to me.

Still waiting for the biblical backing of dogmas and doctrines concerning Mary.

[LivingWordUnity]

Again I understand the 'doctrine of infallibility' as defined by the RCC. I find it a cope out. A loophole.It is what it is. You are frustrated because you want to find where it has failed, but you can't.

[Vambram]

RCC doctrine is wrong and unscriptural in many instances. I notice that you still have not yet answered tisamy's question concerning the RCC doctrine of Mary, and nor have you answered any of the rest of the doctrines of the RCC which we Fundamentalists have pointed out to you are absolutely incorrect.

[tisamy]

It is what it is. You are frustrated because you want to find where it has failed, but you can't.

Frustrated? Not at all. It is an illogical doctrine that allows the RCC to be wrong unless they are 'officially' wrong. Everything not taught by the pope ex cathedra becomes a 'do over' if it is found to be in error. I dismiss the doctrine altogether.

The definition of infallible was not given at the beginning of the debate with the first post. I happen to know what the RCC means when they say infallible according to how it applies to them and them only. I say fooey.

How many times in the history of the church has the RCC claimed 'infallibility' prior to it's dogmatic institution? It actually weakens the claim to absolute teaching authority since statistically they can only claim a very small percentage of what they actually teach through out history is 'certainly true and reliable'.

When was the doctrine of papal infallibility dogmatically accepted? At the Vatican Council circa 1870 and then applied retroactively to widely accepted Catholic doctrine. The infallibility of the RCC bishops when speaking in Council? Second Vatican Council circa 1965 and applied retroactively again to widely accepted Catholic doctrine. I can't help but think, hindsight is 20/20. The church began when? On Pentecost the year Christ was crucified and resurrected a little less than 2000 years ago. The day Christ poured out the Spirit as Councilor and Comforter.

So the infalliblity doctrine was not dogma at the time of the Galileo trial anyway and can only be applied retroactively. It is a moot point. The RCC claimed absolute authority in matters of faith and scripture none the less. History has attested to this fact.

[LivingWordUnity]

RCC doctrine is wrong and unscriptural in many instances.You say that it's wrong and unscriptural, but you haven't shown this. Just telling me, "you're wrong!" is not going to convince me.

[LivingWordUnity]

When was the doctrine of papal infallibility dogmatically accepted?Here is what matters:

In the almost 2,000 year history of the Catholic Church, when has the Pope ever taught error when teaching officially to the universal Church in matters of faith and morals? Never.

When will the Pope ever teach error when teaching officially to the universal Church in matters of faith and morals? Never.

After most other denominations have officially accepted things like abortion and homosexuality by a popular vote, the Catholic Church will still be teaching that it is a Mortal sin.

Think about this fact. No Christian church or denomination ever accepted contraception as morally permissible before 1930. Now look around and see who is left standing firm on the issue against the popular culture.

The Catholic Church is the oldest and the boldest.

[tisamy]

In the almost 2,000 year history of the Catholic Church, when has the Pope ever taught error when teaching officially to the universal Church in matters of faith and morals? Never.

When will the Pope ever teach error when teaching officially to the universal Church in matters of faith and morals? Never.


This is your opinion. Like you told Vambram, you are not going convince me because you say it is so. I disagree with your premise. A teaching that is extra-biblical is up for question and discernment. See Proverbs 30: 5-6, See Deut. 4:2 and Jesus's words to the Pharisees. A teaching that is anti-biblical is ignoring God's words and replacing them with mans desire.


After most other denominations have officially accepted things like abortion and homosexuality by a popular vote, the Catholic Church will still be teaching that it is a Mortal sin.

Think about this fact. No Christian church or denomination ever accepted contraception as morally permissible before 1930. Now look around and see who is left standing firm on the issue against the popular culture.

The Catholic Church is the oldest and the boldest.


Catholics are not alone in their beliefs on the above issues. Not every member of any given church agrees with what is officially taught. Catholics included. If the moral litmus tests you have given can be backed by scripture, they stand. Those are three separate debates from this thread.

[Vambram]

You say that it's wrong and unscriptural, but you haven't shown this. Just telling me, "you're wrong!" is not going to convince me.


What does the Bible say about the virgin Mary?

Mary the mother of Jesus was described by God as “highly favored” (Luke 1:28). The phrase “highly favored” comes from a single Greek word, which essentially means “much grace.” Mary received God’s grace.

Grace is “unmerited favor,” meaning that something we receive despite the fact that we do not deserve it. Mary needed grace from God just as the rest of us do. Mary herself understood this fact, as she declared in Luke 1:47, “. . . and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior. . .”

Mary recognized that she needed the Savior. The Bible never says that Mary was anyone but an ordinary human whom God chose to use in an extraordinary way. Yes, Mary was a righteous woman and favored (graced) by God (Luke 1:27-28). At the same time, Mary was a sinful human being who needed Jesus Christ as her Savior, just like everyone else (Ecclesiastes 7:20; Romans 3:23; 6:23; 1 John 1:8).

Mary did not have an “immaculate conception (http://www.gotquestions.org/immaculate-conception.html).” The Bible doesn’t suggest Mary’s birth was anything but a normal human birth. Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus (Luke 1:34-38), but the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary (http://www.gotquestions.org/perpetual-virginity-Mary.html) is unbiblical. Matthew 1:25, speaking of Joseph, declares, “But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave Him the name Jesus.”

The word “until” clearly indicates that Joseph and Mary did have sexual union after Jesus was born. Joseph and Mary had several children together after Jesus was born. Jesus had four half-brothers: James, Joseph, Simon, and Judas (Matthew 13:55). Jesus also had half-sisters, although they are not named or numbered (Matthew 13:55-56). God blessed and graced Mary by giving her several children, which in that culture was the clearest indication of God’s blessing on a woman.

One time when Jesus was speaking, a woman in the crowd proclaimed, “Blessed is the womb that bore You and the breasts at which You nursed” (Luke 11:27). There was never a better opportunity for Jesus to declare that Mary was indeed worthy of praise and adoration. What was Jesus’ response? “On the contrary, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it” (Luke 11:28). To Jesus, obedience to God’s Word was more important than being the woman who gave birth to the Savior.

Nowhere in Scripture does Jesus, or anyone else, direct any praise, glory, or adoration towards Mary. Elizabeth, Mary’s relative, praised Mary in Luke 1:42-44, but her praise is based on the blessing of giving birth to the Messiah. It was not based on any inherent glory in Mary.

Mary was present at the cross when Jesus died (John 19:25). Mary was also with the apostles on the day of Pentecost (Acts 1:14). However, Mary is never mentioned again after Acts chapter 1. The apostles did not give Mary a prominent role. Mary’s death is not recorded in the Bible. Nothing is said about Mary ascending to heaven or having an exalted role there. As the earthly mother of Jesus, Mary should be respected, but she is not worthy of our worship or adoration.

The Bible nowhere indicates that Mary can hear our prayers or that she can mediate for us with God. Jesus is our only advocate and mediator in heaven (1 Timothy 2:5). If offered worship, adoration, or prayers, Mary would say the same as the angels: “Worship God!” (See Revelation 19:10; 22:9.) Mary herself sets the example for us, directing her worship, adoration, and praise to God alone: “My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior, for He has been mindful of the humble state of His servant. From now on all generations will call me blessed, for the Mighty One has done great things for me — holy is His name” (Luke 1:46-49).

Is prayer to saints / Mary Biblical?

The issue of Catholics praying to saints is one that is full of confusion. It is the official position of the Roman Catholic Church that Catholics do not pray TO saints or Mary, but rather that Catholics can ask saints or Mary to pray FOR them. The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that asking saints for their prayers is no different than asking someone here on earth to pray for you. However, the practice of many Catholics diverges from official Roman Catholic teaching. Many Catholics do in fact pray directly to saints and/or Mary, asking them for help – instead of asking the saints and/or Mary to intercede with God for help. Whatever the case, whether a saint or Mary is being prayed to, or asked to pray, neither practice has any Biblical basis.

The Bible nowhere instructs believers in Christ to pray to anyone other than God. The Bible nowhere encourages, or even mentions, believers asking individuals in Heaven for their prayers. Why, then, do many Catholic pray to Mary and/or the saints, or request their prayers? Catholics view Mary and saints as "intercessors" before God. They believe that a saint, who is glorified in Heaven, has more "direct access" to God than we do. Therefore, if a saint delivers a prayer to God, it is more effective than us praying to God directly. This concept is blatantly unbiblical. Hebrews 4:16 tells us that we, believers here on earth, can "...approach the throne of grace with confidence..."

1 Timothy 2:5 declares, "For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." There is no one else that can mediate with God for us. If Jesus is the ONLY mediator, that indicates Mary and saints cannot be mediators. They cannot mediate our prayer requests to God. Further, the Bible tells us that Jesus Christ Himself is interceding for us before the Father, "Therefore He is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them" (Hebrews 7:25). With Jesus Himself interceding for us, why would we need Mary or the saints to intercede for us? Who would God listen to more closely than His Son? Romans 8:26-27 describes the Holy Spirit interceding for us. With the 2nd and 3rd members of the Trinity already interceding for us before the Father in Heaven, what possible need could there be to have Mary or the saints interceding for us?

Catholics argue that praying to Mary and the saints is no different than asking someone here on earth to pray for you. Let us examine that claim. (1) The Apostle Paul asks other Christians to pray for him in Ephesians 6:19. Many Scriptures describe believers praying for one another (2 Corinthians 1:11; Ephesians 1:16; Philippians 1:19; 2 Timothy 1:3). The Bible nowhere mentions anyone asking for someone in Heaven to pray for them. The Bible nowhere describes anyone in Heaven praying for anyone on earth. (2) The Bible gives absolutely no indication that Mary or the saints can hear our prayers. Mary and the saints are not omniscient. Even glorified in Heaven, they are still finite beings with limitations. How could they possibly hear the prayers of millions of people? Whenever the Bible mentions praying to or speaking with the dead, it is in the context of sorcery, witchcraft, necromancy, and divination - activities the Bible strongly condemns (Leviticus 20:27; Deuteronomy 18:10-13). The one instance when a "saint" is spoken to, Samuel in 1 Samuel 28:7-19, Samuel was not exactly happy to be disturbed. It is plainly clear that praying to Mary or the saints is completely different from asking someone here on earth to pray for you. One has a strong Biblical basis, the other has no Biblical basis whatsoever.

God does not answer prayers based on who is praying. God answers prayers based on whether they are asked according to His will (1 John 5:14-15). There is absolutely no basis or need to pray to anyone other than God alone. There is no basis for asking those who are in Heaven to pray for us. Only God can hear our prayers. Only God can answer our prayers. No one in Heaven has any greater access to God's throne that we do through prayer (Hebrews 4:16).

[Vambram]

Should Catholic tradition have equal or greater authority than the Bible?

Should church traditions be accepted as equally authoritative as Scripture? Or, should church traditions be followed only if they are in full agreement with Scripture? The answer to these questions play a large role in determining what you believe and how you live as a Christian. It is our contention that Scripture alone is the only authoritative and infallible source for Christian doctrine and practice. Traditions are only valid if they are built on the firm foundation of Scripture, and in full agreement with the entirety of Scripture. Following are seven biblical reasons supporting the teaching that the Bible should be accepted as the authority for faith and practice:

(1) It is Scripture that is said to be God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16), and it is Scripture that has the repeated, “Thus saith the LORD...” In other words, it is the written Word that is repeatedly treated as God’s Word. Never is it said of any church tradition that it, too, is God-breathed and infallible.

(2) It is to Scripture that Jesus and the apostles appeal time after time in support or defense of their actions and teachings (Matthew 12:3,5; 19:4; 22:31; Mark 12:10). There are over 60 verses in which you find “it is written...” used by Jesus and the apostles to support their teachings.

(3) It is to the Scriptures that the church is commended in order to combat the error that was bound to come (Acts 20:32). Likewise, it was the written word that was seen in the Old Testament as the source of truth upon which to base one’s life (Joshua 1:8; Deuteronomy 17:18-19; Psalm 1; Psalm 19:7-11; 119; etc.). Jesus said that one of the reasons that the Sadducees were in error concerning the resurrection is that they did not know the Scriptures (Mark 12:24).

(4) Infallibility is never stated as the possession of those who would become church leaders in succession of the apostles. In both the Old and New Testaments, it is seen that duly appointed religious leaders could cause the people of God to err (1 Samuel 2:27-36; Matthew 15:14; 23:1-7; John 7:48; Acts 20:30; Galatians 2:11-16). Both Testaments exhort people to study the Scriptures to determine what is true and what is false (Psalm 19; 119; Isaiah 8:20; 2 Timothy 2:15; 3:16-17). While Jesus taught respect toward religious leaders (Matthew 23:3), an admonition which the apostles followed, we have the apostles’ example of breaking from the authority of their religious leaders when it was in opposition to what Jesus had commanded (Acts 4:19).

(5) Jesus equates the Scriptures with God’s word (John 10:35). In contrast, when it comes to the religious traditions, He condemns some traditions because they contradict the written word (Mark 7:1-13). Never does Jesus use religious tradition to support His actions or teachings. Before the writing of the New Testament, the Old Testament was the only inspired Scripture. However, there were literally hundreds of Jewish “traditions” recorded in the Talmud (a collection of commentary compiled by Jewish rabbis). Jesus and the apostles had both the Old Testament, and the Jewish tradition. Nowhere in Scripture does Jesus or any of the apostles appeal to the Jewish traditions. In contrast, Jesus and the apostles quote from, or allude to the Old Testament hundreds of time. The Pharisees accused Jesus and the apostles of “breaking the traditions” (Matthew 15:2). Jesus responded with a rebuke, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?” (Matthew 15:3). The manner in which Jesus and the apostles distinguished between the Scriptures and traditions they possessed is an example for the church. Jesus specifically rebukes treating the “commandments of men” as doctrines (Matthew 15:9).

(6) It is Scripture that has the promise that it will never fail, that it will all be fulfilled. Again, never is this promise given to the traditions of the church (Psalm 119:89,152; Isaiah 40:8; Matthew 5:18; Luke 21:33).

(7) It is the Scriptures that are the instrument of the Holy Spirit and His means for conquering Satan and changing lives (Hebrews 4:12; Ephesians 6:17).

"And that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:15-17). "To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Isaiah 8:20).

According to 2 Timothy 3:15-17, it is Scripture that is able to give one knowledge of salvation, it is God-breathed, and it is what we need to be thoroughly equipped for every good work. To be “thoroughly” equipped, means that it has all that we need. Scripture contains the information from God that is all we need for salvation and to live a life of good works. According to Isaiah 8:20, it is the “law and testimony” (terms used to refer to Scripture, see Psalm 119), that is the standard by which to measure truth.

"Then the brethren immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea. When they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so" (Acts 17:10-11). Here the Jewish people of the town of Berea were commended for testing the teachings they were hearing from Paul by the Scriptures. They did not just accept Paul’s words as authoritative. They examined Paul’s words, compared them with Scripture, and found them to be true.

In Acts 20:27-32, Paul acknowledges publicly that “wolves” and false teachers would arise from “among yourselves” (within the church). What did he commend them to? To “God and the word of His grace.” He does not commend them to the “church leaders” (they were the church leaders), nor to the traditions of the church, nor to a particular overseeing elder. Rather, Paul pointed them to the word of God.

In summary, while there is no one verse that states that the Bible alone is our authority, the Bible over and over again gives the examples and the admonitions of turning to the written Word as one’s source of authority. When it comes to examining the origin of a prophet’s or religious leader’s teaching, it is Scripture that is appealed to as the standard.

The Roman Catholic Church uses a number of biblical passages to support their use of tradition as of equal weight with Scripture. Here are the most commonly used of these passages, along with a brief explanation:

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle" (2 Thessalonians 2:15). "But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us" (2 Thessalonians 3:6). These passages relate to the traditions the Thessalonians had received from Paul himself, whether oral or written. They do not relate to traditions handed down, but to teachings that they themselves had received either from the mouth of Paul or from his pen. Paul is not giving his blessing on all tradition, but rather only on the traditions he had passed on to the Thessalonians. This is in contrast to the traditions of the Roman Catholic Church, which have been handed down from the fourth century and later, not from the mouth or pen of one of the apostles.

"These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly; but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:14-15). The phrase "pillar and ground of truth" does not indicate that the church is the creator of truth, or that it can originate tradition to supplement Scripture. The church being the “pillar and ground of the truth” simply means that the church is the proclaimer and defender of the truth. The New Testament praises churches for proclaiming the truth, "for from you the word of the Lord has been spread abroad" (1 Thessalonians 1:8). The New Testament commends early Christians for defending the truth, "partakers with me...in the defense and confirmation of the gospel" (Philippians 1:7). There is not a single verse in all of Scriptures which indicates that the church has the authority to develop new truth, or to decree new truth as being from the mouth of God.

"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you" (John 14:26). This was a promise given to the apostles alone. The Holy Spirit would help the apostles to remember everything that Jesus had said to them. Nowhere does this Scripture state that there would be an apostolic line of successors, and that the promise would also be for them.

"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:18-19). These verses are used by the Roman Catholic Church to support their teaching that Peter was the first pope, and that the church was built upon Him. But when taken in context with what takes place in the Book of Acts, you find that Peter was the one who opened up the gospel to the world in the sense that it was he who first preached the gospel of Christ on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2). It was he who first preached the gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10). So, the binding and loosing was done through the preaching of the gospel, not through any Roman Catholic tradition.

While it is clearly evident that Scripture argues for its own authority, Scripture nowhere argues for “authoritative tradition equal with Scripture.” The New Testament has more to say against traditions that it does in favor of tradition.

The Roman Catholic Church argues that Scripture was given to men by the Church and therefore the Church has equal or greater authority to it. However, even among the Roman Catholic Church’s writings (from the First Vatican Council), you will find the acknowledgment that the Church councils that determined which books were to be considered the Word of God did nothing but recognize what the Holy Spirit had already made evident. That is, the Church did not “give” Scriptures to men, but simply “recognized” what God, through the Holy Spirit, had already given. As A. A. Hodge states, when a peasant recognizes a prince and is able to call him by name, it does not give him the right to rule over the kingdom. In like fashion, a church council recognizing which books were God-breathed and possessed the traits of a God-inspired book, it does not give the church council equal authority with those books.

In summary, one cannot find a single passage that states that “the written Word alone, and not tradition also, is our sole authority for faith and practice.” At the same time, what must also be admitted is that repeatedly, the Old Testament writers, Jesus, and the apostles, turn to the Scriptures as their measuring stick, and commend the same to any and all that would follow them.

[DeaconDean]

Let us also look at the most quoted scripture regarding "tradition" and the Catholic church.

"ara oun, adelfoi, sthkete, kai krateite taV paradoseiV aV edidacqhte eite dia logou eite di epistolhV hmwn." -2 Thes. 2:15 (GNT)

"Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." -2 Thes. 2:15 (KJV)

Most arguments hinge on the word "eite" (whether).

I have already hashed out this with another Catholic in the GT area, so I will repost it again.

http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1535 (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1535)

The New Testament Greek Lexicon
eite Original Word
Word Origin eite from (1487 (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=1487)) and (5037 (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5037))
Transliterated Eite
WordPhonetic Spelling Eite i'-teh Parts of Speech TDNT Conjunction None


Definition
if ... if
whether ... or
KJV (65) - if, 1; or, 33; or whether, 3; whether, 28; NAS (2) - then, 2;

eite prior to "by word" and eite prior to "by an epistle of us," means the same thing.

The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, Wesley J. Perschbacher, not Strongs Concordance, gives the definition "whether." (p. 123, eite, conj., whether)

Now let us turn to the "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament" and examine the Greek text to see what it says:

“didaskw”
Section 3: The didaskein of Early Christianity:

“…In a setting where scripture was not known, “didaskein ta peri tou Insou” would be out of place, just as it was very much in place in the early community and in dealings with the Jews. Thus Paul speaks of “didaskein” only with reference to his own instruction of the communities at the time of their foundation (2 Th. 2:15; Col. 2:7; Eph. 4:21)[1] (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=30277622#_ftn1) and in the sense of an internal function of Christianity. Even for Gentile congregations proof from scripture was an indispensable weapon against the attacks of Jews, as shown by the history of the Galatian church; and it had thus to be given by the apostles. On the other hand, it seems to have had no part in the churches themselves. When Paul in Rom. 12:7 summons the “didaskwn” to serve “en th didaskalia” of the community, he is not thinking of men who apply the scriptures to Jesus, but of those who give from scripture directions for Christian living,[2] (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=30277622#_ftn2) and h admonishes them to place their better knowledge wholly in the service of the congregation.”

On page 172, concerning “paradosiV" (tradition) Prof. Friedrich Buchsel writes:
paradosiV



“In the NT this means “tradition” only in the sense of what is transmitted, not of transmission. In this sense, it does not occur in the LXX, but is found in Philo and Josephus and in Greek generally, though less common than in the other sense.

In the disputation in Mk. 7 (Mt. 15), Jesus calls Jewish tradition outside the Law the “paradosiV twn presbutepwn,Mk. 7:3,5 (Mt. 15:2). He also speaks of the paradosiV twn anqrwpwnin Mk. 7:8 or umwn in v. 9, Mt. 15:3,6…The Pharisees regarded unwritten tradition as no less binding than the Law. Even Philo claimed piety for such tradition. The Sadducees rejected it. So did Jesus. He agreed with the Pharisees that the good demanded obedience to God’s commandment. As He saw it, however, men could not add to this commandment, since they were too seriously in conflict with God. Jesus did not argue for freedom in attacking tradition. His service of God, however, was not legalistic, and therefore He would not add to the commands of God. In Gal. 1:14 the paradoseiV are Jewish tradition generally, both written and verbal.
For Paul, Christian teaching is tradition (1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Th. 2:15; 3:6; cf. 1 Cor. 11:23; 15:1-11), and he demands that the churches should keep it, since salvation depends on it (1 Cor. 15:2). He sees no antithesis between pneumatic piety and the high estimation of tradition.[3] (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=30277622#_ftn3) The essential point for Paul is that it has been handed down (1 Cor. 15:3), and that it derives from the Lord (11:23). A tradition initiated by himself or others is without validity (Col. 2:8). [emphasis mine] It is no contradiction that Jesus repudiates tradition and Paul champions it. Paul’s tradition agrees with that Jesus’ rejection, since they both are opposed to human tradition. Paul’s use of paradosiVand paradounai rests on the Jewish usage, and agrees with that of the Mysteries to the extent that this agrees with Jewish usage.

[1] (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=30277622#_ftnref1) The last passage is put here because that edidacqhte and the accompanying hkousate point to a mediation of the knowledge that alhqeia is en tw Insou, this being the basis of the obligation to walk in purity.

[2] (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=30277622#_ftnref2) The context demands an interpretation of didaskein in relation to the up building of the life of the community rather than its faith.

[3] (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=30277622#_ftnref3) F. Buchsel, Der Geist Gottes im NT (1926), 275 ff.

Continued...

[DeaconDean]

On the other hand, Paul does not recognize the sacraments as objects of paradounai and paradosiV.[1] (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=30304120#_ftn1) In the days of Paul tradition is in the process of acquiring a fixed verbal form.[2] (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=30304120#_ftn2) In 1 Cor. 15:3 ff. we have a fairly settled christological formula, as also in 1 Cor. 11:23 ff. The same cannot be said, however, of other passages like the lists of vices. The paradosiV of 1 Cor. 15:3ff. is older than Paul and rests on the Jerusalem tradition, even if it does not originate in Jerusalem. The same is probably true of 1 Cor. 11:23ff.; the apo tou kupiou implies that the Lord’s Supper, its celebration and the appropriate words come from the Lord, not that Paul received the formula in visionary instruction by the ascended Lord.”
In Volume III, p. 911-912, Prof. Wilhelm Michaelis writes concering:

kpatew
“…The point in Rev. 2:25; 3:11 is holding on to a possession. The idea of holding a view, of taking ones stand on it, is found in connection with didach in Rev. 2:14f., though with paradosiV at Mk. 7:3-4, 8 and 2 Th. 2:15 the sense is more than that of keeping or following a tradition, cf. Heb. 4:14: kratwmen thV omolgiaV (hold fast), whereas the sense in Heb. 6:18: kpathoai ths prokei,enhV, is more “to grasp.”

In Volume IV, on pages 101-102, Gerhard Kittel writes:

legw

“…Along with negative estimation we should mention the many occurrences in which there is no judgment. The account of something, whether spoken by Jesus, the disciples, or another, refers to “these words” (Mt. 7:28; Ac. 2:22; 16:36). Or collectively “this word” (Mk. 7:29;10:22), or “many words” (Lk. 23:9). Paul distinguishes between a letter and the spoken word (logoV, 2 Th. 2:2, 15; 2 Cor. 10:10; cf. Ac. 15:27), though even in the same sentence (2 Cor. 10:11) he can call a letter the bearer and reproduction of the logoV (2 Th. 3:14; cf. Heb. 5:11; 13:22). An address (Ac. 2:41; 20:7), an account (Ac. 11:22), a rumor (Lk. 5:15; 7:17), can all be called logoV, and the partial record embodied in a book (Ac. 1:1)…It is obvious that the main emphasis of the term is always on saying something. This is why there is such a wide range of possibilities and such a notable vacillation in sense. The word can contain gnwsiV or true sojia (1 Cor. 12:8). It can also be opposed to them(2 Cor. 11:6). Or it can be set along side them (1 Cor. 1:5; 2 Cor. 8:7). In the same way word or act, or word and power, can be mutually exclusive ( 1 Th. 1:5; 1 Cor. 4:19 f.), or complementary (Lk. 24:19; Rom. 15:18; 2 Th. 2:17; Col. 3:17). The emphasis of the sentence will decide whether the word intended is empty sound or whether it carries within it a content which impels towards and necessitates action. This multiplicity of possibilities can express anything said or spoken; it may embrace any content of words.

Finally, in Volume VII, pp. 637-638, Gunther Harder, writes:

[1] (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=30304120#_ftnref1) We have only partial knowledge of the use of paradounai and paradosiVin the Mysteries. It can be shown that teleth and muothpion (and therefore things of a sacramental nature) were objects paradounai and paradosiV(cf. Ranft., 181-185). Teaching occurs less frequently, cf. Norden, Agnostos Theos, 290 f.

[2] (http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=30304120#_ftnref2) A. Seeberg, Der Katechismus der Urchristeneit (1903); P. Feine, Die Gestalt des apost. Glaubenkensbekenntnisses im NT (1925)

Continued...

[DeaconDean]

sthkw

Paul uses the verb mostly in the imperative form sthkete, so that the question arises whether it is for him imperative for esthka ”to stand” as distinct from sthte ”approach.” …Hence Paul can also give the admonition: sthkete en kupiw Phil 4:1. “To stand in faith” is “to stand in the Lord,” for faith looks to
Lord and unites with Him. The choice of kurioV shows that the one who stands in Him is determined by Him and receives from Him the standing which is given to him as faith by God’s saving work in Jesus Christ; he now has to listen to the Lord and follow Him. sthkete en kuriw might thus be translated: “Stand in obedience to the Lord” 1 Th. 3:7f. shows plainly that the comforted life and work of Paul and his companions depend on this standing in the Lord…Because the Lord gives freedom from the destructive powers of sin, law, and death, because faith in the promise of the Word grasps and attains this freedom, the Galatians are admonished: eh eleuqeria huaV CpistoV hleuqepwsen: sthkete oun kai palin zugw douleiaV enecesqhte,. All these connections must be taken into account when we read in 2 Th. 2:15: sthkete kai kpateite taV paradoseiV aV edidacqhte,”

In other words:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast (in the faith of the Lord), and hold on to (lay grasp of) the traditions (scriptures) which ye have been taught (through the teaching of Paul), whether by word (again Paul’s spoken teachings (scriptures)), or (whether) by our (written) epistle. –2 Th. 2:15

Paul was admonishing them to stand fast in their faith in the Lord that they had been taught by him whether it is in the words of scripture or in the letter (epistle). It made no difference for both were equal. There it is, plain and simple. Like it or not, believe it or not. Paul gave the church at Thessalonica the option of standing fast in the faith of the Lord by using either his teaching from scriptures (words) or by using the epistle he wrote. And since we don’t have his words other than what is recorded in the Bible, that is what we are to follow now, his epistle or written word. And in light of what is said about Paul’s view of the traditions of men and: “A tradition initiated by himself or others is without validity (Col. 2:8) (Kittel’s, Vol. II, p. 172) For here we read: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” So I doubt very highly that the tradition Paul thought of and spoke of, and the tradition that you esteem so very much, are one in the same. I have showed you from The New Analytical Greek Lexicon, what a word means, you didn't accept that. I showed the same word and the same meaning from another Greek Lexicon, you didn't accept that. Now I've disected 2 Th. 2:15 from Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. If you don't believe that, then I don't know what else can be said. Seems to me, that your being dogmatic in following after the "paradosiV twn anqrwpwn."

Now I’ve said my piece and proved my point, accept it or not, believe it or not, it really makes no difference to me. I’m going to stand fast in the faith of the Lord through His scriptures (words).

All reference work herein are from the “Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,” By: Gerhard Kittel, Editor; Translated by: Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, MI. Reprinted 2006; Volumes II, pp. 146, 172; III, pp.911-912; IV, pp.101-102; VII, pp. 637-638.

And what it really boils down to is this, we do not have Paul's, or Peter's actual words they spoke, other than their written words, so to say your following the "oral" tradition of the Apostles is wrong.

To illustrate, gather 25 people around in a room. Tell the first person a secret. Tell them to pass it on to the next person inline, and so forth, and so on. When it reaches the last person, have them say out loud what was told to them. I'll bet you 10 dollars to a whole in a donut that it will be completely different than what you said originally.

And your talking about handing down "oral tradition" through some 200 plus "Popes?" How do I know that one of them somewhere down the line didn't misquote something that was told to him? And if they got thaat one "minor" point wrong, then the doctrine is wrong. And if that happens with that, what else could be wrong?

However, I can count on the written word as recorded in the Bible. And that, is the point!

The Apostle Paul taught and preached in Thessalonica for a period of about two years. Other than his two epistles, can you show me difinitive evidence of what else he taught while there? (other then what is recorded in Acts 17)

God Bless

Till all are one.

[LightHorseman]

If they do not have the authority to speak infallibly why should they have the authority to condemn a person for having other views? Yes, because all fundamentalist condemnations come from absolutely inerrant infallible sources

[DeaconDean]

Yes, because all fundamentalist condemnations come from absolutely inerrant infallible sources

You could substitute one word here and you would have the Catholic position.

Yes, because all Catholic condemnations come from absolutely inerrant infallible source(s). (the Pope or the magesterium)

"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone" -Jn. 8:7 (KJV)

God Bless

Till all are one.

[LivingWordUnity]

You could substitute one word here and you would have the Catholic position.

Yes, because all Catholic condemnations come from absolutely inerrant infallible source(s). (the Pope or the magesterium)

"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone" -Jn. 8:7 (KJV)

God Bless

Till all are one.The Catholic Church has canonized many saints but has never condemned anyone by saying that this person or that person is in hell. Can fundamentalists honestly say the same?
.

[BigNorsk]

So you are saying the Catholic Church has never bound anything and so everyone is saved because the Catholic Church has only used the power to loose?

Is that because it was only given the power to turn the keys one way?

Marv