The Nazirite vows included prohibitions against
- touching dead bodies,
- cutting one’s hair,
- consuming grapes in any form (including grapes, raisins, vinegar and wine); this does not include drinking strong drink that does not come from grapes - vodka is ok.
- following the rest of the Jewish Law
So, how did Samson do with all of this?
The first thing we read about Samson (after his birth) is that he wanted to marry a Philistine woman (in defiance of Jewish Law)
The second thing we read is that he killed a lion with his bare hands, but he didn’t tell anybody. A while later, he went to marry the Philistine girl and stopped to look at the corpse of the lion he had killed. Bees had made a nest in the body and Samson put his hand in and took the honey to eat (this is a violation of the vow to not touch dead bodies)
Next came Samson’s wedding feast. The Hebrew word used tells us that there would have been lots of wine involved…another violation.
He made up a riddle that nobody could have known the answer to (because he broke a vow and didn’t tell anybody), he let his wife’s nagging, pouting and whining get the best of him and he told her the answer - and she promptly told her fellow country-men. So he killed the guys and gave his wife to one of his groomsmen.
After a “cooling off period”, he went to her father’s house, with the intent of “going into her room” - but alas, Samson had given her away! He retaliated against the Philistines for his own move by setting fire to their fields. They were (in the words of Jack Bauer) “upset”. Samson’s own people tied him up and gave him to the enemy (with friends like Samsom…).
The Lord’s timing wasn’t right, so he empowered Samson to kill a bunch of men and escape - and Samson lived in the land of the Philistines for 20 years. At one point, our man Sam went to spend the night with a prostitute and “somehow” the word got out, but Samson escaped again, with a great show of strength.
It is my opinion that Samson was not the brightest candle in the chandelier.
He fell in love with Delilah and she asked him where his strength came from. He lied to her and she did what he had told her would take away his strength - and of course, it didn’t. They did this three times! And he didn’t catch on! Finally, the fourth time, he told her the truth and (big surprise) she did it and Samson was caught.
This time, the Lord’s timing was right and Samson brought down the temple.
*************
All of this tells me that God uses the very imperfect - and sometimes plans the imperfect to be used.
Samson broke his promises - but God used him.
Samson wasn’t very bright (or maybe it’s just that love is blind) - but God used him.
I believe that it is because of our imperfections that God’s glory shines through…and through and through.
I don’t want to be afraid that my imperfections make me unusable. I’m not a member of the “I’ve lived a better life than you” club.
But I want God to use me and I want God to be glorified, either in spite of my imperfections or because of them.
Carrie
I have been reflecting on this idea lately also. If an unbeliever read the Bible they might find it odd that so many of the "great men" who did God's work always had their goof ups recorded. Obviously God did this for a reason.
If you try to look through the Bible for infallible men, the only one you will find is Jesus.
Atlantic
Hi Ellen, Carrie!
I completely agree about God using imperfect men, so I wonder if there might be a slight confusion here between "infallible" and "impeccable".
"Impeccable" is sinless, like Jesus.
"Infallible" means protected from doctrinal error.
Jesus was the only infallible man in the Bible if by that we mean personally, permanently, inherently incapable of teaching error.
However, if Scripture is infallible, then we can certainly see that there are other men who were infallible part of the time: the human authors of Scripture.
Paul and the other writers of Scripture were certainly not impeccable, and I think we can say with reasonable certainty that not everything they ever said was true. But under a certain narrow set of circumstances (i.e. when writing the Scriptures) they were infallible. Everything they said under those circumstances could be relied on to be true, no matter how imperfect they were personally.
The type of infallibility that the Church claims is very similar. It does not mean in any way that the bishops and popes are sinless (not by a long shot - probably some of them are in Hell), nor that everything they say is true. What it means is that in certain circumstances, what they teach about the Christian faith can be relied on to be true.
Atlantic
Sorry, I should have said "But under a certain narrow set of circumstances (e.g. when writing the Scriptures) they were infallible."
Ellen
What it means is that in certain circumstances, what they teach about the Christian faith can be relied on to be true.
In that context, anybody who reads directly from Scripture can claim the same thing.
The writers of the Word were not infallible. They were inspired of God so that His Word is infallible.
There is a difference. You will not find the infallibility of the church in Scripture.
Atlantic
"In that context, anybody who reads directly from Scripture can claim the same thing."
If they do nothing but read literally, yes. If not, the problem of interpretation arises. "There are some things in [Paul's letters] hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures."
The writers of the Word were not infallible.
If they weren't infallible when writing Scripture, then Scripture must have errors.
They were inspired of God so that His Word is infallible.
When a person is inspired of God to say/write something, that something cannot contain error. Therefore, at the moment when they say/write it, they are infallible.
There is a difference. You will not find the infallibility of the church in Scripture.
I still don't think we have the same definition of infallibility, so I'll skip responding to that for now. 🙂
Ellen
God's Word does not return to Him void.
If they weren’t infallible when writing Scripture, then Scripture must have errors.
What they write is infallible, that does not make the person infallible.
You need to believe that God makes people (and the church) infallible. I believe that God is infallible. Working through fallible men, God (you might notice that I have great confidence in God and His ability to work through men) gave us His infallible Word.
I still don’t think we have the same definition of infallibility, so I’ll skip responding to that for now.
1 : incapable of error : UNERRING
2 : not liable to mislead, deceive, or disappoint : CERTAIN
3 : incapable of error in defining doctrines touching faith or morals (m-w.com)
the difference is that ascribe infallibility to men, I ascribe it to God.
Atlantic
I'm still sure we're talking at cross-purposes. I notice that you frequently apply "fallible" and "infallible" as direct adjectives modifying God or men, so to me it sounds like you are thinking of them as personal, inherent qualities.
I agree that God is (personally, inherently) infallible.
I agree that men are (personally, inherently) fallible.
However, I believe that in order for God to transmit His infallible Word through normally fallible men, He had to give them a special gift of protection from error (infallibility) for this purpose. Otherwise, they would have written error into the Scriptures.
This doesn't make the men in question infallible in the sense that God is. They are simply temporarily, specially protected from error in this matter only, by God, in order to transmit the Word of God without error.
Ellen
God's Word never fails.
However, I believe that in order for God to transmit His infallible Word through normally fallible men, He had to give them a special gift of protection from error
show me in the Bible where it is the man that is infallible, and not the Word.
2 Peter 1:21 "No prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God."
It is God's infallibility that shows, not man's.
Christian Answers quotes Ryrie:
God's superintendence of the human authors so that, using their own individual personalities, they composed and recorded without error His revelation to man in the words of the original autographs. (Charles Ryrie, A Survey of Bible Doctrine (Chicago: Moody Press, 1972), p. 38)
I understand that you have to believe that the men were rendered infallible in order to believe that the councils of Rome, the pope (whenever he says he is) and Roman teachings are infallible.
I believe that God and God's Word is infallible.
You are saying that God is not capable of working through fallible man, rendering His Word infallible - sharing the glory with the "momentarily" "infallible" man.
I am saying that God is capable of rendering His Word infallible, through fallible men, leaving the glory to God, and to God alone.
Carrie
When a person is inspired of God to say/write something, that something cannot contain error. Therefore, at the moment when they say/write it, they are infallible.
So I guess you consider Balaam's donkey momentarily infallible also?
It's funny, I have been thinking about this topic alot this weekend and just cannot understand the Catholic viewpoint. The need to consider men of having some special infallibility even if only at certain times.
Only God is infallible. The NT writers were not infallible as they wrote God's Word, the words themselves were infallible b/c they were God-breathed.
“There are some things in [Paul’s letters] hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.”
A second thing Catholics seem to not understand. A true believer has the presence of the Holy Spirit to help them to interpret scripture. Peter's reference to ignorant and unstable would likely be non-believers who do not have the HS to help them. Other parts of scripture may be difficult to understand for a new believer b/c understanding the Word does take study.
Why would God have us look to certain men to interpret scripture for us when he has given each of us the author of scripture itself to interpret?
Atlantic
Christian Answers quotes Ryrie:
God’s superintendence of the human authors so that, using their own individual personalities, they composed and recorded without error His revelation to man in the words of the original autographs. (Charles Ryrie, A Survey of Bible Doctrine (Chicago: Moody Press, 1972), p. 38)
I read that entire link and agreed with every word.
"God's superintendence of the human authors" in order that what the authors wrote was without error is the essence of infallibility as the term is applied to men.
I understand that you have to believe that the men were rendered infallible in order to believe that the councils of Rome, the pope (whenever he says he is) and Roman teachings are infallible.
I have to believe it for Scripture as well: If I believed that the authors of Scripture were fallible - that is, not under God's superintendence such that error was prevented - in the act of composing Scripture, then how could I trust Scripture to be without error?
I believe that God has sometimes given that superintendence and so do you.
Ellen
Superintendence of God = infallibility of men?
sorry, Atlantic, that dog don't hunt.
superintendence: : the act or function of superintending or directing
God directed, God breathed, God's infallibity.
Show me in the Bible where it is the men that are infallible, and not the God-breathed Word.
You see, I know that what we are trying to get around to is Rome.
The glory belongs to God and to God alone. God is the author and perfector of my faith. there is but one Mediator (and it ain't Mary). There is one Redeemer, and no "co-"
Salvation is by grace, through faith, not of works.
I belong to God, not Rome.
Ellen
What it means is that in certain circumstances, what they [popes and bishops] teach about the Christian faith can be relied on to be true.
I agree. Whenever I can find what they teach in the Bible (like the Bereans, examining what Paul taught against Scripture) then I can believe them.
If it is not found in Scripture, it is not binding for faith and conduct.
Atlantic
So I guess you consider Balaam’s donkey momentarily infallible also?
Yes.
The NT writers were not infallible as they wrote God’s Word, the words themselves were infallible b/c they were God-breathed.
If God was breathing Scripture through them, then they were by definition temporarily given the gift of infallibility, i.e. protected by God from error in this act. If they were not protected by God from error, Scripture would have errors and therefore would not be God-breathed.
A true believer has the presence of the Holy Spirit to help them to interpret scripture.
Given the amount of disagreements about the meaning of Scripture, this means either (a) the Holy Spirit is teaching contradictory things to different people, which is absurd, or (b) only the people who are correctly interpreting Scripture are true believers. This leads to the question, how do we tell who are the true believers?
Peter’s reference to ignorant and unstable would likely be non-believers who do not have the HS to help them.
Peter’s very next words are, “You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.”
This would indicate that believers who currently have the help of the Holy Spirit can fall into error somehow. So either it’s possible for a genuine believer to get it wrong, or it’s possible for a genuine believer to fall away and become an unbeliever – probably while still thinking they are a believer (for a conscious ex-believer surely wouldn’t care anymore what Paul wrote). Which do you think it is? Or do you think there’s another possibility?
Why would God have us look to certain men to interpret scripture for us when he has given each of us the author of scripture itself to interpret?
If all believers can hear and understand the Holy Spirit so well, why are there so many disagreements among sola Scriptura Christians?
Superintendence of God = infallibility of men?
Exactly. Any infallibility that a man may have is merely God protecting him from error. The statement “Paul is at the moment under the superintendence of God who will prevent his writing or speaking error” is equivalent to “Paul is at the moment infallible in the act that God is supervising” and vice versa. The supervision that prevents error comes from no one but God, and the glory is all God’s. Is there glory in being Balaam’s donkey? 🙂
Ellen
Again, show me in the Bible where it is the men that are infallible, not the Word?
and: Why is this so important to you?
Ellen
If all believers can hear and understand the Holy Spirit so well, why are there so many disagreements among sola Scriptura Christians?
I believe it is because we agree on the basics (there are some mean-spirited folks out there, but I've seen some Roman Catholic debates that made my hair stand up also).
Even under Rome, differences abound.
James Akin (I'm sure you're familiar with the name) says that a Roman Catholic is free to believe in election (or not) - and that is one of the more active debates among Protestants!
Akin says: What would a Catholic say about this? He certainly is free to disagree with the Calvinist interpretation, but he also is free to agree. All Thomists and even some Molinists (such as Robert Bellarmine and Francisco Suarez) taught unconditional election.
Thomas Aquinas wrote, "God wills to manifest his goodness in men: in respect to those whom he predestines, by means of his mercy, in sparing them; and in respect of others, whom he reprobates, by means of his justice, in punishing them. This is the reason why God elects some and rejects others.... Yet why he chooses some for glory and reprobates others has no reason except the divine will. Hence Augustine says, 'Why he draws one, and another he draws not, seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish to err.'" [15]
If Roman Catholics are free to disagree on this issue, I think it's hard to point at Protestants who disagree.
Even Rome leaves room for doctrinal disagreements.
Atlantic
One more thing.
A true believer has the presence of the Holy Spirit to help them to interpret scripture.
If such a believer is claiming (as I think you might be saying) that the Holy Spirit will prevent them from interpreting Scripture wrongly, then that believer is himself claiming infallibility in the interpretation of Scripture.
Do you really mean that?
Ellen
that's really a stretch, don't you think? especially since the church that you claim is infallible allows for different interpretations.
Carrie
If God was breathing Scripture through them, then they were by definition temporarily given the gift of infallibility
Where does this definition come from?
Given the amount of disagreements about the meaning of Scripture,
As I said, it takes study. God doesn't reveval everything immediately. Also, we fight against the Spirit with our flesh. If the magisterium was led by the Spirit then why does it take them hundreds of years to define doctrine. Clearly they are doing no better.
This would indicate that believers who currently have the help of the Holy Spirit can fall into error somehow.
Sure, because having the HS doesn't make you infallible. There is still plenty of room for us to mess things up.
If all believers can hear and understand the Holy Spirit so well, why are there so many disagreements among sola Scriptura Christians?
See answer above.
If such a believer is claiming (as I think you might be saying) that the Holy Spirit will prevent them from interpreting Scripture wrongly, then that believer is himself claiming infallibility in the interpretation of Scripture.
Note that I said "helps them". It is not an instantaneous download, it is a process of study and walking by the Spirit. The flesh is always there.
I also believe that we are suppose to learn together as believers with the local body, that is why the Holy Spirit gives different gifts to different believers. Each individual believer is meant to contribute to the body, we are not meant to follow a few men blindly.
Moonshadow
Ellen wrote:
You will not find the infallibility of the church in Scripture.
The word we may be searching for is “indefectible” (Matthew 16:18, John 14:26, 16:18), a mark of the church on which we can, I hope, all agree.
Atlantic wrote:
I still don’t think we have the same definition of infallibility
More importantly, you don’t have the same definition of inspiration!!!
Ellen wrote:
God’s Word does not return to Him void.
One of my favorite passages, Isaiah 55:11.
Ellen wrote:
Even Rome leaves room for doctrinal disagreements.
Leaves room for mystery.
Carrie wrote:
I also believe that we are suppose to learn together as believers with the local body
Where two or three are gathered …
Ellen, you might be interested in a Jewish perspective on Samson from Michele’s blog where she reaches conclusions very similar to your own … maybe you already read it.
I had written the following about six months ago, during a study of Judges at a Reformed church and thought that since Ellen shares something from the past, I could too!
I think it captures the culture shock of a Catholic who studies the Bible with non-Catholics:
To my mind, it was a given that biblical personages who spoke with God or were chosen by God for a specific purpose were worthy without question of my respect regardless of their deeds. Rather than leaning on Hebrews 11, this deference was more likely born of simple humility: these are immortalized in Sacred Scripture and I am not.
Then I studied Matthew and learned that no one is sacred, except Jesus, of course. It was a jolt to contemplate that in Matthew 11, (Saint!) John the Baptist expresses a detrimental lack of faith in Jesus. The man - a prophet! - born of a promise, who leaped for joy in his mother's womb at hearing the voice of the Mother of Jesus/God does not enter the kingdom of heaven!
Now, maybe Judges isn't the right book to get me back to my original awe of people in the Bible, but I do hope that an emphasis on giving people "the benefit of the doubt" will undo much of what I have soaked up in these recent studies. Otherwise, I, myself, may tumble along a similar downward spiral of which, in his characteristic, polarizing prose, C. S. Lewis warned me:
"The real test is this. Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one's first feeling, 'Thank God, even they aren't quite so bad as that,' or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies as bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils. You see, one is beginning to wish that black was a little blacker. If we give that wish its head, later on we shall wish to see grey as black, and then to see white itself as black. Finally, we shall insist on seeing everything -- God, and our friends and ourselves included -- as bad, and not be able to stop doing it: we shall be fixed for ever in a universe of pure hatred." Mere Christianity Book III Christian Behavior Chapter 7 "Forgiveness"
Carrie wrote:
If an unbeliever read the Bible they might find it odd that so many of the “great men” who did God’s work always had their goof ups recorded.
Honestly, I never noticed the goof ups until I started studying with Protestants. And frankly, you’ll have to draw your own conclusions (and hopefully share them with me) because I don’t know how to reconcile my personal experience into your statement above.
Pax Christi.
Ellen
Ellen wrote:
You will not find the infallibility of the church in Scripture.
The word we may be searching for is “indefectible” (Matthew 16:18, John 14:26, 16:18), a mark of the church on which we can, I hope, all agree.
We also have a different definition of "church". I think "body of believers".
Ellen wrote:
Even Rome leaves room for doctrinal disagreements.
Leaves room for mystery.
If room if left for either believing in predestination or not - on of those positions must be wrong.
Honestly, I never noticed the goof ups until I started studying with Protestants. And frankly, you’ll have to draw your own conclusions (and hopefully share them with me) because I don’t know how to reconcile my personal experience into your statement above.
All of the glory belongs to God. Period.
Carrie
Honestly, I never noticed the goof ups until I started studying with Protestants. And frankly, you’ll have to draw your own conclusions (and hopefully share them with me) because I don’t know how to reconcile my personal experience into your statement above.
I don’t know how anyone could miss the goof ups while reading the Bible. Abraham denied Sarah as his wife out of fear, landing her in Pharaoh’s harem, then later he conceives the child with Hagar, ignoring God’s promise to bring him a child. Moses was almost killed by God for not circumcising his son and was later denied from entering the promise land because he struck the rock and disobeyed God. David committed adultery with Bathsheba and then had her husband killed when she became pregnant. Peter cursed and denied Jesus during Jesus’ trial. Paul was killing Christians before his conversion on the road to Damascus.
As Ellen said, through imperfect people, God gets all the glory. The other point of all this to me is that anyone can be used by God. We are all sinners, we all goof up, and yet God can and will use us despite ourselves.
I’m not sure what your point is with the CS Lewis quote. Just b/c we acknowledge that the great men (and women) in the Bible were flawed does not equate to thinking “black” on everyone. The imperfections of God’s people was put in the Bible for a reason, we aren’t reading into something.
I’m actually not surprised at all that a non-Protestant would have a difficult time swallowing the blatant fallibility of man. It goes against the need to see some “special traits” in people that make them contributors to the work of God’s they have done (instead of all glory to God alone). It falls in with the need to contribute your own effort to salvation and find infallibility in people in the church because darn it, there must be some inherent good in man.
I think it is an issue with accepting the total sinfulness of all men. Of not comprehending of how totally worthless we are compared to God. When you can understand that and fall on your knees before God, then you are ready to fully acknowledge a Savior who has saved you from destruction despite the fact that you absolutely deserved nothing.
Carrie
to get me back to my original awe of people in the Bible,
Actually, this whole statement totally baffles me. I really appreciate your honesty, but huh?
Why do you need to be in awe of the people in the Bible. Why can't you just be in awe of God?
The creator of the universe wants to have a personal relationship with you. He came to die a terrible death to free you from the bondage of slavery and give you a chance at eternal life in heaven. But you are disappointed that John the Baptist was less than perfect?
Atlantic
I believe it is because we agree on the basics
If there is agreement on the basics, why are there so many denominations that have split over doctrinal issues?
The Catholic Church does allow a spectrum of opinion on many issues – Christian liberty, you know - and usually formally defines a doctrine only when it is clear it has to be decided, usually when something is getting divisive. Someone once compared the formally-defined dogmas of the Church to calluses on a living body - they are by no means the whole of the body, they show where friction has taken place.
But when such a decision takes place, then the faithful are bound by it. It seems that in the Protestant world, doctrinal debates tend to end in a denominational split, sometimes quite acrimonious.
The example you bring up from Jimmy Akin (wasn’t it me who included a link to that essay in a comment on your blog at some point?) is interesting, because it mentions Thomism and Molinism. The differences between these are similar to those between Calvinism and Arminianism, and a few centuries ago they were getting nasty. In the end, the pope decided that until further notice, both were safe to teach as theories of how the known doctrines of grace, predestination and so forth work, and henceforth the Thomists and Molinists were to quit calling each other heretics. Neither system has ever been defined as the official teaching of the Church.
This worked. They quit calling each other heretics and the issue ceased to be divisive – unlike with Protestants.
(I think the decision was great, because personally, I am convinced that the truth these particular matters are just a bit too much for the human mind, and I would not be at all surprised to learn someday that both theories are probably decent representations of the underlying reality.)
Predestination is a formal, de fide dogma of the Catholic Church, BTW (de fide is the highest level of theological certainty after the words of Scripture themselves). Here’s a slightly more detailed discussion of predestination and election, mostly quoting from a standard work on Catholic dogmatics:
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ120.HTM
James Akin…says that a Roman Catholic is free to believe in election (or not)
No, he says they are free to believe or not in unconditional election. A Catholic is bound to believe in election, but may believe in conditioned election.
Here is a long quote I like from the Catholic Encyclopaedia on the subject:
"The question which both schools set themselves to answer is this: Whence does efficacious grace (gratia efficax), which includes in its very concept the actual free consent of the will, derive its infallible effect; and how is it that, in spite of the infallible efficacy of grace, the freedom of the will is not impaired? It is evident that, in every attempt to solve this difficult problem, Catholic theologians must safeguard two principles: first, the supremacy and causality of … and second, the unimpaired freedom of consent in the will… For both these principles are dogmas of the Church, clearly and emphatically defined by the Council of Trent. Now, whilst Thomism lays chief stress on the infallible efficacy of grace, without denying the existence and necessity of the free cooperation of the will, Molinism emphasizes the unrestrained freedom of the will, without detracting in any way from the efficacy, priority, and dignity of grace. As in the tunnelling of a mountain, galleries started by skilful engineers from opposite sides meet to form but one tunnel, thus it might have been expected that, in spite of different and opposite starting-points, the two schools would finally meet and reach one and the same scientific solution of the important problem. If we find, however, that this is not the case, and that they passed each other along parallel lines, we are inclined to attribute this failure to the intricate nature of the subject in question, rather than to the inefficiency of the scholars. The problem seems to lie so far beyond the horizon of the human mind, that man will never be able fully to penetrate its mystery."
Atlantic
Sorry - the middle of the quote should be:
...It is evident that, in every attempt to solve this difficult problem, Catholic theologians must safeguard two principles: first, the supremacy and causality of grace... and second, the unimpaired freedom of consent in the will...
Atlantic
But you are disappointed that John the Baptist was less than perfect?
Personally, my experience is very different from Moonshadow's - in a funny way I love the imperfections of the people in Scripture, because it shows what God can do with us!
Atlantic
Side point (I was going to put it at Moonshadow's blog, but I don't have a Blogger identity):
It was a jolt to contemplate that in Matthew 11, (Saint!) John the Baptist expresses a detrimental lack of faith in Jesus. The man - a prophet! - born of a promise, who leaped for joy in his mother’s womb at hearing the voice of the Mother of Jesus/God does not enter the kingdom of heaven
Moonshadow, since when did John the Baptist not enter the kingdom of heaven? As you pointed out, he's a saint!
And since when is Matthew 11:2-3 necessarily evidence of a lack of John's faith? He tells his disciples to go and ask - it doesn't say he was asking because of any doubt on his own part. It is a standard Catholic intepretation that John's disciples doubted that Jesus was the Messiah, and he sent them to question Him for their sake, not his own.
Atlantic
Obviously John Wesley thought so too:
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Commentaries/WesleysExplanatoryNotes/wes.cgi?book=mt&chapter=11#Mt11_2
Moonshadow
We also have a different definition of “church”. I think “body of believers”.
Yes, a different definition of "church." "Indefectibility" would accurately describe "body of believers."
If room is left for either believing in predestination or not - one of those positions must be wrong.
Is the disagreement not rather on the nature of predestination? I mean, the debate is not so much "either-or" but "to what degree" or "of what kind". Am I mistaken in that? I got this from Sproul, I think, but Carrie is reading the book (Chosen By God), so she may provide correction.
I don’t know how anyone could miss the goof ups while reading the Bible.
I wasn't looking for goof ups. I mean, it's that simple. My theology makes me notice certain things in Scripture ... and miss other things. That's why I study with other Christians and get a Jewish perspective when I can. A consequence is that my naive respect for biblical personages is permanently spoilt. My eye is more critical and, frankly, it's a distraction.
I’m not sure what your point is with the CS Lewis quote
The quote was a part of the original writing.
It reminds me what comes from a judgmental attitude. I mean, in the past, when I was oblivious to the foibles, there was no temptation to judge. But once my eyes were opened to the goof ups, I had to choose my response, and Lewis warns me of the dire consequences of judging. I mean, it snowballs.
The other point of all this to me is that anyone can be used by God. We are all sinners, we all goof up, and yet God can and will use us despite ourselves.
Yes, we extrapolate from Scripture that if God can use these with all their warts, he can use us with all ours. But let's not be satisfied to stop the lesson at this most abstract of deductions, lest we fail to embrace that relationship to which God calls us, the interplay of divine and human, which is fully expressed only through first-hand experience. I mean, plenty of people can be used of God, even without truly knowing Him.
Moonshadow
Since when did John the Baptist not enter the kingdom of heaven? And since when is Matthew 11:2-3 necessarily evidence of a lack of John’s faith? As you pointed out, he’s a saint!
I would prefer to discuss this out-of-band, for Ellen's sake. I mean, it's her blog and this is off-topic ... that's why I didn't address it in my reply. So, Atlantic, send me an email or something.
I'm sorry that you were unable to follow the ironic flow of discovery ... maybe I took my original writing too much out of context.
To reiterate: in studying the Gospel of Matthew with non-Catholics, verses 11:3 and 11:11 were touted as proof that JB did not possess salvific faith in Jesus. I share this as a personal experience of intra-Christian culture shock. I mean, this isn't even a doctrinal issue, you know? Whether JB is in heaven or not, really, come on? But a doctrinal issue influenced the reading of Scripture, in my opinion, one way and the other. So, the differences come through in the smallest of details.
"One perfect in the law, as John was, is inferior to one who is baptized into the death of Christ" - yeah, the entire comment on 11:11 is good. Hey, I never forget ... on 6/24.
Ellen, did you read that link to Michele's blog? It's really interesting ... and she handles the objections very well.
Ellen
Moonshadow: I'm pretty sure I read it - that's one of my "read every day" blogs.
Atlantic: the question (still) is: show me in the Bible where it is man that is infallible, not God.
Michele
Care should be given when reading the OT from the Jewish perspective since they will look at it absent it's very heart and soul and reason for being, Christ. When we read the OT, we ultimately have to read it through the lens of the NT and if we are missing that, we are missing it's fulfillment and it's point. I'm not saying that it shouldn't be done since you can gain some insights but just remember that we all read Scripture through our theology and that includes the Jewish interpreter.
The OT and NT saints were flawed, it's silly to even argue it because "we all fall short of the glory of God." Why would we be shocked that would include Samson, Peter and John the Baptist? None of them is anything apart from Christ and we should all know that.
BTW, Ellen, I think a case could be made that Samson was not stupid, just arrogant (but you could counter argue that would make him stupid and I couldn't argue with that 🙂 I believe he thought he could play with people and outwit them. Plus he had the knowledge that he was blessed and that God was with him. He must have believed that God would always be with him no matter and in the end, he was right (but not in the way he thought).
Carrie
Atlantic,
I too would love to here your answer to ELlen's question:
Atlantic: the question (still) is: show me in the Bible where it is man that is infallible, not God.
Also, how is it that you know for sure that John the Baptist is in heaven?
Atlantic
Moonshadow, my apologies: I totally missed the irony in your comments.
the question (still) is: show me in the Bible where it is man that is infallible, not God.
Ellen, you’ve already approvingly quoted from a Protestant writer who includes the essential meaning of "infallible" in his text, so obviously you two think the underlying concept is Scriptural, whether or not you want to use the word.
He describes the authors of Scripture as (I’m paraphrasing slightly) supervised by God such that they composed Scripture without error. Since God could not fail in such supervision, therefore the authors of Scripture were completely protected from error – ie, they could not err - in the act of writing Scripture. Therefore, since they were incapable of erring in this act (only as a direct protection by God for this purpose, nothing inherent in them at all), then in this act they were infallible (see your definition above).
Obviously we disagree on whether anyone else at any time also had such protection from God for the purposes of making His Word known, but I had thought that Protestants who cleaved to the inerrancy of Scripture agreed with at least this.
Here’s the argument in the reductio ad absurdum direction: If the authors of Scripture were not infallible in the act of writing Scripture, then they could not have been under God’s supervision and protection from error, since God’s protection is perfect. If they were without divine supervision and protection, these authors (being fallible men) would have made mistakes and Scripture could not be trusted. Which it can. Therefore the authors were infallible in the act of writing Scripture.
Also, how is it that you know for sure that John the Baptist is in heaven?
Carrie, do you really think I’m going to get into a discussion of that here, when we’re still having major difficulties on how to describe the fact that authors of Scripture were protected by God from error in writing it? I may be mildly optimistic on some things but I’m not crazy! 🙂
Ellen
We're quibbling about semantics. I say that all of the credit goes to God, you want to make sure that we "know" that humans beings can be "infallible".
We know where this goes. Next, it must be the church, then the councils, then the pope, then whatever the Roman Catholic church feels like calling infallible on any given day.
God is infallible and that which HE chooses to protect is protected.
Let's say that I write this reply with no typos.
Does that mean that my computer is infallible? Or that I am infallible (even at this moment)?
No - only this reply is without error.
Carrie
At this point it is probably mostly semantics, but I still disagree with you Atlantic. We know scripture is infallible because it is God's Word. Paul says scripture is God-breathed. Peter says that men spoke of God as carried by the Holy Spirit.
The reason I know that the scriptures are infallible is b/c they come from God. There is no indication as to how exactly God used men to confer his Word, we just know that he did. Saying that the men were momentarily infallible is reading into something that just isn't spelled out.
Moonshadow
Care should be given when reading the OT from the Jewish perspective
Naturally. I should have said that I don't agree with everything I hear from them. I mean, their interpretations aren't for rookies.
Also, how is it that you know for sure that John the Baptist is in heaven?
Carrie, do you really think I’m going to get into a discussion of that here,
Oh, now, and see, I thought this was the easiest question yet!
Born of a promise, filled with the Holy Spirit from birth, with a mission in the spirit of Elijah to herald the coming of Messiah. It's all there in the beginning of Luke's Gospel. God was actively working in John's life and John was obedient to God's call. What could keep him out?
There is no indication as to how exactly God used men to confer his Word, we just know that he did.
And this could be why there are different views of inspiration. It seems to me that Atlantic's view of inspiration is closer to y'all than to me. I could have said "yous guys", for Michele's benefit, if she's still reading. 😉
Carrie
Oh, now, and see, I thought this was the easiest question yet!
Okay, John the Baptist is not the best example.
One of the better examples would be one of your more recent "saints" (Mother Teresa?). I find it totally contradicting that you all will say about your selves that you are "being saved" because you can never be sure, but some who have died are then made Saints, because somehow you can magically know the 100% for sure made it to heaven.
No need to answer. Just wanted to point it out.
Atlantic
We’re quibbling about semantics.
Yes. But at least I’m nearly sure now that that’s what we’re quibbling about.
We know where this goes. Next, it must be the church, then the councils, then the pope, then whatever the Roman Catholic church feels like calling infallible on any given day.
Actually, next it’s the teaching of the Faith by the Apostles themselves. And the charism is only given under a fairly narrow set of circumstances. But all the arguments can be made using the circumlocution “specially protected by God from error”, if you prefer. 🙂
God is infallible and that which HE chooses to protect is protected.
Complete agreement. It’s just that Catholics believe more is protected than Scripture.
Let’s say that I write this reply with no typos.
And utterly true, for the sake of the argument, sure.
Does that mean that my computer is infallible? Or that I am infallible (even at this moment)? No - only this reply is without error.
Exactly. You’re not claiming that God specially protected you from error while writing it, so the text of your reply would merely happen to be inerrant. Ryrie, whom you quoted with approval, seems to think God supervised the authors of Scripture a bit more closely than that.
What could keep him out?
One can still fall away up until death. Not that I think that would be likely. BTW, Moonshadow, I hope you remembered him not just on 24 June but also this past Tuesday!
It seems to me that Atlantic’s view of inspiration is closer to y’all than to me.
I haven’t even touched the concept of inspiration here – it goes beyond infallibility.
I find it totally contradicting that you all will say about your selves that you are “being saved” because you can never be sure, but some who have died are then made Saints, because somehow you can magically know the 100% for sure made it to heaven.
Since anyone can fall away up until death, we can’t know for sure about anyone who is still alive on earth. When canonizing saints, the Church is (infallibly!) exercising the gift of discernment, “knowing them by their fruits”, as it were. Canonized saints are no doubt (I hope!) only a fraction of actual saints in heaven, not 100%.
Carrie
Since anyone can fall away up until death, we can’t know for sure about anyone who is still alive on earth. When canonizing saints, the Church is (infallibly!) exercising the gift of discernment, “knowing them by their fruits”, as it were.
Which is it? Either the church can "know for sure" or they cannot. Do you believe 100% beyond a doubt that every canonized saint is in heaven?
Atlantic
While people are still alive on earth, no one knows for absolute sure if they will be saved, and they definitely aren't in Heaven yet. Whether or not they will definitely, certainly be saved would be a matter of predicting the future.
However, those who have died on earth and entered Heaven are definitely, irrevocably saved, and are saints. When a person has died on earth, the question of whether or not he or she is in this group is now a matter of fact (whether or not we on earth have any knowledge of it), not of predicting the future.
The Church claims that it has recognized that this fact is true for a certain set of people. (This official recognition adds them to the canon of saints –hence they are canonized saints).
Do you believe 100% beyond a doubt that every canonized saint is in heaven?
Yes.
Atlantic
Either the church can “know for sure” or they cannot.
Just in case it isn't clear, the charism of infallibility does not mean that the Church knows everything. It only means that it is protected from error by God under a certain set of circumstances and for certain purposes.
Therefore, the Church indeed knows some things for sure, but not others.
Ellen
Atlantic: please (#4 or #5) where do the Bible writers claim infallibility for themselves and not for God?
Therefore, the Church indeed knows some things for sure, but not others.
Everything that is in the Bible, we can all know for sure and we don't need the Bishop of Rome to put his stamp of approval on God.
The church in Rome (where is started) and your tradition effectually put the Bible in a distant third in authority. If everything must be understood through the lens of Rome, we get papal infallibility, Mary worship, the fencing off of the table from the people of God, "celibate" clergy and much more.
(I'm at my mom's house - dial up, yuck! and won't be around much this weekend)
Matt's Saints
Humility is the groundstone when writing things! Peace to everyone!