thereselittleflower Posted December 21, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 58 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 5,457 Content Per Day: 1.69 Reputation: 4,220 Days Won: 37 Joined: 07/01/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted December 21, 2015 10 minutes ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said: Yes. The shift from Calvinist to Free Will is very recent. It was something said on another forum that got me to thinking. And then, all of the sudden out of nowhere, God shows me a passage in Job. I didn't have a Bible with me but I remembered the passage quite well. Anyway, that's a discussion for another time and place. We are imperfect beings. No matter how hard we try, we will make mistakes. We will make mistakes because we have free will. If we didn't have free will, we could correctly and perfectly translate the Bible by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The monks who painstakingly copied the bible before the printing press strived for perfection. Were they not guided by the same Holy Spirit? Yet for all their prayers and efforts, no two manuscripts are exactly the same. I am reminded of the image of monks copying as depicted in the movie The Name of the Rose. Such conditions were harsh but yet when compared to the earliest fragments, the Bible was free of errors except the occassional double line and/or spelling mistakes. We can trust the Bible; man, not so much. I remember that scene in The Name of the Rose. I immediately thought of it before you even named the movie. I am looking at a very narrow slice of the pie - not how well texts were copied, etc. but the actual teachings of the apostles and writing of scripture itself. Jesus promised the Apostles they would personally be led into all truth by the Holy Spirit. I believe they received this promised "all truth" and they taught it as given to the 1st century christians. I believe this teaching was infallible and this was infallibility was gifted to them for that purpose. I do not believe it extended into other areas of their lives. I don't believe it extended to translations of the bible, and I don't believe it extended to copiests, etc. While the Holy Spirit may have empowered them to make good copies of scripture, this wouldn't be the same as infallibility. I hope this helps better describe where I see the line being drawn. I see it as being very narrow in scope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavedOnebyGrace Posted December 21, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 4,058 Content Per Day: 14.49 Reputation: 5,191 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/30/2023 Status: Offline Share Posted December 21, 2015 9 minutes ago, thereselittleflower said: I remember that scene in The Name of the Rose. I immediately thought of it before you even named the movie. I am looking at a very narrow slice of the pie - not how well texts were copied, etc. but the actual teachings of the apostles and writing of scripture itself. Jesus promised the Apostles they would personally be led into all truth by the Holy Spirit. I believe they received this promised "all truth" and they taught it as given to the 1st century christians. I believe this teaching was infallible and this was infallibility was gifted to them for that purpose. I do not believe it extended into other areas of their lives. I don't believe it extended to translations of the bible, and I don't believe it extended to copiests, etc. While the Holy Spirit may have empowered them to make good copies of scripture, this wouldn't be the same as infallibility. I hope this helps better describe where I see the line being drawn. I see it as being very narrow in scope. Where this is going is you see Peter as first Pope. There's no historical basis for this. I see James, brother of Jesus as the first head of the Church, namely Bishop of Jerusalum. This is based on historical records and the Book of Acts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 2 hours ago, thereselittleflower said: There is a difference between being personally infallible and operating in the power of the Holy Spirit for a specific task and being infallible for that limited time and purpose. In addition, Peter's mistake was not one of fallibility - it was not an error in teaching, it was an error in behavior - peccability, sinfulness. The two are very different concepts. Do you accept that the Apostles taught infallibly? Do you accept that the writers of scripture wrote infallibly? Do you believe that to do so must mean they would need to be infallible always about everything? No one claims that the Pope speaks infallibly 24/7, 100% of the time. It's not a question of whether or not the Pope ever speaks fallible words. What we have a problem with the claim that the Pope ever speaks infallibly at all. We reject the Catholic myth of papal infallibility in that we do not believe the Pope to ever speak infallible words at all. He is just an unsaved, unregenerate sinner. He does not have the Holy Spirit and God never speaks through unregenerate sinners. The Bible is the ONLY infallible writing and its human authors and Jesus himself were the only people ever to live on this earth who ever either spoke infallibly (as in the case of Jesus) or wrote infallibly (the biblical authors). Since that time, no one has ever spoke infallibly, certainly not your infernal Popes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thereselittleflower Posted December 22, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 58 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 5,457 Content Per Day: 1.69 Reputation: 4,220 Days Won: 37 Joined: 07/01/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted December 22, 2015 14 hours ago, Saved.One.by.Grace said: Where this is going is you see Peter as first Pope. There's no historical basis for this. I see James, brother of Jesus as the first head of the Church, namely Bishop of Jerusalum. This is based on historical records and the Book of Acts. I wasn't taking it there, but that's another subject in and of itself. After delving deep into history and seeking God on this very subject, I have come to a different conclusion than you have. But we can agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SavedOnebyGrace Posted December 22, 2015 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 11 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 4,058 Content Per Day: 14.49 Reputation: 5,191 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/30/2023 Status: Offline Share Posted December 22, 2015 3 hours ago, thereselittleflower said: I wasn't taking it there, but that's another subject in and of itself. After delving deep into history and seeking God on this very subject, I have come to a different conclusion than you have. But we can agree to disagree. Then I made a bad assumption, something we can discuss elsewhere at another time. I don't want to force the issue as it's been most pleasant conversing with you. I too don't rely on intellect when reading scripture, praying fervently for wisdom and discernment. We can agree to disagree and move on from here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts