I thought this would be nice.
Just to spark some thought.

The following sermon is as relevant today as it was over 100 years ago when it was first preached by Father Arnold Damen, S.J. This message was and still is a challenge to the many who pride themselves as being "Bible-and-Bible-Only Christians."

One cannot have God for his Father, who will not have the Church for his Mother, and likewise, one cannot have the Word of God for his faith who will not have the Church for his teacher. It is the infallible teaching authority of the Church, as promised by Christ, which alone preserves God's Word from erroneous interpretation. This is the essence of Fr. Damen's sermon.

Every sincere Bible reader deserves to know the true relation God has established between His Church and Holy Scripture. Therefore, we invite all who love the Bible, to read Father Damen's exposition with an open mind, lest while reading the Scriptures ", the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction." [2 Peter 3:16]

I.
Dearly Beloved Christians, when our Divine Saviour sent His Apostles and His Disciples throughout the whole universe to preach the Gospel to every creature, He laid down the conditions of salvation thus: "He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned" [Mark 16:16]. Here, then, Our Blessed Lord laid down the two conditions of salvation, Faith and Baptism. I will speak this evening on the condition of Faith.

We must have Faith in order to be saved, and we must have Divine Faith, not human faith. Human faith will not save a man, but only Divine Faith. What is Divine Faith? It is to believe, upon the authority of God, the truths that God has revealed. That is Divine Faith, to believe all that God has taught upon the authority of God, and to believe without doubting, without hesitation. For the moment you begin to doubt or hesitate, that moment you begin to mistrust the authority of God, and, therefore, insult God by doubting His word. Divine Faith, therefore, is to believe without doubting and without hesitating. Human faith is belief upon the authority of men, on human authority. But Divine Faith is to believe without doubting, without hesitating, whatsoever God has revealed upon the authority of God, upon the Word of God.

Therefore, my dear people, it is not a matter of indifference what religion a man professes, providing he be a good man.

You hear it said nowadays in this Nineteenth Century of little faith that it matter not what religion a man professes, providing he be a good man. That is heresy, my dear people, and I will prove it to you to be such. If it be a matter of indifference what a man believes, providing he be a good man, then it is useless for God to make any revelation whatever. If a man is at liberty to reject what God revealeth, what's the use for Christ to send out His Apostles and disciples to teach all nations, if those nations are at liberty to believe or reject the teachings of the Apostles or disciples? You see at once that this would be insulting God.

If God reveals a thing or teaches a thing, He wants to be believed. Man is bound to believe whatsoever God has revealed, for, my dear people, we are bound to worship God, both with our reason and intellect, as well as with our heart and will. God is master of the whole man. He claims his will, his heart, his reason and his intellect.

Where is the man, no matter what denomination, church or religion, that will deny that we are bound to believe what God has taught? I am sure there is not a Christian who will deny that we are bound to believe whatsoever God has revealed. Therefore, it is not a matter of indifference what religion a man professes. He must profess the true religion if he wants to be saved.

But what is the true religion? To believe all that God has taught. I am sure that even my Protestant friends will admit this is right, for, if they do not, I would say they are no Christians at all.

"But what is the true Faith?"

"The true Faith," say Protestant friends, "is to believe in the Lord Jesus."

Agreed, Catholics believe in that. Tell me what you mean by believing in the Lord Jesus?

"Why," says my Protestant friend, "you must believe that He is the Son of the Living God."

Agreed again. Thanks be to God, we can agree on something. We believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God, that He is God. To this we all agree, excepting the Unitarians and Socinians, but we will leave them alone tonight. If Christ be God, then we must believe all He teaches. Is this not so, my dearly beloved Protestant brethren and sisters? And that's the right Faith, isn't it?

"Well, yes," says my Protestant friend, "I guess that is the right Faith. To believe that Jesus is the Son of the Living God, we must believe all that Christ has taught."

We Catholics say the same, and here we agree again. We must believe all that Christ has taught, that God has revealed. Without this Faith, there is no salvation. Without this Faith, there is no hope of Heaven. Without this Faith, there is eternal damnation! We have the words of Christ for it, "He that believeth not shall be condemned."

II.
But if Christ, my dearly beloved people commands me under pain of eternal damnation to believe all that He has taught, He must give me the means to know what He has taught. And the means Christ gives us of knowing this must have been at all times within the reach of all people.

Secondly, the means that God gives us to know what He has taught must be a means adapted to the capacities of all intellects, even the dullest. For even the dullest have a right to salvation, and consequently they have a right to the means whereby they shall learn the truths that God has taught, that they may believe them and be saved.

The means that God give us to know what he has taught must be an infallible means. For if it be a means that can lead us astray, it can be no means at all. It must be an infallible means, so that if a man makes use of that means, he will infallibly, without fear of mistake or error, be brought to a knowledge of all the truths that God has taught.

I don't think there can be anyone present here, I care not what he is, a Christian or an unbeliever, who can object to my premises. And these premises are the groundwork of my discourse and of all my reasoning, therefore, I want you to bear them in mind. I will repeat them, for on these premises rests all the strength of my discourse and reasoning.

If God commands me under pain of eternal damnation to believe all that He has taught, He is bound to give me the means to know what He has taught. And the means that God gives me must have been at all times within the reach of all people, must be adapted to the capacities of all intellects, must be an infallible means to us, so that if a man makes use of it he will be brought to a knowledge of all the truths that God has taught.

III.
Has God given us such means? "Yes," say my Protestant friends, "He has." And so says the Catholic. God has given us such means. What is the means God has given us whereby we shall learn the truth that God has revealed? "The Bible," say my Protestant friends, "the Bible, the whole of the Bible, and nothing but the Bible." But we Catholics say, "No, not the Bible and its private interpretation, but the Church of the Living God."

I will prove the facts, and I defy all my separated brethren, and all the preachers, to disprove what I will say tonight. I say, then, it is not the private interpretation of the Bible that has been appointed by God to be the teacher of man, but the Church of the Living God.

For, my dear people, if God has intended that man should learn His religion from a book, the Bible, surely God would have given that book to man. Christ would have given that book to man. Did He do it? He did not. Christ sent His Apostles throughout the whole universe and said, "Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you."

Christ did not say, "Sit down and write Bibles and scatter them over the earth, and let every man read his Bible and judge for himself." If Christ had said that, there would never have been a Christianity on the earth at all, but a Babylon and confusion instead, and never one Church, the union of one body. Hence, Christ never said to His Apostles, "Go and write Bibles and distribute them, and let everyone judge for himself." That injunction was reserved for the Sixteenth Century, and we have seen the result of it. Ever since the Sixteenth Century there have been springing up religion upon religion, and churches upon churches, all fighting and quarreling with one another, and all because of the private interpretation of the Bible.

Christ sent His Apostles with authority to teach all nations, and never gave them any command of writing the Bible. And the Apostles went forth and preached everywhere, and planted the Church of God throughout the earth, but never thought of writing.

The first word written was by Saint Matthew, and he wrote for the benefit of a few individuals. He wrote the Gospel about seven years after Christ left this earth, so that the Church of God, established by Christ, existed seven years before a line was written of the New Testament.

Saint Mark wrote about ten years after Christ left this earth, Saint Luke about twenty-five years, and Saint John about sixty-three years after Christ had established the Church of God. Saint John wrote the last portion of the Bible, the Book of Revelation, about sixty-five years after Christ had left this earth and the Church of God had been established. The Catholic religion had existed sixty-five years before the Bible was completed.

Now, I ask you, my dearly beloved separated brethren. Were these Christian people, who lived during the period between the establishment of the Church of Jesus and the finishing of the Bible, really Christians, good Christians and enlightened Christians? Did they know the religion of Jesus? Where is the man that will dare to say that those who lived from the time that Christ went up to Heaven to the time that the Bible was completed were not Christians? It is admitted on all sides, by all denominations, that they were the very best of Christians, the first fruit of the Blood of Jesus Christ.

But how did they know what they had to do to save their souls? Was it from the Bible that they learned it? No, because the Bible was not written. And would our Divine Saviour have left His Church for sixty-five years without a teacher, if the Bible is the teacher of man? Most assuredly not.

Were the Apostles Christians, I ask you, my dear Protestant friends? You say, "Yes sir, they were the very founders of Christianity." Now, my dear friends, none of the Apostles ever read the Bible, not one of them except perhaps, Saint John. For all of them had died martyrs for the Faith of Jesus Christ and never saw the cover of a Bible. Every one of them died martyrs and heroes for the Church of Jesus before the Bible was completed.

How, then, did those Christians, that lived in the first sixty-five years after Christ ascended, know what they had to do to save their souls? They knew it precisely in the same way that you know it, my dear Catholic friends. You know it from the teachings of the Church of God and so did the primitive Christians know it.

IV.
For not only sixty-five years did Christ leave the Church He had established without a Bible, but for over three hundred years. The Church of God was established and went on spreading itself over the whole globe without the Bible for more than three hundred years. In all that time the people did not know what constituted the Bible.

In the days of the Apostles, there were many false gospels. There was the Gospel of Simon, the Gospel of Nicodemus, of Mary, of Barnabas, and the Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus. All of these gospels were spread among the people, and the people did not know which of these were inspired and which were false and spurious. Even the learned themselves were disputing whether preference should be given to the Gospel of Simon or that of Matthew, to the Gospel of Nicodemus or the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Mary or that of Luke, the Gospel of the Infancy of Jesus or the Gospel of Saint John the Evangelist.

And so it was in regard to the epistles. Many spurious epistles were written and the people were at a loss for over three hundred years to know which was false or spurious, or which was inspired. And, therefore, they did not know what constituted the books of the Bible.

It was not until the Fourth Century that the Pope of Rome, the Head of the Church, the successor of Saint Peter, assembled together the Bishops of the world in a council. And there in that council it was decided that the Bible, as we Catholics have it now, is the Word of God, and that the Gospels of Simon, Nicodemus, Mary, the Infancy of Jesus, and Barnabas, and all those other epistles were spurious or, at least, unauthentic. At least, that there was no evidence of their inspiration, and that the Gospels of Saints Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, and the Book of Revelation, were inspired by the Holy Ghost.

Up to that time the whole world for three hundred years did not know what the Bible was. Hence, they could not take the Bible for their guide, for they did not know what constituted the Bible. Would our Divine Saviour, if He intended man to learn his religion from a book, have left the Christian world for three hundred years without that book? Most assuredly not.

V.
Not only for three hundred years was the world left without the Bible, but for 1,400 years the Christian world was left without the Sacred Book.

Before the art of printing was invented, Bibles were rare things. Bibles were costly things. Now, you must all be aware, if you have read history at all, that the art of printing was invented only a little more than four hundred years ago, about the middle of the Fifteenth Century, and about one hundred years before there was a Protestant in the world.

As I have said, before printing was invented books were rare and costly things. Historians tell us that, in the Eleventh Century, eight hundred years ago, Bibles were so rare and costly that it took a fortune, a considerable fortune, to buy oneself a copy of the Bible! Before the art of printing, everything had to be done with the pen upon parchment or sheepskin. It was, therefore, a tedious and slow operation, a costly operation.

Now, in order to arrive at the probable cost of a Bible at that time, let us suppose that a man should work ten years to make a copy of the Bible and earn a dollar a day. Well, then, the cost of that Bible would be $3,650. Now, let us suppose that a man should work at the copying of the Bible for twenty years, as historians say it would have taken him at that time, not having the conveniences and improvements to aid him that we have now. Then, at a dollar a day, for twenty years, the cost of a Bible would be nearly $8,000.

Suppose I came and said to you, "My dear people, save your soul, for if you lose your soul all is lost." You would ask, "What are we to do to save our souls?" The Protestant preacher would say to you, "You must get a Bible. You can get one at such-and-such a shop." You would ask the cost and be told it was $8,000. You would exclaim, "The Lord save us! And can we not go to Heaven without that book?" The answer would be: "No, you must have the Bible and read it." You murmur at the price, but are asked, "Is not your soul worth $8,000?" Yes, of course it is, but you say you do not have the money, and if you cannot get a Bible, and your salvation depends upon it, evidently you would have to remain outside the Kingdom of Heaven. This would be a hopeless condition, indeed.

For 1,400 years the world was left without a Bible -- not one in ten thousand, not one in twenty thousand, before the art of printing was invented, had the Bible. And would our Divine Lord have left the world without that book if it was necessary to man's salvation? Most assuredly not.

VI.
But let us suppose for a moment that all had Bibles, that Bibles were written from the beginning, and that every man, woman, and child had a copy. What good would that book be to people who did not know how to read it? It is a blind thing to such persons.

Even now one-half the inhabitants of the earth cannot read. Moreover, as the Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew, it would be necessary to know these languages in order to be able to read it.

But it is said that we have it translated now in French, English, and other languages of the day. Yes, but are you sure you have a faithful translation? If not, you have not the Word of God. If you have a false translation, it is the work of man. How shall you ascertain that? How shall you find out if you have a faithful translation from the Greek and Hebrew?

"I do not know Greek or Hebrew," says my separated friend; "for my translation I must depend upon the opinion of the learned."

Well, then, my dear friends, suppose the learned should be divided in their opinions, and some of them should say it is good, and some false? Then your faith is gone, you must begin doubting and hesitating, because you do not know if the translation is good.

Now with regard to the Protestant translation of the Bible, allow me to tell you that the most learned among Protestants tell you that your translation, the King James edition, is a very faulty translation and is full of errors. Your own learned divines, preachers, and bishops have written whole volumes to point out all the errors that are there in the King James translation, and Protestants of various denominations acknowledge it.

Some years ago, when I lived in St. Louis, there was held in that city a convention of ministers. All denominations were invited, the object being to arrange for a new translation of the Bible, and give it to the world. The proceedings of the convention were published daily in the Missouri Republican. A very learned Presbyterian, I think it was, stood up, and, urging the necessity of giving a new translation of the Bible, said that in the present Protestant translation of the Bible there were no less than 30,000 errors.

And you say, my dear Protestant friends, that the Bible is your guide and teacher. What a teacher, with 30,000 errors! The Lord save us from such a teacher! One error is bad enough, but thirty thousand is a little too much.

Another preacher stood up in the convention, I think he was a Baptist, and, urging the necessity of giving a new translation of the Bible, said for thirty years past the world was without the Word of God, for the Bible we have is not the Word of God at all.

Here are your own preachers for you. You all read the newspapers, no doubt, my friends, and must know what happened in England a few years ago. A petition was sent to Parliament for an allowance of a few thousand pounds sterling for the purpose of getting up a new translation of the Bible. And that movement was headed and carried on by Protestant bishops and clergymen.

VII.
But, my dear people, how can you be sure of your faith? You say the Bible is your guide, but you cannot be sure that you have the faith. Let us suppose for a moment that all have a Bible which is a faithful translation. Even then it cannot be the guide of man, because the private interpretation of the Bible is not infallible, but, on the contrary, most fallible. It is the source and fountain of all kinds of errors and heresies and all kinds of blasphemous doctrines. Do not be shocked, my dear friends. Just be calm and listen to my arguments.

There are now throughout the world 350 different denominations or churches, and all of them say the Bible is their guide and teacher. I suppose they are all sincere. Are all of them true churches? This is an impossibility. Truth is one as God is one, and there can be no contradiction. Every man in his senses sees that every one of them cannot be true, for they differ and contradict one another, and cannot, therefore, be all true. The Protestants say the man that reads the Bible right and prayerfully has truth, and they all say that they read it right.

Let us suppose that there is an Episcopal minister. He is a sincere, honest, well-meaning and prayerful man. He reads his Bible in a prayerful spirit, and from the word of the Bible, he says it is clear that there must be bishops. For without bishops there can be no priests, without priests no Sacraments, and without Sacraments no Church. The Presbyterian is a sincere and well-meaning man. He reads the Bible also, and deduces that there should be no bishops, but only presbyters. "Here is the Bible," says the Episcopalian, and "here is the Bible to give you the lie," says the Presbyterian. Yet both of them are prayerful and well-meaning men.

Then the Baptist comes in. He is a well-meaning, honest man, and prayerful also. "Well," says the Baptist, "have you ever been baptized?" "I was," says the Episcopalian, "when I was a baby."

"And so was I," says the Presbyterian, "when I was a baby." "But," says the Baptist, "you are going to Hell as sure as you live."

Next comes the Unitarian, well-meaning, honest, and sincere. "Well," says the Unitarian, "allow me to tell you that you are a pack of idolators. You worship a man for a God who is no God at all." And he gives several texts from the Bible to prove it, while the others are stopping their ears that they may not hear the blasphemies of the Unitarian. And they all contend that they have the true meaning of the Bible.

Next comes the Methodist, and he says, "My friends, have you got any religion at all?" "Of course we have," they say. "Did you ever feel religion," says the Methodist, "the spirit of God moving within you?" "Nonsense," says the Presbyterian, "we are guided by our reason and judgment." "Well," says the Methodist, "if you never felt religion, you never had it, and will go to Hell for eternity."

The Universalist next comes in, and hears them threatening one another with eternal hellfire. "Why," says he, "you are a strange set of people. Do you not understand the Word of God? There is no Hell at all. That idea is good enough to scare old women and children," and he proves it from the Bible.

Now comes in the Quaker. He urges them not to quarrel, and advises that they do not baptize at all. He is the sincerest of men, and gives the Bible for his faith.

Another comes in and says, "Baptize the men and leave the women alone. For the Bible says, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven. "So," says he, "the women are all right, but baptize the men."

Next comes in the Shaker and he says, "You are a presumptuous people. Do you not know that the Bible tells you that you must work out your salvation in fear and trembling, and you do not tremble at all. My brethren, if you want to go to Heaven shake, my brethren, shake!"

VIII.
I have here brought together seven or eight denominations, differing one from another, or understanding the Bible in different ways, illustrative of the fruits of private interpretation. What, then, if I brought together the 350 different denominations, all taking the Bible for their guide and teaching, and all differing from one another? Are they all right? One says there is a Hell, and another says there is not Hell. Are both right? One says Christ is God, another says He is not. One says they are unessential. One says Baptism is a requisite, and another says it is not. Are both true? This is an impossibility, my friends. All cannot be true.

Who, then, is true? He that has the true meaning of the Bible, you say. But the Bible does not tell us who that is, the Bible never settles the quarrel. It is not the teacher.

The Bible, my dear people, is a good book. We Catholics admit that the Bible is the Word of God, the language of inspiration, and every Catholic is exhorted to read the Bible. But good as it is, the Bible, my dear friends, does not explain itself. It is a good book, the Word of God, the language of inspiration, but your explanation of the Bible is not the language of inspiration. Your understanding of the Bible is not inspired, for surely you do not pretend to be inspired!

It is with the Bible as it is with the Constitution of the United States. When Washington and his associates established the Constitution and the Supreme Law of the United States, they did not say to the people of the States: "Let every man read the Constitution and make a government unto himself. Let every man make his own explanation of the Constitution." If Washington had done that, there never would have been a United States. The people would all have been divided among themselves, and the country would have been cut up into a thousand different divisions or governments.

What did Washington do? He gave the people the Constitution and the Supreme Law, and appointed his Supreme Court and Supreme Judge of the Constitution. And these are to give the true explanation of the Constitution to all the American citizens, all without exception, from the President to the beggar. All are bound to go by the decisions of the Supreme Court, and it is this and this alone that can keep the people together and preserve the Union of the United States. At the moment the people take the interpretation of the Constitution into their own hands, there is the end of the union.

And so it is in every government. So it is here and everywhere. There is a Constitution, a Supreme Court or Law, a Supreme Judge of that Constitution, and that Supreme Court is to give us the meaning of the Constitution and the Law.

In every well-ruled country there must be such a thing as this: a Supreme Law, Supreme Court, Supreme Judge, that all the people abide by. All are bound by decisions, and without that, no government could stand. Even among the Indian tribes such a condition of affairs exists. How are they kept together? By their chief, who is their dictator.

So our Divine Savior also has established His Supreme Court, His Supreme Judge, to give us the true meaning of the Scriptures, and to give us the true revelation and doctrines of the Word of Jesus. The Son of the Living God has pledged His Word that this Supreme Court is infallible, and therefore, the true Catholic never doubts.

"I believe," says the Catholic, "because the Church teaches me so. I believe the Church because God has commanded me to believe her." Jesus said: "Tell the Church. And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican." [Matt 18:17]. "He that believeth you believeth Me." said Christ, "and he that despiseth you despiseth Me." [Luke 10:16]. Therefore, the Catholic believes because God has spoken, and upon the authority of God.

But our Protestant friends say, "We believe in the Bible." Very well, how do you understand the Bible? "Well," says the Protestant, "to the best of my opinion and judgment this is the meaning of the text." He is not sure of it, but to the best of his opinion and judgment. This, my friends, is only the testimony of a man. It is only human faith, not Divine Faith.

It is Divine Faith alone by which we give honor and glory to God, by which we adore His infinite wisdom and veracity. That adoration and worship is necessary for salvation.

I have now proved to you that private interpretation of the Scripture cannot be the guide or teacher of man. In another lecture I shall prove that the Catholic Church is the only true Church of God, and that there is no other.

Absolute and utter crap.

You can't have God unless you follow the Catholic faith?

Basically that's saying "If you don't follow other men, you can't follow God".
It's making man and God the same thing. Isn't that called blasphemy?


Mind you what do you expect a pastor to preach? If he doesn't have followers, he doesn't get paid.

Bastage:

Absolute and utter crap.

You can't have God unless you follow the Catholic faith?

Basically that's saying "If you don't follow other men, you can't follow God".
It's making man and God the same thing. Isn't that called blasphemy?


Mind you what do you expect a pastor to preach? If he doesn't have followers, he doesn't get paid.

You would have to tell us how you got that from the post sir. That's not what the post says. The post is actually telling u what the Bible says, and I guess then the Bible is blasphemy. The post tells us that we can't interpret the Bible on our own.

Now to address your issue of following other men. Let me take it one by one.

1st) The Bible was written by men it didn't drop from the sky, it wasn't penned by God. So if you follow the Bible you are already following men.
2nd) The Catholic Church wrote and put together the Bible, well the NT for the most part, so if you follow the Bible or at least the NT, you are already following the Catholic Church so you are already following men
3rd) Even if you don't think that you are following the Catholic Church by following the Bible, and you don't think the Church wrote the Bible, you are still following the Catholic Church because you are following the Books that we defined as scripture for you. So if you don't want to follow the Catholic Church denounce the books we wrote and compiled for you.
4th) As stated earlier the Bible was written by men, these men were also sinful, how do we know that they wrote infallibly? Because the Church in her infallibility by God, stated that these men wrote infallibly. So you are still following the Catholic Church and her infallibiloty because you allowed her to determine which books were infallibble for you.

So you see sir, to follow the Bible is to follow men, and ultimately the Catholic Church. Anyway Christ commissioned his Church and not the Bible to spread the word.

so per

"If you don't follow other men, you can't follow God".

On the contrary if you don't follow the men that God has commissioned, you can't follow God. You can't tell God 'well I follow you but I won't follow the men that you chose to be leaders of your church.' That's basically saying that God cannot choose the right ppl to lead his church.
And considering that he said "whoever hears you hears me" he is pretty much saying when you hear these ppl that he has called to be leaders in his church, you are hearing him.

Anybody who preaches sola scripture and yet believes in the trinity is a hypocrite.The trinity is not explicitly stated in the bible It is a Roman catholic teaching so go on and denounce it.Mind you am not saying the trinity is not true ,am only highligting the dangers of sola scripture

1st) The Bible was written by men it didn't drop from the sky, it wasn't penned by God. So if you follow the Bible you are already following men.

LMAO. That totally defeats your own argument you dimwit.
If it's the work of men, it is fallible. Therefore following a Church or other men doesn't matter because they are fallible too.

Think before you type, you idiot.

Bastage:

LMAO. That totally defeats your own argument you dimwit.
If it's the work of men, it is fallible. Therefore following a Church or other men doesn't matter because they are fallible too.

Think before you type, you idiot.

So God wrote the Bible? Really, I didn't know Mathew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, Jeremiah, Isaiah, and co are God. Please explain how those men are God.

Work of men can be infallible, remember Jesus himself is also a man. They can be infallible under the inspiration of God. We Know St. Paul is a sinner, and yet he wrote infallibly, we know that St. Peter denied Christ and yet he wrote infallibly. Impeccability does not mean infallibility. I think the problem is you don't know what Infallibility means. I suggest you learn about it before you say believe the Bible is infallible. And that is the point. The men whom God chooses to be his leaders are still sinners however, by the direction of the Holy Spirit they do teach infallibly. The Church teaches infallibly. However they are still men.

So sir unless those ppl mentioned above are God, I don't see how your argument holds water. God did not write the Bible he however inspired it. But because God didn't write the Bible, how do we know that it was truly inspired by God? Can you give me that answer mr Bastage? How do we know that several men didn't come together and say these books are inspired when infact they're not. How do you know that the books of the Bible were supposed to be defined as scripture?

Work of men can be infallible, remember Jesus himself is also a man.

Last I heard, you guys were stating that he was man and god and therefore infallible.

God did not write the Bible he however inspired it. But because God didn't write the Bible, how do we know that it was truly inspired by God? Can you give me that answer mr Bastage? How do we know that several men didn't come together and say these books are inspired when infact they're not. How do you know that the books of the Bible were supposed to be defined as scripture?

You're not preaching to the converted here. The simple fact is that we don't know. The books that were defined as scripture were defined to be so by men.

Again, you're shooting yourself in the foot. You're saying that all defining is down to fallible man but that you should put your trust in his fallible church.
Have you actually read anything you've written?

You're not preaching to the converted here. The simple fact is that we don't know. The books that were defined as scripture were defined to be so by men

So then the Bible is fallible? You're loosing me here.

Again, you're shooting yourself in the foot. You're saying that all defining is down to fallible man but that you should put your trust in his fallible church.
Have you actually read anything you've written?

Oh yes and you are proving my point slowly, so please continue.

Remember I am not the one who said men are fallible, it was you, so I'm using your own definitions here.

Last I heard, you guys were stating that he was man and god and therefore infallible.

Exactly, just because something is said by man or run by man does not mean it cannot be infallible. That was the whole point of Christ, he as man is also infallible, not just as God but as man also, so man can speak infallibly, and as the Bible proves man can write and teach infallibly. So what were you saying about the Church run by men again? Wasn't the Bible written by men?

Just as God can inspire men to teach infallibly he has also inspired his Church to speak infallibly, especially since he said "The Holy Spirit will guide you into all truth" and "The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it" in reference to his Church. He wasn't speaking to the Bible, he was speaking to men, and it was man he gave authority to, not the Bible. So where does the authority of the Bible come from?

Let me remind you of your own words just a couple of posts ago.

So if you follow the Bible you are already following men.

So you're now denying the fallibility of man because other men have said that they are infallible?

Idiot. You are making man your God.

One thing that I like about Nigerians is our passion when it comes to the word of God / The bible

However, Sometimes that passions goes over board (@bastage) Because you don't agree with
another point of view should not give you the right to call another fellow "Idiot"
Please let us all express our views in a constructive and orderly manner.

check out the way the british house of common voice their views. We can all learnt from them.
I know sometimes the red pepper we consume in Nigeria can sometimes contribute to this unruly
attitude. But thank God. we have the living water - which is christ and if that is not sufficient in the
natural let us try PURE WATER

Just a food for thought

The topic premises on the assumption that once you mention the word church it has to be the true church. The bible reminds us to look out for the false church. By that very reason we have to give preference to God's words over the church and what it assumes is the correct interpretation, since the the latter needs the right and proper interpretation of the word to be liberated from error.

There have to be checks and balances when it comes to who determines what is truth, and what is error. This is where the word stands alone. We have to depend on the weight of evidence of scriptures to bring out truth. You cannot dare depend on men who purport to be men of God to determine for us what is truth, unless they use the principle of "line upon line, a little here and a little there, " or as Paul suggests ", rightly dividing the word of truth"


The word of God must interpret itself, and it must be seen as the "light unto my path, and a lamp unto my feet"

Besides, there is ample reason now to accept more fully scriptures over tradition seeing we have a history of what can happen when men are left to do as they wish with religion.

When the church of Rome invented an evil device named indulgences, and tied it in with the ability to remove sinners from purgatory if their living relatives paid a certain amount, do you honestly expect us to yield to such church dogmas, when such dogmas are not supported by scriptures?

Idiot. You are making man your God.

It's funny this is what the Jews and muslims and non-christians say about Christians.

catholic church claimed to av wrote the bible but still dont preach the bible and dont even encourage the reading it, so many many doctrines that are evil and there secret is now opened cos the st peter was built like a devilish design, go and check it

yommyuk:

One thing that I like about Nigerians is our passion when it comes to the word of God / The bible

However, Sometimes that passions goes over board (@bastage) Because you don't agree with
another point of view should not give you the right to call another fellow "Idiot"
Please let us all express our views in a constructive and orderly manner.

check out the way the british house of common voice their views. We can all learnt from them.
I know sometimes the red pepper we consume in Nigeria can sometimes contribute to this unruly
attitude. But thank God. we have the living water - which is christ and if that is not sufficient in the
natural let us try PURE WATER

Just a food for thought

thanks however, I do not disagree with him neither does he disagrees with me. He believes the same thing I do, he however wishes not to acknowledge it or doesn't realise he agrees with me. I really don't pay attention to the insults he gives me, I only pay attention to why he insults me, and if you've paid close attention to the dialogue between me and him, you would see why he is so angry and resorts to insulting me. He can insult me and all my descendants, it won't move me, at the end of the day it is the reason he insults me that matters, and if he is truthful he will see why he insults me

uplawal:

catholic church claimed to av wrote the bible but still dont preach the bible and dont even encourage the reading it, so many many doctrines that are evil and there secret is now opened cos the st peter was built like a devilish design, go and check it

First of all you're a muslim wat is ur business here?
Second, I won't really bother with you as you are completely irrelevant here. You hate the Church because we are the only ones that can truly defend the christian faith and tell the truth about islamic history because we lived it. So take your opinion elsewhere.

dem bulletin people,no open the bible to the book of this and that, let me tell u right now that am confirmed catholic but got tired of their doctrine cos its not in the bible, so u think am not a christian abi,thats why u ve been replying to post arrogantly,go and check what the catholic church is up to i tell u, u will think of changing to a more believing church than ritual tingy church,people of purgatory, hail mary to still be called virgin,consecrating bread and wine into cannibalism,taking oat not to marry and supporting the govt in everything like gay marriage imagine that

So you have moved out of darkness and seen the light uplawal

uplawal:

dem bulletin people,no open the bible to the book of this and that, let me tell u right now that am confirmed catholic but got tired of their doctrine cos its not in the bible, so u think am not a christian abi,thats why u ve been replying to post arrogantly,go and check what the catholic church is up to i tell u, u will think of changing to a more believing church than ritual tingy church,people of purgatory, hail mary to still be called virgin,consecrating bread and wine into cannibalism,taking oat not to marry and supporting the govt in everything like gay marriage imagine that

ROTFLMAO