Watch him choke on his cake.
Is scripture the infallible Word Of God?
- Thread starter Bright Raven
- Start date
Watch him choke on his cake.
Well, if you have to ask...........:idunno:
Cruciform
New member
Yes, which means that I also accept Scripture's own teaching that apostolic oral Tradition is the infallible word of God as well [source].
Scripture IS the final authority---just not Scripture ALONE, as Protestants wrongly assume. Tradition is also God's word, and so is our final doctrinal authority right along with Scripture. Divine Revelation (God's word) is comprised of both Scripture and Tradition.
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
It really doesn't apply to Buddhists.
Cruciform
New member
Oops! Try again. Post #84 above.
:BRAVO: You have mastered talking out of both sides of your mouth. :chuckle::devil:
Cruciform
New member
Post your proof.
Which overrules the other?
Indeed. :cheers:
Cruciform
New member
Neither overrules the other (nor can it), since God's word in one form cannot be pitted against God's word in another form. Your error is in the assumption that one aspect of God's word can "overrule" the other aspect of God's word.
everready
New member
We don't assume any such thing Gods word tells us about someone thinking to change times and laws in the future, that future is here.
Daniel 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
everready
Daniel 7:25 And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
everready
So scripture must be in complete agreement with tradition?
Cruciform
New member
The entirely non-authoritative assumptions and opinions fed to you by your preferred recently-invented, man-made non-Catholic sect are noted.
Cruciform
New member
So the written aspect of Divine Revelation (Scripture) must be in complete agreement with the verbal aspect of Divine Revelation (Tradition).
So in all cases Scripture is consistent with tradition?
Cruciform
New member
And vice versa.
PureX
Well-known member
Not a word there about infallibility. Not a word there about it being written or spoken by God. Not a word there about the words being dictated by God to the scribes who wrote them, in any way. Not a word there about how human scribes could have become perfected simply by being "inspired".
I have been inspired by God on any number of occasions, and yet I did not become perfect, nor infallible. So why should i believe that anyone else did? Especially when the text contains nothing that would indicate such perfected authors.
Answer: No, the Bible does not contain the "infallible words of God". And pretending that it does is blatant idolatry.
Cruciform
New member
Yes, such as sola scriptura, "adults-only" baptism, anti-sacramentalism, sola fide, a 66-book biblical canon, etc.
Interplanner
Well-known member
To start with, in answer to the above, let's look at the chain of custody of the word 'Scripture.' It becomes the most important for purposes of this discussion in its 1st century Judaism usage. Christ was raised in 1st century Judaism, and mentioned it in the usual sense, saying the Scriptures cannot be broken. He also spoke of larger themes or motifs being fulfilled in him.
After the resurrection and until the day of Pentecost, he did a lot of teaching that was about Him but from one end of the Scriptures to the other. This is not abstract. There are 2500 usages of the OT by the NT writers, so the 40 day seminar in using them has left a pretty clear trail.
But then we have the fact that what Paul was raised up to teach, and specifically some of his letters is also called the Scriptures. Again, it is not meant to sound like some human beans decided 66 books were a canon list. It is meant to connect to the glorified Christ and his teaching about how the OT was to be used. If you know Paul and how 'riddled' his material is with OT quotes (71 explicit ones in Rom 1-11), then it becomes hopeless to extricate Paul or apostles from Scripture.
To put it another way, 'Scripture' in NT usage means Christ's way of handling the OT, which we would not know without the NT docs. There are docs yes, but the hermeneutic method is what the apostles meant when speaking of the Scriptures.