Wow. Right up front, I’d like to say that I appreciate your thoughtful response, and the time that you took to prepare it. Also, that I feel sincerity and concern in your thinking which I admire, and which I believe reflect a Christian spirit.
We don’t have full agreement, and sometimes I believe that some of your points are unfair or descend a bit into ill will. But I fall prey to to the same shortcomings, so it is not difficult for me to forgive these, in light of what seems to me to be your basic goodness of character and intent.
Whenever we deal with people, we can’t realistically expect perfection, and that goes for Church leaders, Popes and such as well. I would offer that Pope Leo may personally have had a stronger tendency toward authoritarianism, or a more decisively judgmental habit of mind than average.
The current Catholic Church catechism on the inerrancy of scripture is artfully vague. That is probably the best that anyone can do, if you are motivated by the goals of helping the most people, but still protecting against an “anything goes” descent into chaos, and maintain an ongoing organizational authority to avoid schism and in-fighting. I don’t find it unusual that the Catholic Church has not been consistent concerning the inerrancy of scripture - we are talking about billions of people over many centuries.
By the same token, Protestant denominations have not been consistent. Positions have changed, schisms have occurred, and individuals have expressed varied opinions.
Some Catholics have adopted a concept of absolute inerrancy, as have some Protestants, some Muslims, some Jews, etc.
It can help many people, by giving them a firm feeling of certainty, which strengthens their resolve and commitment. It has a powerful effect in keeping an organization together over time, which itself has great value.
But there are major downsides to adopting such a doctrine. Disintegration of the Christian community, even to the point of civil war, has occurred. Bigotry and condemnation of essentially good things that don’t conform to a particular rigid interpretation can get carried to hurtful and destructive extremes.
In some cases, your arguments supported non-literal interpretation of scripture, that reason and morality may temper explicit text, that there are some things that are to be applied always while others are not, or that translation is very good (but imperfect), and so on. In other instances, you didn’t refute a point itself, but instead criticized some historical Catholic doctrine or statement for doing the same thing. In other instances, you seem to simply re-assert inerrancy.
I think that is a natural outcome of struggling to reconcile all the great mass of scripture against a consistent doctrine and moral standard. In my view, we are all ultimately in that same difficult position, and would be wise to be kind to each other, as our knowledge and comprehension improves over time.
Again, I appreciate you taking the time to explain things. Although I do not agree with everything that you said, I did find some of it informative and helpful. So I offer a prayer for your health and happiness, and for God’s grace to increase your wisdom and kindness further.
It was sincerity concern, in the light of what is written.
We don’t have full agreement, and sometimes I believe that some of your points are unfair or descend a bit into ill will. But I fall prey to to the same shortcomings, so it is not difficult for me to forgive these, in light of what seems to me to be your basic goodness of character and intent.
The current Catholic Church catechism on the inerrancy of scripture is artfully vague.
Because V2 was artfully vague, being a comprise committee, with errors on both sides. The liberal side basically won, reflecting the majority of RCs, while Scripture treat itself differently than the way both sides do.
I don’t find it unusual that the Catholic Church has not been consistent concerning the inerrancy of scripture - we are talking about billions of people over many centuries.
Which admission or at least excuse, is anathema to the typical conservative RC, such as we normally deal with here.
y the same token, Protestant denominations have not been consistent.
Comparing one church (even with its diversity) with a multitude lumped together under one name due to not being in communion with Rome, has little worth. Comparing two peoples based upon their fundamental distinctive basis for the veracity of Truth claims would be far more meaningful.
Some Catholics have adopted a concept of absolute inerrancy, as have some Protestants, some Muslims, some Jews, etc.
But you only conveyed censure of Prot fund., thus it was fitting to invoked papal infallibists.
It can help many people, by giving them a firm feeling of certainty, which strengthens their resolve and commitment. It has a powerful effect in keeping an organization together over time, which itself has great value.
That was indeed what God conveyed in making Scripture the standard for obedience and est. Truth claims. And which the Lord did in quoting Scripture back at the devil, and to the Scribes and Pharisees, and to His disciples. And in referencing the Flood and Jonah etc. as literal.
But there are major downsides to adopting such a doctrine. Disintegration of the Christian community, even to the point of civil war, has occurred.
2,000 years ago an itinerant Preacher caused division because of His absolute Truth claims.
Bigotry and condemnation of essentially good things that don’t conform to a particular rigid interpretation can get carried to hurtful and destructive extremes.
Of course, but the liberal recourse is what you seem to prefer.
In some cases, your arguments supported non-literal interpretation of scripture... that there are some things that are to be applied always while others are not,
And just why are these inconsistent with being a fundamentalist? Again, just where did you get your ideas of evangelical fundamentalism from?
that reason and morality may temper explicit text,
Where and how did i express that?
In other instances, you didn’t refute a point itself, but instead criticized some historical Catholic doctrine or statement for doing the same thing.
For you infer you are a RC, which means your church is the alternative. My response to which is itself an refutation of that premise. In any case, any alternative you presented is as obscure as Scripture is under the approach that you seem to propose.
In my view, we are all ultimately in that same difficult position, and would be wise to be kind to each other, as our knowledge and comprehension improves over time.
That is good, but it seems like a warm body without much bones. There is no ill will, except against falsehoods.