Does the Bible Contradict Itself?

[spockrates]

Protestants might respond by saying Catholics are confusing correlation with causation. Catholics might then reply that Protestants mistakenly assume the correlation is not a case of causation.

Of COURSE the two sides will argue;the issue is differences not the 'why' of the difference

Not sure what you mean; please explain what the why is.

I'd say this is another instance of a lack of clarity in a biblical text resulting in contrary interpretations of the text. Would you say the same?

No,I'd say the protestant view is idiotic and self serving. Don't worry,the Catholics have been doing the same thing for nearly 2000 years. EG their unique scriptural interpretation for the intercession of the Virgin Mary and the saints, indulgences (as a still extant concept) and papal infallibility, are really creative.

Please explain why the interpretations of James, chapter 2 that they have is idiotic.

I hope you realise this is all academic to me; I don't believe in god(s) , nor do I believe in revealed truth of any kind. (due to the lack of credible evidence)

Yes, I understand, and I appreciate your taking the time to answer my questions.

---

Hi, Padraic. I think most Protestants accept the words of James as true--they just interpret them differently than Catholics do. For example, when I was Evangelical, I understood these words,

For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

(James 2:26)

to mean good works ( good thoughts, words and deeds) are an effect of living (or real) faith. Hence, one is saved from hell by a faith that causes salvation, and salvation then causes good works. Salvation and good works are then the effects of faith. For we are saved through faith alone. In other words,

Faith -> salvation + works

where -> = causes

Catholics tell me the passage means faith alone does not save anyone from hell. One needs both faith and good works. For good works are not an effect of salvation, they are instead a cause of salvation. Moreover one's faith must be not in Christ alone, but also in the sacraments (e.g., baptism). In other words,

Faith + sacraments + works -> salvation

where -> = causes

Protestants might respond by saying Catholics are confusing correlation with causation. Catholics might then reply that Protestants mistakenly assume the correlation is not a case of causation.

I'd say this is another instance of a lack of clarity in a biblical text resulting in contrary interpretations of the text. Would you say the same?

I hope your purpose here isn't to prove your self congratulatory profundity. There are clear contradictions in the bible; pitting Protestant and Catholic apologies against one another doesn't make the contradictions vaporize.

Glad you're still contributing to the dialog, Cato.



I was responding to Padraic who wrote:

Perhaps THE greatest difference between protestant and Catholic:

Catholics accept the position "Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead."

Many protestants believe salvation comes from faith alone. Plus Calvinists teach predestination,which Catholics reject.

The Catholic-Protestant debate is one I've raised for the benefit of the two Christian participants in this dialog. For they have responded to my premise that many so-called contradictions are actually due to ambiguities of the text resulting in contrary interpretations. Compare a Catholic interpretation of one text with a Protestant interpretation of another, and there is a contradiction, which is not real but merely apparent. Give a Protestant interpretation to both texts and the apparent contradiction does indeed vanish. (BTW, no atheist in this dialog has to my recollection denied this.) To compare contrary interpretations of two texts and then say the texts themselves are in conflict is to commit the informal logical fallacy of equivocation, or something similar.

This gambit doesn't make you intriguing or noteworthy; it makes you boring and predictable.

I resemble that remark!



Perhaps that's why I enjoy hearing from people like you--I find you both fascinating and unpredictable!

You ignored immediate references to lists of biblical contradictions. This means that learning about the contradictions was not your purpose, you simply wanted others to state one in order for you to practice your apologetics.

I believe I said I was here to have a dialog with others, not a reading session by myself. The latter would truly be both predictable and boring! I believe I have responded to everyone willing to discuss any specific contradictions thought to be noteworthy. I have agreed some are indeed contradictory and explained why I did not think them significant. One was a case of using the number eight instead of 18. Another was a case of confusing the names of the two daughters of an ancient Jewish king. Neither of these errors affects any important doctrine of the Christian faith.

Now if you did bear with the boredom of my gambit to this point in my post, I have a prize for you: I do have one contradiction I recently discovered that promises to be both real and significant. I asked earlier in this dialog if anyone cared to investigate it with me, but I received no takers. I'd like to discuss it with you, if you have not already died of boredom!