Exchange with ICOC Guy

I met this guy, let's call him Tom, at an engagement party, and he is a member of the ICOC, which I used to be a member of. We had a discussion about Original Sin (which they deny) and Infant Baptism (they're Anabaptists) and he sent me some Bible verses which he believed denied Original Sin, and I said I would think about it and get back to him. Of course, I've heard it all before, being a former member of the ICOC, but I was just being polite since I didn't want to get into the nitty gritty there at a mutual friends party. He has stopped responding to me, and it's been a while now, so I'm sharing our exchange here. Some arguments I was toying and experimenting with here with, so any feed back is appreciated. His emails are in Blue, while mine are in Red. 

Adrian, 

Good morning. I was happy to see you remembered our conversation and looked up some passages. You are a man of your word.

Remembering our conversation, it centered around original sin. I am aware that this is a cornerstone of Catholic doctrine.

You sent me several passages. the passages of Dt 5:9 and Ex 20:5 are parallel in that they are the 10 commandments warning of idolatry. It is clear these are where we are warned not to exalt and or venerate men or anything else, statues, idols, etc. I'm not sure why you included them, since they are a sound position to question the canonization of saints.

Ex 34:6-7 states God punishes the children of the guilty for multiple generations. This passage tells us that because of our parents sin, we suffer the consequences. If I am an alcoholic, womanizer, embezzler, (fill in the blank), my children suffer the consequences of a strained relationship with their father, (me), divorce, or their dad being in jail. With all of that comes financial and emotional penalties. You and I can see this everywhere in the world around us, children and families in pain because of a parent's ungodly living.

This passage does not teach that we are guilty of our parents sin. If my dad is an alcoholic and I am not, there is no way I can be labeled an alcoholic if I don't drink.

1Cor 15:22 States that because of Adam, we all die. We suffer the consequence of Adam's sin. On the flip side, because of Jesus we all can live, if we choose.

Now to come in contact with Jesus we must be baptized into Christ, with the exception of children. Mt 19:13-14, states that the kingdom of heaven belongs to children such as those mentioned. Young children, somewhere around the pre-teen years and younger, are pure hearted for the most part. In addition, a child cannot understand the concept of faith, which is necessary for baptism, Eph 4:4-6.

Read and meditate on the passages I named. 

I am still not convinced that the passages call us to baptize infants because of original sin.

Let me hear your biblical response, I like the dialogue.

Have a good day.

"Tom"

Hey "Tom", 

So yeah, pointing to the context is exactly my point. Without context, they seem to contradict each other. And as you pointed to the context of the verses I cited both for AND against my own position, so I too can say that the passage in Ezekiel is also just for whatever the context was in that very specific situation. However, the context of Romans 5 is clear that it is not meant to be very specific for specific instances, but it is supposed to be general, and generally applied, like when it says, "18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people,so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners,so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous." One mans trespass, meaning Adam's sin, resulted in everyone's condemnation. One man's disobedience, Adam's sin, made me a sinner. Yes, we suffer the consequences which is death (by the way, can you refresh my memory and remind me how you replied to my argument that if we die only because of sin, why is it that babies can die?) but we also lose something, which is God's grace, which we don't naturally deserve. 

Now, you seem to try to make a distinction between being guilty of someone's sin, and suffering their punishments. I'm not sure how convincing that is. So like, imagine I was guilty of murder. And the government says to my child, "We are going to punish you for your dad's crime." I think the implication is that they do share in my guilt somehow if they share in my punishments. You can object that this is somehow not fair, and I do recall you mentioning that. Well, if you define Original Sin the way we do, which is the loss of Original Grace, then it doesn't really seem to be all that unjust. But even if it were somehow unfair, that's okay. That's okay because how we get out of that punishment is unfair too, but in the opposite direction, which is called grace. We don't deserve punishment? Okay, but we don't deserved to be saved either. The way it works is this: Everyone inherits something. It's either going to be condemnation, or it's going to be grace. But both cases are inheritance. If you don't like that you inherit condemnation, you can't also rejoice that you inherit grace from God. 

I'm also curious as to how you understand John 3:16, which says that God gave Jesus to save the whole world. If some people don't sin, then Jesus didn't die for the whole world. 

Now, that's all the main focus was on, the topic of Original Sin. There are implications it has, but those aren't, strictly speaking, the topic at hand. But I suppose I'll say something about it anyways. 

As to your point about the children. I think the passage in Matthew actually supports infant baptism. Notice that people were keeping the children from Jesus. Jesus says not to stop them from coming to him and get his blessing (or, more literally, place his hands on, but if you don't interpret that as a giving of blessing, please do explain what that is). And why do they get his blessing? Because as you said, it more naturally belongs to them. So, yes, a child has more of right to being baptized (probably because they are more naturally trusting, even in infancy, see how he depends and trusts his mother, so how much more his Heavenly Father? And if infants have no faith, why did John the Baptist rejoice in the womb when, in Luke 1:41-44, he was in proximity to Jesus whom was also in the womb?), and for that reason, we shouldn't stop them from coming to Jesus. Yes, they can be stopped and prevented. Jesus has some pretty nasty words for those who do. But if they are already united with Jesus, why does he have to bless them? Why does he WANT them to come to him if they are already with him? 

And if you could refresh my memory once again, on how you dealt with the argument that since baptism replaces circumcision as entrance to the covenant (Colossians 2:11-12), and you were circumcised as an infant, why aren't you baptized as an infant? Surely you agree that as the man of the house, you get to, more or less, decide the faith of your children, as Peter promised baptism for converts and their children, and entire households were baptized, and numerous places in the Old Testament you have things like, "as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord". 

I could also ask why you think the entire history of Christendom is wrong, since we have taught this doctrine of Original Sin since the beginning of our Christian existence, even as far back as the Didache, and why you think that only 1790 years after Christ was it finally made right (which I understand to be the beginning of your movement, the Stone-Campbellite movement of the Second Great Awakening in America). Why is St. Augustine, just to drop one big name, wrong? 

Now, that was you wanted me to think about. I gave you one challenge for you to think about. How do you know what is scripture? Have you thought about it? I'd like to hear your thoughts on it. Remember, you can't immediately appeal to scripture because that's exactly what I am asking you to prove. So, in principle, it looks like you're going to have to appeal to something outside the Bible as your authority. Whatever it might be, I'm sure it'll be something like the Catholic Church. :-) 

Cheers, and Happy New Year,

Adrian Urias 

Adrian, we have a lively discussion. I would like to continue it. Let's break down what we have touched on so far, one item at a time. Is that ok with you?

If it is, I'll take a look at where you left off, scripture. 

We can peel back the layers and where we agree, we don't have to go any deeper. Do you agree to that? 

So, I believe the current bible, the canon, consisting of the Old Testament and the New Testament is the inspired Word of God. Examples would be the King James, New King James, American Standard, New American Standard, and the New International Version. The methods for the translations are well documented and bible scholars from multiple christian denominations as well as Hebrew biblical scholars did the work.

Now, the nation of Israel had the Old Testament, The Written Torah, thousands of years before Jesus. There are centuries of proof that it is what it is. Do you agree?

Now, the New Testament, the Catholic Church has and still uses the New Testament in their catechism and masses for hundreds of years. Do you agree?

What do you believe regarding scripture?

Hey "Tom"!, 

So yeah, if we peel back the layers, we don't have to go any further than agreement. That's common sensical, so the question then becomes, how many layers are there? 

Yes, we kinda agree that the Bible is the inspired word. Why do I say kinda agree? Well, here we have two issues, or layers. The first is, we actually don't have the same books in our Bible. Us Catholics have like 7 extra books, all found in the Old Testament ("books" might be misleading, some of our stuff is just a few extra chapters in books both you and I have). The second issue, or layer, is the justification for this agreement. Say that we had the same amount of books anyways. We might have completely different reasons for believing that these are the inspired word of God. Yes, I absolutely accept them as the inspired word of God, but I do so for radically different reasons than you do. I accept them because infallible councils decreed by the infallible Catholic Church decreed them so. I'm not sure why you accept these books as the inspired word of God (I've heard different reasons given by different Protestants, so I won't assume what you believe here, but I can assume you don't believe in an infallible church). 

So you ask, did the Nation of Israel have the Torah? Yes, I agree. Just about every Jew believe in the Torah, that is, the first five books of the Old Testament (or at least, what you and I would call the Old Testament). But after that, there wasn't much agreement. The Sadducee's believed in only the Torah, the Pharisees believed in the same set of books Protestants today have, and the Hellenistic (Greek) Jews had the same canon as us Catholics have. So, it's dubious that the nation of Israel had a complete set of scriptures (not including the New Testament of course) but yes, they most definitely had the first five books. So here's a question for you: Why do you accept those set of books in the Old Testament when there wasn't a single Christian canon identical to yours for the first 1500 years? You see the Catholic Canon of the Old Testament everywhere in the Early Church, so what's up with that? 

Your other question is pretty straightforward. Yes, we've used the same New Testament (not counting that each may be in a different language, and so in that narrow sense, no, we don't, but generally, yeah, no matter the language) in our Mass, and is cited within our Catechism (whichever may be current. The current one now obviously isn't the same one we used say preceding Trent). 

So, just a general description about my beliefs on Scripture. It is in the inspired word of God through man. That is to say, the propositions are all true if it can be true, even if the styles are different (and this may be because, for example, John has a different audience in mind than Luke). As it is a message from the mind of God, it is also inerrant, as God cannot err. It was original oral tradition of the Apostles, and some of that Oral Tradition (sometimes called the Deposit of Faith) was written down. Because the Oral Tradition was infallible, so then it was still infallible when it was written down. God protects this deposit of faith from error. 

God Bless,

Adrian Urias

Adrian, I'm trying to find a place where we agree. It sounds like we believe that the Old testament and the New are what they are, the inspired Word. Now for the sake of our conversation we can include the Apocrypha.

So that I understand what you're saying, the Old and New testament and the Apocrypha you believe to be the inspired Word of God. 

Is this correct?

Well, in our view, they are not the Apocrypha. In our view, they're just the Old and New Testaments. I understand in your view, since you don't accept them, you call them Apocryphal. But let's just say, these contested books, are inspired in our view. Calling them Apocryphal just assumes they don't belong there. 

So, from here, we can agree that "The Bible" whatever it may contain, is inspired. So, how do you determine that? I think we can start there.

Do you believe the Old and New testament along with the deutero-canicanol books are the inspired Word of God?

Yes.

Awesome.. We agree that the bible is the inspired Word.

Now, what is the Bible's purpose?

If God wrote it what are you and I supposed to do?

What are your beliefs as a Catholic and as a competent man with freedoms and choices?

The purpose is teach divine truths relevant for our salvation. It is to help safeguard the original deposit of faith. We venerate it as we venerate the Body of Christ (CCC 103). 

What are my beliefs? Concerning what, precisely? About scripture? I feel like I've already answered. 

If you may answer my question, how do you know what belongs in the canon, or put another way, how do you know what scripture is?

The question of what is scripture is a step backwards, we already agree that the bible is the inspired word, and for the sake of our discussion, the inter-testamental books can be included. I was asking what was your belief as far as what is the bible for. 

I am in agreement , the bible is for the salvation of man. 

How is man saved, how do we access this salvation? 

What is the ref CCC-103?

*We agree that the bible is the inspired Word of God and its purpose is for the salvation of man.

Well, it's not a step backwards, it's one of those layers you were talking about. 

So, like, for example, say that we both believe that Obama is President. But then say I believe Obama was President because I believed Obama was some immortal man who had been President since 1800, and you believed Obama was President because we had two elections, one in 2008 and another in 2012. Sure, in one sense, we do agree, but we disagree very fundamentally on why that is. So, we could agree that scripture is inspired, but we could disagree very fundamentally on why that is. And the reasoning behind them can lead to different answers in the future. So, here are some examples that make the relevance more apparent. 

Say sometime down this conversation you ask me something like, "Where in scripture is purgatory?" And I say it's in 1st and 2nd Maccabees. Well, of course you're not going to accept that as an answer, because you don't accept 1st and 2nd Maccabees as inspired scripture. So, while you and I agreed that scripture is inspired, because we had a difference in the justification for that, we will have disagreements, and very obvious disagreements, in the future. 

I mean, if you don't feel like it's relevant, okay, I guess we can move on. But I'm almost certain it will come back to this issue. So, let's carry on anyways. :-) 

Man is saved through baptism (and as you are an Anabaptist, I would hope you agree with that). It is that way he is marked for the Holy Spirit. However, man can also lose his salvation. But he can't be baptized every time he sins. So in order to obtain forgiveness of sins after baptism, he confesses to his bishop (or one of his deputized priests). 

Oh, sorry. Catholic lingo. Sometimes I forget. CCC is an abbreviation for "Catechism of the Catholic Church" and the preceding number marks which paragraph number it is. 

I sort of feel like I already gave a pretty succinct overview of my belief regarding scripture, but I'll try again. 

Scripture is inspired by God and written by man. As such, they are without error. It is composed of both Old and New Testament. The Old Testament is composed of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zachariah and Malachi. The New Testament is composed of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the Acts of the Apostles, the Letters of St. Paul to the Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, the Letter to the Hebrews, the Letters of James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2 and 3 John, and Jude, and Revelation (the Apocalypse). These are relevant for instruction, salvation, and other divine truths. We venerate them as we venerate the Body of Christ.

As I try to be a faithful son of the Church, you can always refer to this document released by the Second Vatican Council regarding my beliefs on scripture. 

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html

Reader,though the link above is blue, It was sent by me. I can't figure out how to change the color for links. 

Adrian, you do bring up a valid point that may or may not become an issue in the future. What do you suggest?

For me, the scriptures are inspired for a few reasons. 

The evidence for the Old Testament through archeological discovery, ancient texts, not to mention Jewish history. The references exist and are not hard to find.

It is similar with the New Testament, there are plenty more texts that support the New Testament being what it is, thousands.

In addition, my own testimony. I have put the scriptures to the test. I have felt the Holy Spirit move in my personal life. I have personally witnessed and been part of conversions where God moved just as the scriptures said he would. One of our church elders, healed from cancer after hearing his illness was terminal. A man searching for God quit his job that was in an industry that was ungodly, his wife not wanting to miss church due to work, quit her job. Both out of work, but full of faith. They were rewarded, a week later the husband was offered a job walking distance from his house for more money. He still works at this job to this day. His wife soon after landed a job at a Fortune 500 company. I personally witnessed this. There is more, too much to write about.

What direction would you like to take?

What are your thoughts on the origin of scripture?

Hey "Tom",

Right, so I'm vaguely aware of those evidences and data. And many of those particulars I'm willing to grant since I also agree with them. But I still don't see the connection between all that and how this shows that these books are inspired, and then on top of that, to say that this set and this set only of books is inspired. 

So, let's consider archaeology. What would this prove? Well, it would show that some historical events did or did not happen. So, if it were shown, through archaeology, that the walls of Jericho fell inward, and the Bible says the walls fell inward, well we can safely presume that the Bible got that part right. However, being right and being inspired are two different things. We can be right about a lot of things, and not be inspired by God. So I could say 2+2=4, and be right, but that doesn't mean I'm God breathed. So, at best you can show with archaeology is that it is historically correct, but not that it is inspired. There can be a history book with no errors in it, but it doesn't mean it's God breathed. Or if you think it can, I'm open to hearing as to how. 

The same in principle could be said about ancient texts. We can be sure if what we have now is originally what was said thousands of years ago (with more than like a 99% accuracy from what I recall, and we just discovered a first century fragment of Luke I think), but what we want to know is, is what they said originally thousands of years ago God breathed? 

As for personal testimony, okay, that's great and I don't want to discount those experiences, but what are they properly credited to? They can be properly credited to faith in Jesus, not faith in the canon. We do not worship the Bible, we worship Christ. 

A good way to start to think about it is like this: The church did not come from the Bible. The Bible came from the church. 

This should be fairly obvious. After all, the church existed before the Bible did. So, under what authority was the church under if the Bible didn't exist? How do you get from an infallible God to an infallible Bible? You do it by having God make an infallible church to declare to you an infallible Bible. That's how you make the connection. The church is that missing link. So, take for example Matthew's account of Jesus life. That's all we are going to take it as. We aren't going to consider it, for now, inspired. It was written by Matthew, a historical person, about Jesus, also a historical person. It's a biography. Now, we consider whether it was true. Well, yes, I think we can safely assume that it is for the most part, true. Internal evidences show it to be true (criteria of humiliation, for example) and so do external ones (your archaeology and stuff). So, what we also see is that Christ establishes a church. He says to Peter, you are a rock (Peter means rock), and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will never overcome it (when a church teaches error, it is not the Church. When a church teaches lies, hell has overcome it) I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven (which is a reference to Isaiah 22:22) and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever will be loosed on earth will be loosed in heaven (Also a reference to Isaiah 22). So, that's some pretty heavy authority. Basically, Jesus gave Peter heavenly authority. Can Peter make error and lies enter heaven? Probably not. So Peter is probably infallible here. And since the keys are passed on, as the keys in Isaiah 22 are passed on, then someone will take Peters spot. So, we have an infallible teacher of the church. So, how do we know which Church is the one true church? Well, one way we can find out is to see who is the person who has since taken Peter's chair. And throughout history, the Chair of Peter, in unison with the Church in general, has declared what the Canon is (pick any council, you will never find your canon). Consider also that Jesus told his Apostles that he would send the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth. Since the Holy Spirit cannot lie, and cannot leave the church, the church cannot lie. The Apostles were also God Breathed (John 20:22) and told them to teach, so we know the Apostles were infallible. And we also know that their spots as apostles were taken and new apostles were added, and so these apostles (we call them Bishops now to clearly mark the designation of the original 12) are now the guardians of that original deposit of faith. And they can tell us that the Bible is infallible and inspired. And the Apostles do tell us that the pillar and foundation of truth is the Church (1 Tim 3:15). Paul uses his weight as an apostle, not one of the original 12 at that, to demand complete obedience to his teachings. How many Protestants will even dare say something like that? 

So that, more or less, is how we can know the Bible is God breathed, and which books, which is simply, because God's Church tells me so. We begin with these books. And that's all they are for now, just books/biographies. These books are true. These books tell us of an infallible God Jesus. Jesus gives us an infallible Church. The Church turns around and says, These books and these books only are god breathed. 

You address more than the issue of scripture in your latest message. I'm trying to get us to agree. I believe will agree more than we disagree. 

If I understand, you do believe scripture is inspired, so do I. You believe it to be inspired because of the Council of Trent. We are in agreement. This council that took place in the 1500's used an earlier 4th century Latin bible, the Vulgate which became for the most part the Catholic bible. Jerome was the disciple who translated the Old Testament from the Hebrew Tanakh rather than using the Greek Septuagint . He did however use Greek material to aid in the translation. What he was not able to find in the original Hebrew he labeled apocrypha.

I believe the Council of Trent called for more uniformity on a range of issues and church doctrine. The canon happened to be one of them. In this respect the canon pre-dates the council, since what the council used to create for what is the most part today's canon had its beginnings in the Vulgate. 

I believe that the Bible, the scriptures are precise and cannot be broken. John 10:35. They are so precise the apostle Paul makes an argument based on a verb tense, Gal 3:16.

Do you believe the Bible is complete and precise and is all authoritative?

Hey "Tom", 

Yes, Trent made the Canon clear, but to be more precise, it made the Old Testament Canon clear, which was in dispute because of the Protestant Reformation disputing them. The New Testament Canon was already made clear by numerous previous councils. But the same councils that declared a New Testament Canon also did make mention of an Old Testament Canon, and it was that uniformity throughout history that Trent drew from when it said, "This is what we have always taught." So, why the novelty from the Protestants? 

And yeah, it is a novelty, despite what you believe about Jerome. So, for example, Jerome is calling Sirach scripture, when he says, "for does not the scripture say: Burden not yourself above your power?" And you can find that here 

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001108.htm

By the way, New Advent is a website I highly recommend if you have any questions concerning Catholicism. It's a bit simplistic, but it's a solid resource for all things Catholic. 

Also, Jerome actually argues for the longer version of Daniel that we Catholics have. And that's the Greek version, not the Hebrew. You can read it here 

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=2888

Of course, that's too long, so let me quote the relevant parts. He says to Rufinus, 

We have four versions to choose from: those of Aquila, Symmachus, the Seventy, and Theodotion. The churches choose to read Daniel in the version of Theodotion. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? But when I repeat what the Jews say against the Story of Susanna and the Hymn of the Three Children, and the fables of Bel and the Dragon, which are not contained in the Hebrew Bible, the man who makes this a charge against me proves himself to be a fool and a slanderer; for I explained not what I thought but what they commonly say against us.

So there are a few points to be made here. First, Jerome appeals to the authority of the Church. What sin have I committed in following the judgment of the churches? None, apparently, so it's not sin to be in line with that authority. So why do you think you can be out of line with the churches when even Jerome didn't do that? Second, while the Catholic church did use the septuagint, as you said in your last email, in this case, we used the Theodotion version for Daniel, and Jerome deferred to us in that judgment. 

Third, we can see why, as you said, Jerome rejects, personally, these books. In the same link he says, 

Wherever the Seventy agree with the Hebrew, the apostles took their quotations from that translation; but, where they disagree, they set down in Greek what they had found in the Hebrew. And further, I give a challenge to my accuser. I have shown that many things are set down in the New Testament as coming from the older books, which are not to be found in the Septuagint; and I have pointed out that these exist in the Hebrew. Now let him show that there is anything in the New Testament which comes from tile Septuagint but which is not found in the Hebrew, and our controversy is at an end.

So, Jerome's reasoning is this, which is a more fleshed out version of what you said: Wherever the Hebrew and Septuagint (sometimes written LXX) disagree, the apostles always deferred to the Hebrew. This made Jerome believe there was something seriously defective with the septuagint. And then Jerome says, and I'm paraphrasing, "But, if you can show me a place where the apostles took a translation of the septuagint over the Hebrew, then I will be shown wrong." That's a reasonable test. And it's one that can be met. 

Hebrews 10:5-7 reads, 

5Therefore, when Christ came into the world, He said:

“Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,

but a body you prepared for me;

6with burnt offerings and sin offerings

you were not pleased.

7Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—

I have come to do your will, O God.’ “

The most common Protestant Bible, the NIV, even acknowledges that Hebrews is quoting from the Septuagint of Psalm 40:6-8. But, this is what the Hebrew version of Psalm 40:6 says, 

 “Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but my ears you have pierced.”

And in the context of Hebrews, Jesus being our high priest and sacrifice and being God incarnate with a body to be sacrificed, it makes more sense that Paul would choose the septuagint reference of "body" over the Hebrew reference of "pierced ears". So, even according to Jerome's own standard, Jerome was wrong. Jerome said, here prove me wrong, and he was wrong. And that's why it was so wise of Jerome to defer to the Church and her judgement, because although Jerome could not see why he was wrong, he was actually wrong. He didn't think he was wiser than the church. There are other places where the New Testament quotes from the septuagint when it disagrees in translation from the Hebrew, as in Matthew 21:15-16, Acts 15:17, and others, but seeing how Christological Hebrews was, I figure that's sufficient. 

So, if you want to say that you have the canon you have is because of Jerome, and we have shown Jerome to be wrong, then the ball is back in your court, why do you accept that canon? 

Since we're on the topic of the Septuagint, let me make this additional point. It seems you understand that the septuagint contains these extra books (these that Jerome rejected when there was a discrepancy with the Hebrew). So, the Greek version is the Catholic version. But then if you read in Acts 

11 Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.

If you look at the back of your Bible, where all the extra stuff is with the maps, and look for Berea, where will you find it? You will find it in Northern Greece. It's safe to suppose that the version the Greek Jews used was the Greek Bible, aka the septuagint. Luke is calling the Greek Bible "the scriptures." The Greek Bible is the Catholic Bible, therefore, Luke/Acts is calling the Catholic Bible "scripture." So, how do you deal with this induction? 

I believe the Bible is complete, but since you and I have slightly different Bibles, I think yours incomplete. It is authoritative and infallible, but it is not the only infallible source available to Christians. I've explained why this is: Because the infallible church tells me so. You need an infallible church to know an infallible Bible. How do you know what you have in your hands is really the Bible without an infallible source telling you? 

In the last message you had ended stating that you believe the scriptures, and I'll be specific, the Catholic bible to be inspired and all authoritative, infallible. For the sake of our discussion I am in agreement. 

Now you also stated that it is not the only infallible source. If I understand, the other infallible source is the Catholic Church. Is my understanding of your belief correct?

Yes, the other infallible source is the Catholic Church. 

Let add some minor details. In our view, it isn't just that we name the Catholic Church as just one Church among others, and ours just so happens to be infallible for whatever reason. No, we only believe that there is one church period. There is no such thing as "other churches" as Christ established only one church. So, we believe that just "the church" is infallible. But for naming purposes, The Catholic Church. 

Now, for whatever reason, many people think that since we are the only church in existence, that we believe we are the only Christians. This isn't true. We are happy to admit the existence of many of our Christian brothers and sisters outside of the church. But we qualify this in a few ways. First, we will say we are separated brethren. So, in one sense, we are divided (hence separated), but in another we are not (hence brethren). You will also see many documents refuse to call other "churches" as "churches" and you will find a variety of names, though I prefer "Christian society". Nowadays, you don't see that insistence in making the distinction among many Catholics, and I don't mind if we stop using it, just so long as we understand the proper relationship. Why this is, I dunno. I suspect it's because a lot of Catholics these days are watered down and aren't like the hard formed and faithful ancestors, our abuelita's and whatnot. Another reason might be the emphasis since Vatican II to be more ecumenical. Who knows. I dunno. 

We are in agreement. I also believe there is only one church. The church that Christ established. 
On what grounds did you adopt the belief that the church is infallible?

Hey "Tom", 

There are plenty of reasons you could believe that the church is infallible. These are the ones that convinced me, but there are other reasons out there. 

The gates of Hades will not over come the church (Matthew 16:18b) Many understand this to mean that the Church will not cease to exist. Many respectable Protestant Christian apologists, such as Norm Giesler and Josh McDowell, will use this text against cults like the Mormons to prove that the Church will not cease to exist contrary to what Mormon doctrine teaches. This is reasonable. A church that does not teach truth, like Mormonism or the Watchtower Society, cannot be said to be a Christian church. So, to teach false doctrine, we recognize, is to disqualify a group of people from being that Church Jesus established. 

This is further reinforced by Paul’s statement in 1st Timothy 3:15 that the pillar and foundation of truth is the church. If truth is supported by the church, or is grounded or protected by the church, then it cannot also teach error. To also teach error would undermine the Church being a pillar or a foundation, and so the two are mutually exclusive. Hence, it can only teach truth.

He who listens to you listens to me (Luke 10:20) Jesus makes appointments to people. These people have the duty to teach others about God. Jesus makes a statement of identity when he tells these appointed people that those who listen to them listen to him. If to listen to Jesus means listening to infallible statements, then by the law of identity, those who listen to the statements of those appointed to teach about Jesus are equally infallible. Add to this the statement in John 20:2 that Jesus breathed on them, which is the same as "all scripture is God-breathed" and so these men, the leaders of the church, are also infallible. 

Whatever you bind on Earth will be bound in heaven (Matthew 18:18) Jesus gives this power to the leadership of the Church. What does this power entail? The Holman Apologetics Study Bible, not a Catholic friendly source, says this, “Jesus delegated authority to the Church and its leadership to open access to the kingdom and so forgive or retain sins, to discipline members, and to render doctrinal decisions. This authority is seen exercised in Acts 5:1-11, 13:38,46; 15:23-29; 1st Corinthians 5:3-5.” If the church gives false doctrinal decisions, then it meaningless to say they have this power since that power is not exercised. To make sense out of this it is reasonably said that their doctrinal decisions are without error. 

Now, there is an additional reason, which is, the Church has specially given one person the ability to represent the whole church, and so by extension, that one person is also infallible. But because of the issue of the Papacy has great potential to be a longer and separate discussion, I'll just set that aside for now and we can focus on that some other time if you wish. But that issue of the papacy was one reason I came to believe that Catholic Church was infallible. 

Now, there are lots of historical reasons and evidences, but those didn't convince me. What I don't mean is that they are unpersuasive. I believe they are persuasive. But those were not the reasons that convinced me. By the time I came across those evidences, I was already convinced scripturally, and that was just icing on the cake. And since you asked me what grounds I came to believe in the infallibility of the church, I'm also leaving that out, but we can discuss those if you like as well. 

So, I'm not sure how one can believe that Jesus established a church to allow to teach lies about Him, when he specifically established that church to teach the truth about him and to help save souls. How do you square that circle?

We are in agreement, the church not ceasing to exist. Throughout history men have tried to stomp out christianity and have failed. Rome and the Caesar's, Hitler, the Soviet Union, China, the Muslim middle east, etc. All these and many more have tried and failed. 

I do not however, believe that the church is infallible. The church is made up of the people. The people are sinners. That is the reason much of the new testament are letters correcting and in some cases rebuking the church. 

1 Corinthians chapters 1&3 address divisions in the church. Chapter 5 addresses immorality among the church members. 5:1 states that a man has his father's wife. Chapter 6 lawsuits amongst the believers and sexual immorality again. The young Corinthian church was in real sin. 

Gal 3;1-14, begins, "You foolish Galatians". They had been duped into trying to earn their salvation. Far from perfect.

Revelations chapters 2&3, John records Jesus rebuking the church in Ephesus, rebuking the church in Pergamum, rebuking the church in Thyatira, and rebuking the church in Sardis. 

These churches started out as Churches for Christ. Paul even addresses a letter to the Ephesian Church, calling down spiritual blessings, thanksgiving and prayer for the Ephesians. The Ephesians are named as saints, the faithful in Christ Jesus. A mere 30 years later they have forsaken their first love. If the church was perfect it would not need a correction.

What happened is the churches that were rebuked ceased to be the church of Christ. They abandoned their first love, they held to false doctrine, Rev 2:14-16, Rev 2:20-24, and they just stopped obeying, Rev 3:3.

I believe "A Church of Christ" can be so in the beginning, but cease, lose their direction or just drift away. We have clear examples in the scriptures.

Would you agree that this is possible, that it has happened to the church in the past? How do you read Revelations chapters 2 & 3 ?

Hey "Tom", 

So you disagree that the church can be infallible, and you give two reasons. The first is a syllogism, and the other is scriptural. First things first. You reason that since the church is composed of people, and people sin, therefore the church is not infallible. Well this is not a good reason for the simple reason that infallibility is not the same thing as impeccability. So lets define some terms. 

Catholics believe that the Church has a role of teacher. It is supposed to teach about Christ. So, when we say the Church is infallible, we mean that when she makes a declaration of faith or morals, that declaration cannot be wrong. You can find that at the First Vatican Council, Session 3, Chapter 4. https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.HTM#4

Now, compare that with Impeccability. Impeccability is the proposition that one is without sin. And in this context, the inability to sin, as was Our Lord. Just comparing the two definitions, we see that the two are not mutually exclusive. Someone can tell the truth and be a sinner. The two are not the same. But I mean, look, we can use the same argument against the Bible. The Bible was written by men. Men are sinners. Therefore, the Bible is not infallible. Obviously that's not true. God can protect sinful men from teaching false things about Him. If that's what you want to say about the Bible, that's the same thing we say about the Church. God protects sinful men from teaching false things about him. 

That is why the scripture you quoted has little bearing on the issue. Being rebuked for sin and being rebuked for officially teaching falsehoods are different. I can agree with you that many Parishes and Archdiocese are quite sinful, even today (most especially in Germany, where heresies are fostered. Why Hans Kung hasn't been excommunicated by now is beyond me). 

So, can the Church fall away? Yes and no, depending on how you understand the Church. As I have said, many Parishes can be sinful, many Archdiocese can be, which is why schismatic groups like the original Protestants, SSPX and the Eastern Orthodox Churches are under a certain condemnation. They are no longer part of the church, and so they cease to exist, but the Church as a structured whole still exists and will never cease to exist, because Jesus promised that it would not be overcome. 

Here's something to consider. Say you were right, that Catholics believed being infallible and being sinless were the same thing. Then that would mean Catholics believe a contradiction. But it's not just a contradiction, but a very OBVIOUS contradiction. We believe the Pope is infallible. We believe the Pope is a sinner. If infallible and impeccable are the same, then we believe a very easy contradiction. I dunno, it's just kind of curious to me. Like, do people think that Catholics are THAT, I dunno, gullible? We're that easily duped? It just seems like it's not a very gracious understanding of Catholicism. So, just something to think about.

Ok, lets drop the syllogism, sinful people.

Take only the passages in Revelation. Who is Jesus correcting? It is several 1st century churches. 

Infallible as I understand is incapable of errors. These churches have clearly strayed. They were in danger of ceasing to be the church of Christ.

What do you believe the rebuke to the churches in Revelation is for? How do you read Revelation?

It sounds like what you believe as infallibility is more along the lines of God working for the good of those he loves. He takes our errors, sin, trial, and turns it into good. That is what happens in the church.

Hey "Tom",

Okay, let us take a look at the relevant passages in Revelation 2 and 3.

"But I have this against you, that you have abandoned the love you had at first. "

"But I have a few things against you: you have some there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the people of Israel, so that they would eat food sacrificed to idols and practice fornication. 15 So you also have some who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans. 16 Repent then."

"But I have this against you: you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophet and is teaching and beguiling my servants[b] to practice fornication and to eat food sacrificed to idols."

"So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I am about to spit you out of my mouth. 17 For you say, ‘I am rich, I have prospered, and I need nothing.’ You do not realize that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind, and naked."

So, three out of four of these seem to just deal with sin. And as we have defined the church's infallibility, as being incapable of error when teaching on faith or morals, these just don't apply. The only one that seems like it might have relevance is the one about Balaam. And notice that the condemnation if for certain individuals. Not for the church as the bride of Christ. Individuals can teach error, heck, even the Pope as an individual can teach error, but when speaking and defining and clearly marking it as infallible, it cannot be erroneous (called Ex Cathedra, or From of the Chair). And there haven't been many times the Church has exercised this power. It's only been a handful of times throughout history. If I recall correctly, the Church has not made a declaration of infallibility in over 100 years. So, here's a question, what do you think it looks like when the church makes, or at least allegedly makes in your case, an infallible declaration? Individuals can be in error. we all know that. Individuals who wrote the Bible can make errors. But, when making statements, like all the statements they made in the Bible, they cannot be erroneous. So, here's a pop quiz for you: Can you properly name and cite one such declaration? Because there is a way we do it. And that's how we know it's infallible. It won't do to point at an instance in history and say, "Well, you were wrong here" when we didn't even pretend to say it was dogma or infallible. The church has a teaching body, through councils or some very rare instances of papal declarations, but it isn't willy nilly everything we do. That would be just to simply not understand Catholicism.

And to be clear, once again. Infallibility does not mean God turns our sin into good or what have you. No. The Church, as the official teacher of all things Christ, protected by the Holy Spirit from error, when teaching on matters of faith or morals, is without error. So, this is what a statement Ex Cathedra looks like,

by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own: "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."

This is the doctrine of the immaculate conception. Here, you can see a few things. You see "we declare", "our authority" "we define the doctrine" "is revealed by God", these are the markings of a declaration of infallibility. It doesn't apply to anything and everything any one person says. The organized whole is making this declaration. Now, of course, you actually agree with this doctrine of the immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary because you deny Original Sin even exists, so this example shouldn't shock you, but this example should at least show you what an infallible statement looks like. If you can find a target like that, we can discuss it. That's what you should be aiming for, at least. But, at the end of the day, I don't think anything will work :-P But I'm open to whatever you have to say. 

So, hopefully, that cleared up some misconceptions.

Adrian, what is the purpose of the passages in Revelation? Can you explain them to me? What is Christ doing in those passages?

The view of the church being infallible doesn't hold up. Not when the Revelation passages is calling them to repent. The church is clearly in error, sin.

I present a similar view regarding infallibility when it comes to the Pope. You believe the the Pope is a successor of Peter. 

Galatians chapter 2 records Paul confronting Peter for caving into pressure from the Jews. He started to withdraw from the gentile believers. The scriptures state that Barnabas was led astray due to Peter's hypocrisy. 

This was after Peter and all of the apostles had already received the miraculous gifts from the Holy Spirit in Acts. After Peter had already preached the sermon at Pentecost that gave birth to the church in Acts 2.

Clearly Peter is in error.

How do you read Galatians chapter 2.

Hey "Tom" 

The purpose of Revelation 2 is the same purpose as any part of the Bible, to teach truths about Christ. In this particular case, that Christ is rebuking some part of the Church and calling them to repent. 

So, let's go over some definitions again. The argument you are making is, "The Church is wrong, therefore, the church is not infallible." But then, what do you think the Church means when she says she is infallible? This means that when she makes a declaration on matters of faith or morals, she is without error. So, basically, your argument fleshed out says, "The church sins, therefore, the church is wrong when she makes a declaration on matters of faith and morals." Can you please explain how this follows? How do you connect the two? Can you please show me where the Church has said, "We declare, upon our authority, and the authority of the apostles, that we are to forget our first love"? Because the Church has never made that declaration under a condition of infallibility, saying, "Well, you were wrong here" doesn't present a defeater for infallibility. This is really a textbook example of missing the point. 

The exact same thing can be said about St. Peter. No one denies that Peter was wrong about some things. But no one believes that everything he said and did was an exercise in his infallible authority. Like I said, the last time that infallibility was exercised was almost 100 years ago. Pointing to St. Paul's rebuke of St. Peter shows that Papal Infallibility is wrong only if St. Peter had said, "We declare and teach, through the deposit of faith and by the authority vested by Christ himself, that when we eat, we separate ourselves from the Gentiles. Whosoever denies this denies the faith and is condemned" or something like that. But because Peter did not exercise his authority of Infallibility to make such a declaration, saying he was wrong in this case does not show that is not capable of being Infallible. 

So, the fundamental confusion, which I tried to make distinct in my previous email, is this: Infallibility is not a constant state of being. Rather, it is a special power used on very rare occasions. And I know you believe that because you do believe that St. Peter was infallible...when he wrote 1st and 2nd Peter. I could use the same argument you did and say, "Well, Peter was a sinner and he was wrong, so obviously he isn't infallible, therefore, 1st and 2nd Peter are not infallible. 1st and 2nd Peter are fallible." Well, I know you don't believe that because I'm pretty sure that even though you believe St. Peter was indeed a sinner, God gave him a special power of infallibility when he wrote 1st and 2nd Peter. And after that exercise was done, so was his infallibility. Just because you believe St. Peter was infallible at one point, you don't therefore believe he was infallible at every other point in his life. Only when he doing something official. And so it goes with the Church. So, I don't really see why you think that because Catholics believe that the Church has a power of infallibility (as well as the Pope) that she is therefore infallible in everything that she does. She is only infallible when she makes these official statements, and I gave you one example of a real infallible statement. So, to reiterate, infallibility is a power exercised to protect from error an official statement given on matters of faith or morals. 

We do agree. Lets use Peter as the example, at times he is correct, as in Matthew 16:5 when he correctly names Jesus as the Christ Son of the living God. A few verses later in v15 Peter is being rebuked for having the things of men and not God on his mind. Now there are instances where Peter is right and when he is wrong. This is where our agreement ends.

To state he is infallible when he identified Jesus as the Christ is a misuse of the word. He was given the answer by the Father. The Father is infallible. Peter was just the vessel. The church is the vessel, the Holy Spirit that works through and in the church is infallible. The teaching of infallibility borders along the lines of deception and false doctrines. Nowhere in the bible does Jesus even come close to stating an individual is incapable of error. 

The same can be said about you or me, we can accurately state the gospel, share it with others, live it out and be in good standing with the Lord, even on our best day we are not infallible. 

The reasoning and verbose explanation that the Catholic Church uses to support it's teaching of infallibility do not stand the test of the scriptures, sound biblical teaching. I believe the Catholic Church sets itself up as infallible to its members so that true Christian doctrine can be watered down without question of its members. So that it's tradition's can be elevated above the scriptures.

When did the teaching of original sin become official church doctrine? The teaching of original sin is less than 300 years old. Did someone miss it in the previous centuries? How does the church explain the recent addition to its teaching?

The Catholic Church deviates from the bible in multiple areas. Do you believe the Catholic Church deviates from the bible?

Hey "Tom" 

So it looks like you're getting a better understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches. Good. Progress is being made. Yay us. 

So, you say our agreement ends when you say that in some instances St. Peter is wrong and in some instances St. Peter is right. But that's not correct. Our agreement does not end there. Catholics do agree that St. Peter was wrong and right in some instances. But in instances where he declares something Ex Cathedra he is not wrong. We don't know if he ever used that power, so, really, there is no practical test to see if he ever misused his power of Infallibility. If he never used it, we can't test it, practically speaking. And I gave you one such statement Ex Cathedra, infallibly declared on the topic of the Immaculate Conception. I believe Pope Pius IX declared it in 1854 as infallible. And that was the only time he was infallible. Every other moment in his life, he was fallible. Same with St. Peter. So we do actually agree on that point, Peter being sometimes fallible sometimes infallible. We don't disagree. 

Now, you talk about the instance where Peter confesses Jesus as the Christ. And you're right, Peter is the vessel. And the Church is the vessel. And the Holy Spirit is infallible. That is precisely why these men and the Church are only infallible when God uses them, and not for every single moment of their life. Now, this is also why it isn't the same when you read the Bible. It is because God is not using you as a vessel. He hasn't given you a special protection from error. He has given the Bible a special protection from error, but the Bible is the vessel, not you (nor me, so don't take it personal). God has given the apostles and Peter and the Bible a special protection from error, but not us (unless one day I'm elected Pope!). These things don't have power in and of themselves, but because that is what God has bestowed upon them, and all that authority comes from God. I now understand I probably didn't make that part clear, so let it be clear now. 

Of course, it's silly to say that we cannot question what the Church teaches. We can most definitely question it. In fact, some questions have prompted the church to give more definitive answers to some controversies. For example, during the 3rd century, the Arians (heretics...) questioned the divinity of Christ. And because it had not been officially proclaimed, and there were some Bible verses that were debatable, the Church had to clear up the confusion. And she said that Christ is both truly human and truly divine, and this led to the composition of the Athanasian creed, Arius' biggest opponent (btw, one of their proofs against Arius was that the Church had called Mary the Theotokos, popularly translated as "Mother of God". So, if Mary was the Mother of God, then Jesus must be God. A Marian proof :-) ) So, of course we can question the Church. We just cannot disbelieve her when she demands it, and she doesn't demand of it much. Like I said, nothing new since the 1800's. It reminds me of something my High School English teacher said. Some kid was being rowdy in our class, and in his spirit of rebellion, the student shouted, "I question authority!" to which my English professor shot back, "So when authority answers, listen!" 

And we don't elevate tradition above the scriptures. They are equal. As 2nd Thessalonians 2:15 says, "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter."

So, back on Original Sin. Well, if Original Sin is taught in the Bible, then it's a bit older than 300 years old. And since I already touched a bit on this, let me just quote the relevant part, from one of the first few messages.

However, the context of Romans 5 is clear that it is not meant to be very specific for specific instances, but it is supposed to be general, and generally applied, like when it says, "18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people,so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners,so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous." One mans trespass, meaning Adam's sin, resulted in everyone's condemnation. One man's disobedience, Adam's sin, made me a sinner. Yes, we suffer the consequences which is death (by the way, can you refresh my memory and remind me how you replied to my argument that if we die only because of sin, why is it that babies can die?) but we also lose something, which is God's grace, which we don't naturally deserve.

Now, you seem to try to make a distinction between being guilty of someone's sin, and suffering their punishments. I'm not sure how convincing that is. So like, imagine I was guilty of murder. And the government says to my child, "We are going to punish you for your dad's crime." I think the implication is that they do share in my guilt somehow if they share in my punishments. You can object that this is somehow not fair, and I do recall you mentioning that. Well, if you define Original Sin the way we do, which is the loss of Original Grace, then it doesn't really seem to be all that unjust. But even if it were somehow unfair, that's okay. That's okay because how we get out of that punishment is unfair too, but in the opposite direction, which is called grace. We don't deserve punishment? Okay, but we don't deserved to be saved either. The way it works is this: Everyone inherits something. It's either going to be condemnation, or it's going to be grace. But both cases are inheritance. If you don't like that you inherit condemnation, you can't also rejoice that you inherit something from God.

I'm also curious as to how you understand John 3:16, which says that God gave Jesus to save the whole world. If some people don't sin, then Jesus didn't die for the whole world.

Now, of course, you believe that the Church only began to teach Original Sin 300 years ago. I don't know how you're getting that. Can you please explain that? Until then, here is a declaration from the Council of Orange, which concluded in 529 AD.

If anyone says that through the offence of Adam's sin the whole person, body and soul, was not changed for the worse, but believes that only the body was subjected to corruption while the freedom of the soul remained unharmed, such one is misled by the error of Pelagius and goes against scripture which says: 'the soul that sins shall die' and: 'do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves you are slaves of the one whom you obey?' And again: 'whatever overcomes one, to that one is enslaved.' If anyone maintains that the fall harmed Adam alone and not his descendants, or declares that only bodily death which is the punishment of sin, but not sin itself which is the death of the soul was passed on to the whole human race by one man, he ascribes injustice to God and contradicts the words of the apostle: 'Sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all as all sinned in him.'

Basically, to deny the doctrine of Original Sin is to be a Pelegian Heretic. That's quite an accusation. Here is one of your leading intellects who gladly accepts the label of heretic, and even acknowledges that Original Sin is very early. He also mentions St. Augustine taught it, and I do believe I said that in an earlier email as well.

http://www.douglasjacoby.com/q-a-0275-pelagianism/

So, we don't explain its recent addition because, well, it wasn't a recent addition.

Of course, I don't believe the Church contradicts the Bible. If it did, and you showed it to me, I wouldn't be Catholic. So, where do you believe we contradict the Bible?