Thursday, April 29, 2010

The Bible -- Inerrant or Not?

Recently, Kevin and I have been discussing on a separate blog whether all of scripture is inerrant or not. According to Traditions in the Catholic Church the Bible is inerrant. But some people question whether particular passages like this are truly inspired by God:


Samuel said to Saul: "It was I the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel. Now, therefore, listen to the message of the LORD.   This is what the LORD of hosts has to say: 'I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt.   Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.'" (1 Samuel 15:1-3, New American Bible, St. Joseph Edition)

Here is another difficult passage that my husband directed me to:

2Ki 2:23-24 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them. (KJV)

Can Bible passages that are inspired by the Holy Spirit be “perverse” as one of our friends characterized the first passage quoted above?

I am looking for input on this subject from people of any and all faiths, and those lacking faith.

56 comments:

Eman said...

Why would this passage be any different Teresa? Would it be because it deals with what we would now call “atrocities?” The passage says Samuel was given a message from The Lord to give to Saul. God wanted total annihilation of Amalek and all he possessed for the ambush he led against the people of Israel. Saul thought he could circumvent the Word of God and keep the best livestock. Samuel called him on it. Saul lied his way out of it saying he was keeping them to sacrifice them to The Lord, which we know was …crap. It sounded spiritual, but it was a sin. He violated the direction of The Father. You and I know better than to say no to God Teresa. This is why the passage is there. You may not think what The Lord did was proper or necessary but it showed the people just how corrupt Saul was and brought his rule down.

innominatus said...

Inerrant. God is mighty and awesome and absolutely able to reveal His word to us exactly how He wants it. When we encounter a passage that seems "difficult" it is up to us to figure out why.

As soon as one allows the thought that there are errors in the Bible, that implies that God screwed up and/or is too inept to fix something that man screwed up. We need to give Him more credit than that.

Teresa said...

Eman,
Kevin and I are in complete agreement in believing that all passages in the Bible are inerrant. It is our friend in another post that questions God's inerrancy in passages like this. He says, that God would not murder or hurt people. But, I believe that God has a reason for everything he does.

Your explanation is most fascinating and helps me to understand the passage much better. God has the authority to giveth and taketh away, so I don't see how this is any different. It makes sense that our Lord would combat against corruption and sin.

Thanks so much for your invaluable input and insight on the interpretation of scripture.
God Bless!

We the people... said...

"Old Testament God" was a lot more hands on...

What He did and the reasons why He did them are for Him to understand and for us to try.

It isn't always a bed of roses.

Teresa said...

innominatus,
You are absolutely correct. You put the truth so succinctly. God Bless!

Kyle R. Cupp said...

Your description of my position isn't quite right. I don't question "God's inerrancy," as you say, in passages such as 1 Samuel 15. Nor do I "question whether particular passages like this are truly inspired by God." I beleive they are inspired by God. I believe God wanted the passages there. I do not hold that God or the sacred writer was in error for placing the passage into the Sacred Scriptures. What I hold to be in error and perverse is the imperative to commit genocide expressed by the text and the conception of God as one who commands human beings to commit genocide.

Teresa said...

We the people,
That makes sense since what God did in the O.T. was in preparation for the Incarnation.

Kevin T. Rice said...

Kyle, I'm afraid your position is untenable. The sacred writer affirms that Samuel is a prophet, as do others in scripture (Acts 3:24; 13:21; Hebrews 11:32) and speaks accurately for God both in general and in this instance specifically (1 Samuel 15:34 and 16:1). Prophets who attribute to the Lord that which the Lord has not spoken, especially a command of the magnitude Samuel gave Daul, are false prophets. Even one instance of false prophecy would invalidate Samuel's prophetic vocation (Deuteronomy 13), and render the scriptural affirmations of Samuel's prophetic vocation erroneous. There is simply no coherent position for you to take and defend that would permit you to deny that Samuel was issuing an authentic divine command while retaining any meaningful and faithful commitment to scriptural inerrancy.

Kyle R. Cupp said...

I'm not sure your logic works, Kevin. You claim that "Prophets who attribute to the Lord that which the Lord has not spoken, especially a command of the magnitude Samuel gave Daul, are false prophets." I fail to see why it has to be all or nothing. Deuteronomy 13 doesn't seem to apply here.

Kevin T. Rice said...

Kyle, if your position is that God sometimes winked at false prophets and let them order genocide on their own whim without His authority and then let people attribute mass murder to Him under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, your position is well beyond the pale of anything defensible on the grounds of any faithful understanding of scripture, Catholic tradition, any coherent understanding of inerrancy. Indeed, it is pretty far afield of anything that resembles orthodox Christianity.

Kyle R. Cupp said...

I disagree. And that's not how I'd state my position.

Teresa said...

Kyle,

This is what the Catechism states with regards to inspiration and truth of sacred scripture:

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit."69

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on as such to the Church herself."70

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

I believe that you would agree that God is both omnipotent and omniscient.

Would you agree, as the Catechism does, that the whole of sacred scriptures are divinely inspired and thus inerrant?

Since the scriptures are divinely inspired, then God worked through the authors to convey his exact message, no more and no less, and all the words of sacred scripture are thus rendered inerrant since God can make no mistakes, even when divinely inspiring and working through the authors.

But, your belief as stated below is incompatible with the teachings of the Catechism and Tradition of scripture. God commanded these acts as stated in the Bible so it must be true.

"What I hold to be in error and perverse is the imperative to commit genocide expressed by the text and the conception of God as one who commands human beings to commit genocide."

Kevin T. Rice said...

Kyle, no doubt you would not state your position so clearly as I have, but I'll leave it to you to sugarcoat it. Since you believe that Samuel took it upon himself to order the slaughter of the Amalekites and falsely attribute that imperative to God, my characterization of your position is fair. If, in my best judgement, you had a coherent position, I would be obliged to lay out my understanding of it more charitably, but it seems you do not. You cannot bring yourself to acknowledge what are obviously serious doubts about inerrancy on your part, so you cling to the verbal formulations of that doctrine as best you can, but you evacuate them of any meaning in the way you apply them (and don't).

Kevin T. Rice said...

I need to correct and amend one of my arguments - Deuteronomy 18:20 is more germane than Deuteronomy 13. In all other respects I stand by what I have said here and in other blogs until my position is refuted.

Opus #6 said...

I am still a student of Torah, and continue to learn about it. What I don't know is filled in by "faith", or the understanding that God's understanding exceeds my own. And even the understanding of prior generations.

Indeed the Amalek problem continues to plague us to this day. The descendants of Amalek survive. And they hate us Jews.

Kyle R. Cupp said...

Kevin,

You write:

"I believe that you would agree that God is both omnipotent and omniscient. Would you agree, as the Catechism does, that the whole of sacred scriptures are divinely inspired and thus inerrant?"

Yes. Our disagreement isn't found at this level, but in how we interpret inerrancy.

Kyle R. Cupp said...

Let me come at my conclusion from a different angle. If God truly did (and can) command human beings to commit genocide, and it is morally okay for human beings to commit genocide so long as they are commanded to do so by God, then we as believers cannot simply dismiss a person's reasoning today who claims that God gave order to commit an act of terrorism, abort a baby, commit infanticide, invade a country, or set off a WMD. The person could be right! If they were just following God's commandment, then we have no theological or seemingly moral ground to object. This conclusion is madness. It gives legitimacy to the worst of religious-inspired violence.

TRESTIN MEACHAM said...

I used to teach Seminary. I guess it depends on you definition or inerrant. If you mean linguistically perfect I would say no. Do to the many scribes over the ages and the difficulty of translating ancient Hebrew there are many verses with disputed translations. If you mean doctrinally inerrant I would agree.

I can shed light on the second passage you referenced. LDS leader have taught that the there are some elements of the story missing. These seemingly innocent youth had done some terrible things that the writers left out.
Is the Bible complete? I would say no. ST JOHN 21:25

Kevin T. Rice said...

That different angle for your conclusion is a good angle, Kyle, because it admits a swift refutation. Your argument fails to take into account the difference Christ made. The Incarnation permanently changed the way God and man interact. God is no longer preparing the world for the conception and birth of the Son of God. That was the purpose of His covenants with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, Moses, and the rest of Israel - that was the very meaning of the Old Covenant. It required God to work directly with human beings in time and made some terrible things necessary. The whole Old Testament is the story of God working that out. Once Christ came into the world, such preparation was no longer necessary. Prophecy of the previous sort ceased, covenant circumcision the ceremonial laws of Leviticus were rendered obsolete, replaced with the permanent signs of the New Covenant (e.g., baptism), and the moral necessity of war to preserve the existence and cultural integrity of the people of God ended.

Teresa said...

Kyle,
"Prepare ye the way of the Lord"

In the O.T. God is preparing the way of the Lord and the nature of God's relationship with his people is different than after his Incarnation. What God deemed to be morally necessary to prepare for the Incarnation, changed after his Incarnation so genocide today is untenable, and against God's will.

Teresa said...

OPie,
That is very interesting information. I will have to learn more about Amalek and their descendants. God Bless!

Teresa said...

Trestin,
"If you mean doctrinally inerrant I would agree."

I totally agree.

But, Even If I would call the Bible incomplete that doesn't render that in its present text that the Bible is in fact errant.

Teresa said...

Kyle,
"Kevin,

You write:

"I believe that you would agree that God is both omnipotent and omniscient. Would you agree, as the Catechism does, that the whole of sacred scriptures are divinely inspired and thus inerrant?"

Yes. Our disagreement isn't found at this level, but in how we interpret inerrancy."

Was that whoops Kyle? I am the one that said that.

The Holy Spirit inspired the author to write all of the passages of the Bible without exception and God's will cannot be questioned since he, himself, chose the author for each specific message in the Bible. The author was following the Holy Spirit's will in writing the passage. For to question the author would be the same thing as questioning the Holy Spirit. Since questioning the author, thus questions the Holy Spirit, that is in effect questioning the inerrancy of that particular passage of the Bible.

Kyle R. Cupp said...

Was that whoops Kyle? I am the one that said that.

Here I admit my error! One of the consequences of debating several people in several forums on the same issue. My bad. ;-)

Kyle R. Cupp said...

The Holy Spirit inspired the author to write all of the passages of the Bible without exception and God's will cannot be questioned since he, himself, chose the author for each specific message in the Bible. The author was following the Holy Spirit's will in writing the passage. For to question the author would be the same thing as questioning the Holy Spirit. Since questioning the author, thus questions the Holy Spirit, that is in effect questioning the inerrancy of that particular passage of the Bible.

Irrelevant. I'm not questioning the author: I'm not saying that he should not have written what he wrote.

Kyle R. Cupp said...

Your argument fails to take into account the difference Christ made.

Not so. It presupposes the difference Christ made. It is precisely my understanding of God through Christ that leads me to declare that God didn't command human beings to commit genocide. To say that genocide was okay then but not okay now because of a difference in how God interacts with man makes the morality of genocide relative to stages of revelation. Genocide, then, is not good or evil in itself, but is good or evil relative to history--sacred history, but history nonetheless. There's a name for that kind of moral thinking.

Teresa said...

Kyle,

"Irrelevant. I'm not questioning the author: I'm not saying that he should not have written what he wrote."

But, you are questioning whether what the author wrote really "is" what it is and that means that you are questioning the intent or message of the text and thus questions both the author and the Holy Spirit who divinely inspired both the author and the text. You may believe that the passages in the Bible are inerrant, but here your position is not coherent since you are questioning whether the text "means" what it means or says and that shows in this instance how you are questioning the inerrancy of this specific text of the Bible.

Kyle R. Cupp said...

Interpreting a passage as meaning something other than its apparent meaning is hardly to question inerrancy.

Teresa said...

Kyle,
This background and explanation might help you:
"The Amalekites attacked the Israelites without apparent provocation as they were travelling during the Exodus (Ex 17:8). "When you were weary and worn out, they met you on your journey and cut off all who were lagging behind" (Dt 25:17-18). They later attacked Israel during the time of the Judges (Jdg 3:13) and often raided the Israelites' land after they had planted crops, leaving them with nothing (Jdg 6:2-5). God punished the Amalekites by ordering Saul to destroy them (1 Sam 15:2-3) - over 300 years after they had first attacked Israel. During that time, the Amalekites had contact with the Israelites and would have heard about God. They could have repented and changed their ways, but they continued to raid and plunder other cities up to the time of Saul and David (1 Sam 30:1-3). The Amalekites that Saul and David warred against were clearly no better than their ancestors who had first waylaid Israel."

Wasn't this unjust revenge?

"The revenge was in fact punishment from God on an unrepentant nation. As noted above, they were given ample time to change their ways. While it was the descendents of the original attackers who were punished, they led the same evil lifestyle that their ancestors had (and possibly one that was worse - in dealing with evil nations in the OT, God often withheld punishment until their wickedness reached a particularly high level). Furthermore, it was God who was avenging the Israelites, not the Israelites themselves. God, who has perfect knowledge, wisdom and justice, has the authority to avenge; humans, including the Israelites, do not have this authority."

Teresa said...

Kyle,
Questioning the actual command of God or his imperative to commit genocide is not just misinterpreting a text.

I know part of my prior explanation was off the mark. You are correct, misinterpreting something isn't the same thing as questioning inerrancy.

Eman said...

It warms my heart to see you all chiming in on this. This is just super!

tha malcontent said...

Just stopped by to say Hello, and to wish you a great weekend.

Snarky Basterd said...

It's inerrant. God kicks a** in all things and ways.

The bigger question is: Will the Pens score 5 goals tonight or 7 goals?

(Would you expect me to have answered in a less snarky way?)

Great post, btw!

Maggie Thornton said...

Great subject Teresa. I believe God is inerrant. Someone here mentioned genocide. If you are the Almighty, and your creation has fallen away from you, genocide is not surprising. Look at the Flood. Only Noah's family lived. God wanted to start over.

When an Awesome God brings a Holy Spirit to you and me, he obviously has a plan. No one knows the heart of man but the Trinity.

Most Rev. Gregori said...

Much of the problem today is that for far too long, priests and ministers have been preaching a "false gospel", a gospel of Marxist Theology and Social Justice.

People have a terribly false picture of Jesus Christ, as being an effeminate girly man. The only thing people know is that no matter what we do, no matter how vile, God loves us. Well, this is partially true. What priests and pastors don't talk about is repentance. Yes, God loves us, but if we refuse to repent, He will punish us.

Also, there is plenty information in the Bible that shows that not only does God punish individuals for their individual sins, but He also punishes whole nations for national sins, especially when the majority of the nation's citizens do not rise up against the sins committed by their government.

God knows exactly what He is doing. We have the free will to make the choice, do we obey God or not. What ever our choice, there will be results, either good or bad.

TRESTIN MEACHAM said...

GEN 18:23-33, sheds some light on this. God does not punish the innocent. We can conclude from this either the God changed his ways, or these people where doing some really bad things. I'm going with #2

Teresa said...

Thanks, Mal.

I hope you have a great weekend also.

Teresa said...

Snarky,
Answering without snark, would not be you.

Have a good weekend :)

Teresa said...

Maggie,
I agree. The Flood is another great example.

Teresa said...

Most Rev. Gregori,
Your right social justice has replaced the notion of God's true justice and that includes his goodness, enough to use his power and might to save souls. This in fact includes his knowing when things need to start anew, like after he punishes whole nations for their sinning.

Teresa said...

Trestin,
"I'm going with #2"

I agree.

Teresa said...

Kyle,
It seems like you are applying human limitations to that which is Divine.

Does God live up to the individuals standard of goodness or does God line up to God's standard of goodness?

This is very detailed set of posts on this very subject:

http://www.thinkingchristian.net/series/god-and-genocide/

Can God go back in time to save the future or is it just possible that he was saving the future, his future Incarnation, and future souls?

Tragedy101 said...

Evil Seventh Day Adventist say:

"Oh yeah? Reconcile for me the Catholic Catechism,

Exodus20.8-11

Mark 7.8-11

And

James 1.17

Or maybe, there is a mistake, an error?"

Sorry, I can't resist, I'm interested in your defense.

Probably, ban me from your blog. I'll never bring it up again, just curious on how you reconcile two apparently contradictory traditions.

Teresa said...

Tradgedy101,
Your question touches on many issues and I cannot do full justice to it in a quick response to a comment on a blog post. For now, suffice to say, the reconciliation you asked for has to do with the institution of the New Covenant in Christ which not so much abolishes the old Covenant but fulfills it.

Kevin T. Rice said...

"Your question touches on many issues and I cannot do full justice to it in a quick response to a comment on a blog post."

That's certainly true - the question touches on more than the inerrancy issue, but on the meaning of the ceremonial/ritual aspects of the Mosaic Law (circumcision, animal sacrifice, eating only kosher food), which were covenant dependent, as distinct from the moral law (prohibitions of murder, theft, adultery, covetousness, perjury, impiety), which is eternal. The Sabbath issue had aspects of both, so part of it - that which pertains to the eternal moral law - remains in effect (setting aside one day of the week in which rest from work is normative and the worship of God is imperative), while another part of it (the seventh day, signifying the end of the creation week and tying it symbolicaly to the old creation and the First Adam) was discontinued along with the covenant-dependent ceremonial requirements of the Mosaic Law, which were "shadows of the things which were to come - the substance is of Christ." (Colossians 2:17. The preceeding verse specifically mentions that sabbaths were among those "shadows"). Ever since Jesus rose from the dead on the first day of the week - a new creation week, as the New Adam of the New Creation, signalling the eternal Sabbath in Him, that provision of the moral law was considered fulfilled by gathering on the first day of the week to break bread (Acts 20:7).

Tragedy101 said...

Colossians 2.17 exactly "shadows of things to come" It continues, did you also read the23rd verse? Or verse 8?

Acts 20.7 The first day of the week begins at sundown, the end of the Sabbath. Paul was leaving in the morning and spoke late into the night. What of it?

Do you believe the ten commandments were abolished? Do you believe they are just ceremonial? The afforementioned chapter 2 of Colossians is an excellent argument against your position.

You have not reconciled anything, only claimed a new covenant that does away with an old covenant, and have not even expressed what either covenant is/was.

I am interested in the Catholic reconciliation of the three verses I referenced previously, and the Catholic Catechism.

Kevin T. Rice said...

Tragedy101,

You seem to want to have it both ways, but, sorry, Acts 20:18 wasn't a depiction of an Old Covenant Saturday Sabbath that got held over. It shows that the disciples broke bread (the Lord's Supper) on the same day that Jesus rose from the dead, the dawn of the New Creation. It shows Sunday worship, worship on what they called the Lord's Day (Revelation 1:10).

Obviously the ten commandments were not entirely ceremonial - it is the moral law and its moral content is eternal, but the tying of the Sabbath to the Old Creation under Adam certainly was ceremonial and covenant dependent, as I explained already. The moral law that a day of the week should be set aside for rest and worship remains, but this is the New Creation in Christ, and from the time of the apostles until now, the breaking of bread was celebrated on the Lord's Day most especially. The authority of the Church, given by Christ, to regulate the Sabbath which was made for man, is the binding and loosing authority Christ gave to Peter.

Certainly I read the entirety of Colossians 2. I am familiar with verse 8 and 23, and as you inexplicably said about Acts 20:7, what of it? Colossians 2 lends no support to the Seventh Day Sabbarian Judaizer heresy, none whatsoever. But it does identify specific Sabbaths, new moons and festivals with the "Shadows" that Christ, as the reality, replaced. It says that we should let no one reproach us on these matters the way the Judaizer heretics were reproaching the Colossians. The Judaizers could not distinguish the ceremonial law from the moral law and thus could not understand what Christ freed us from when He established the New Covenant. Neither, it seems, do you. The Judaizers claimed that circumcision was still necessary, but Paul explains that it was replaced by baptism. That's in verses 11 through 14 of that chapter. The ceremonial requirements, says Paul, were "wiped out", Our Lord "nailed it to the cross", and "THEREFORE" (v. 16, and you know that whenever Paul says "therefore" you need to look carefully to see what the "therefore" is THERE FOR), we should let no one judge us because of food (non-kosher) or drink, or new moons or Sabbaths - the ceremonial specifics were wiped out, nailed to the cross. Circumcision, kosher dieting and the Saturday Sabbath, all shadows, replaced by the substance which is Christ, in baptism, in freedom, in the Eucharist on the Lord's Day.

"You have not reconciled anything, only claimed a new covenant that does away with an old covenant, and have not even expressed what either covenant is/was."

The fact that Christ establihed the new and everlasting Covenant IS the answer to your question and reconciles those passages, along with the catechism, better than adequately - it reconciles them ELEGANTLY. The Bible is clear enough, not only in the New Testament, but in the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament, about the New Covenant and its relation to the Old Covenant. I invite you to read it again if you missed it the first time. And since you included the Catechism in your question, try reading that, also, prayerfully, looking up the passages in scripture and in the testimony of the Fathers and Church documents cited in the margins. If you still don't get it then, you need a theology lesson. Neither Teresa nor I have the time to instruct you on these matters in depth at no charge.

Tragedy101 said...

I'm sorry, I have enraged you it was not my intent.

Colossians 2.17 "Which are shadows of things to come;" If Paul had meant "were shadows" that is what he would have written. Colossians 2 is written that these do not add to one's salvation, but they show wisdom.

Acts 20.18 "from the first day that I came into Asia,"?

Breaking bread: Is not the Lord's supper, necessarily, it depends on whether every time they ate, they ate in the rememberance of Christ, for this is what breaking bread means to have a meal.

Where in scripture do you find the Lord's Day being the first day of the week?

I've read portions of the catechism, but it makes little sense on certain issues.

Kevin T. Rice said...

T101,

I'm not enraged. I'm enjoying this give and take. I hope you can handle the strong way I present my arguments.

You seem to want to take refuge in the tense of the verb "to be" in that Colossians passage, but you cannot do so without doing violence to the meaning of the whole passage. Were shadows, are shadows, the point is - we are talking about shadows in distinction to substance.

I offered the Revelation quote that uses the phrase "the Lord's Day." That was always Sunday.

"Breaking bread" - the meaning of this phrase is obvious. They weren't coffee-klatching.

As for the Catechism, it is well worth all the effort you can give to understanding it. It is not a child's catechism, but an adult's. It is not elementary, but it is worth the effort.

Kevin T. Rice said...

I want to add one more note about the Catechism - I called it an adult catechism as opposed to an elementary child's catechism (like the Baltimore Catechism), but I should have mentioned the particular adults the language of the Catechism is aimed at. It is not your typical lay catholic, let alone, the lay Protestant. It is addressed to people who are more familiar with Catholic theology than either you or I: "Venerable Brothers the Cardinals, Patriarchs, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and all the People of God" - in that order. It is primarily addressed to the shepherds of the Church, and only secondarily to her sheep.

Tragedy101 said...

Your reconciliation is this: The word of God is silent on the change by the Church of the keeping holy the Sabbath to the keeping holy the day of the Sun. The Bible is true and without error.

I don't know what John meant by the day of the Lord, nor do you. The day of the Lord is found elsewhere in scripture reguarding the judgement, and this maybe John's intent, here, as The Apocalypse deals with the end of days. For what reason would John explain on which day of the week he had his vision? Would it not be more likely, he is telling when/how his vision was occurring? "in the spirit" and "on the day of the Lord"

Kevin T. Rice said...

T101,

Your speculation that "the Lord';s Day" is a reference to "the Day of the Lord", also known as Judgement Day, is not supported by the Greek of the passage. It is not the same Greek phrase for "the Day of the Lord" in the Septuagint. It is good that you admit that you do not know what John meant. But I do not concur that I am in the same situation and speculating just as you are. You do not seem sure of your speculation, but I am sure of my position because I am not speculating. I have facts that support my view.

You won't know what John meant by "the Lord's Day" if you don't consult Sacred Tradition. If you divorce your understanding of the text from the history and culture that gives it context, you lose all the meaning that hasn't been carried over into our contemporary language. The use of the term "the Lord's Day" for Sunday dates back to the first century A.D. The Didache, which is dated by scholars no later than the early second century, and by many as far back as the later first century, corroborates this. There is really no doubt about this except among those who insist on a Seventh Day Sabbath. As for the alleged silence of the Bible on the change, I have already shown that it is not. The scriptures I quote not only show that there was a change, they give the reason.

Tragedy101 said...

Mr. Rice, this has been interesting, amusing and saddening. But you have come back to the original dispute which is God's word for you must be interpreted in light of the traditions of men else it cannot be understood. So there is little room for further discussion, here.

I'm sorry, I cannot interpret scripture except in light of scripture.

Tragedy101 said...

Mr. Rice, this has been interesting, amusing and saddening. But you have come back to the original dispute which is God's word for you must be interpreted in light of the traditions of men else it cannot be understood. So there is little room for further discussion, here.

I'm sorry, I cannot interpret scripture except in light of scripture.

Kevin T. Rice said...

T101,
You beg the question when you refer to the Sunday Sabbath as a "tradition of men" as in the eight verses of Mark 7 and Colossians 2. I regard that as part of the sacred tradition that we are meant to hold to, presented by both word of mouth and epistle (2nd Thessalonians 2:15). The Bible does not teach the sola scriptura that you presuppose. It does not deny tradition per se, as you do. Not all tradition is "tradition of men". Some of it is sacred, and not all sacred tradition is inscripturated. Scripture itself affirms that the word of God comes through tradition. In my view, the Seventh Day Sabbatarians and adherents to sola scriptura are the ones holding to "traditions of men". If scripture taught that it was the exclusive interpreter of itself with no need for the guidance of tradition, then why was Phillip guided by the Holy Spirit to go up and join the chariot of the Ethiopian eunuch who saidvery plainly when asked if he understood the scripture he was reading, "How can I unless someone guides me?" (Acts 8:26-31). Our Lord did not, first and foremost, come into this world to commission a Book in order to spread the gospel. He founded a Church, which the Bible teaches is the "pillar and foundation of truth" (1st Timothy 3:15). Our Lord promised to be with the Church until the end of the world, to preserve the Church. To believe Him to take Him at His word, is to take a position that it would be impossible for the Church's teachings to fall into the sort of fundamental 1000+ year apostasy and heresy to which you seem to imagine He abandoned it.

Kevin T. Rice said...

quick edit: the phrase at the beginning of the last post, should read "the eighth verses of Mark 7 and Colossians 2." I distinctly remember typing that last "h" in "eighth" I hate when the computer judiciously selects stuff for removal when I hit "publish".