J
jerry_kelso
Guest
Paul said; I die daily; what is the true catholic interpretation and what other scriptural proof can you give to back it up?
- Status
N
NHInsider
Guest
There are very few verses for which the Catholic Church has given an “official” interpretation.
Having said that, I think that Paul’s “I die daily” is a variation on Jesus’ “Take up the cross daily” - emphasizing that following Him is not a one-time decision but an every day choice.
Having said that, I think that Paul’s “I die daily” is a variation on Jesus’ “Take up the cross daily” - emphasizing that following Him is not a one-time decision but an every day choice.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
there is not ONE sole and exclusive Catholic interpretation of that passage.
D
Della
Guest
May we ask why this particular verse? Why do you think the Catholic Church has an “official” interpretation of it? I ask solely to understand what exactly you want to know. :tiphat:
As NHInsider wrote, the Church hasn’t made statements about every verse in the Bible. When it has, on the few occasions that it has, it was to define/declare doctrine/dogma. Otherwise, the interpretation is pretty open, as long as it doesn’t contradict Church teaching. And as NHInsider also wrote, Paul is saying he dies to himself daily in order to be conformed to Christ lest he, having run the race, might be lost. Does that help you?
N
Nita
Guest
As noted, there is no “official” interpretation; so I’ll just give my understanding.
Two parts corresponding to our human nature of body and soul:
Body: Since Paul says in the previous verse (vs. 30) - “Why am I in peril every hour?”, I think it refers, at least in part, to his willingness to physically die, or suffer, in order to preach the gospel.
Soul: A second aspect would involve the soul, primarily the will. To die to our own will, and seek only God’s. If there is a conflict – it is God’s will that we choose; we die to our own will.
J
jerry_kelso
Guest
Della: If the catholic church has the infallible truth and this puts them in a superior position doctrinenally as the Apostolic Apostles with Apostolic Authority surely they would have an official position on this passage.May we ask why this particular verse? Why do you think the Catholic Church has an “official” interpretation of it? I ask solely to understand what exactly you want to know. :tiphat:
As NHInsider wrote, the Church hasn’t made statements about every verse in the Bible. When it has, on the few occasions that it has, it was to define/declare doctrine/dogma. Otherwise, the interpretation is pretty open, as long as it doesn’t contradict Church teaching. And as NHInsider also wrote, Paul is saying he dies to himself daily in order to be conformed to Christ lest he, having run the race, might be lost. Does that help you?
Now I ask again what is the position of the Catholic Church on 1 Corinthians 15:31 when Paul said I DIE DAILY and why did he say it and why is it important to know?
Remember you have a distinct advantage for all you have to do is read the truth and the protestants have to figure it out on their own. God Bless! Jerry Kelso
N
Nita
Guest
I’m always amazed that Protestants are somehow under the illusion that the Catholic Church has assigned infallible interpretations to every line of Scripture – to which we must adhere. Nothing could be farther from the truth. As was noted, there are only a few lines of Scripture to which that could be applied. And even then, one can have additional applications (as long as they don’t conflict/contradict the understanding which the Church says does apply.
What the Church does is to decree doctrines to which we must adhere. For example, the Church has decreed that the Trinity is a dogma – There are 3 Persons in One God; God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. Now, when we read Scripture, we are not free to interpret any passage in a manner that would contradict that dogma.
Really, it’s quite lovely and freeing – like a solid fence protecting one from falling off the edge of a steep cliff (fall into error). One can run around in the yard with much more freedom than someone who does not have the security of a fence at the cliff’s edge.
consider well her ramparts, go through her citadels; that you may tell the next generation
that this is God, our God for ever and ever. He will be our guide for ever*.
What the Church does is to decree doctrines to which we must adhere. For example, the Church has decreed that the Trinity is a dogma – There are 3 Persons in One God; God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit. Now, when we read Scripture, we are not free to interpret any passage in a manner that would contradict that dogma.
Really, it’s quite lovely and freeing – like a solid fence protecting one from falling off the edge of a steep cliff (fall into error). One can run around in the yard with much more freedom than someone who does not have the security of a fence at the cliff’s edge.
- Isaiah 26:1 In that day this song will be sung in the land of Judah: “We have a strong city; he sets up salvation as walls and bulwarks.”
consider well her ramparts, go through her citadels; that you may tell the next generation
that this is God, our God for ever and ever. He will be our guide for ever*.
D
Della
Guest
The Bible is part of the Sacred Tradition of the Church not the whole. The other parts being the Church Fathers, oral teachings passed down, and the living Magisterium (the bishops in union with the pope). I think a lot of Protestants have the idea that the Church bases its teachings on Bible verses, and so must have an infallible statement about each one. It simply doesn’t.
First of all, verses are an addition meant to make it easier to reference passages. They weren’t part of the original text. Secondly, the Church looks at the whole of Scripture, as well as the oral and written teachings handed down to determine doctrinal matters of faith and morals.
And lastly, why do you think the Church has to go by your assumptions about how it interprets the Bible? Were you there when St. Jerome was compiling its books or at the Church councils that decided to endorse the canon? You are coming at this backwards and from the attitude that the Church owes us an explanation, when it owes no one any such thing.
We have told you what the main interpretations of the verse are, based on the whole of Paul’s writings and the general teaching and spirituality of the Church. We can’t meet your demand because it is impossible. And we won’t say we need to answer your assumptions when we don’t need to, either. It’s not a matter of doctrinal importance or the Church would have defined it. That’s the simple truth of the matter.
C
COPLAND_3
Guest
The Church teaches the Faith and Doctrine infallibly, but that does not mean that the Church has given an official interpretation on each verse of the Bible. Just as the Apostles used the Old Testament to reveal New Testament truths as we see the OT quoted in the New Testament, the Church quotes Scripture in order to reveal specific teachings. It would have been nice if the Apostles would have written an official commentary on the OT for every verse, and it would be nice if the Church would make an offical commentary on the Bible. But the job of the Church is to teach us how to get to Heaven, and She uses Scripture and Tradition to do so, and has Apostolic authority.
I still can’t figure out what your point is about those 3 words in that verse, you brought that up in another thread as if it was a vital argument against Catholics. Every verse of the Bible is important but not everything in it needs to be articulated and spelled out in a manner that is binding to our Faith. In that other thread I gave a quote from a reputable Catholic theologian (Cornelius A. Lapide). I will give some others, I hope this helps you.
**St. John Chrysostom: **But how does he “die daily?” by his readiness and preparation for that event. And wherefore says he these words? Again by these also to establish the doctrine of the resurrection. “For who would choose,” says he, “to undergo so many deaths, if there be no resurrection nor life after this? Yea, if they who believe in the resurrection would scarcely put themselves in jeopardy for it except they were very noble of heart: much more would not the unbeliever (so he speaks) choose to undergo so many deaths and so terrible.” Thus, see by degrees how very high he mounts up. He had said, “we stand in jeopardy,” he added, “every hour,” then, “daily,” then, “I not only ‘stand in jeopardy,’” says he, but “I even ‘die:’” he concludes accordingly by pointing out also what kind of deaths they were;
Theodoret of Cyrus: He both indicated the extraordinary degree of risk and also revealed his own care. Constantly he is saying, I consigned myself to deaths forseen.
St. Thomas Aquinas: 957. – Then when he says: Every day I die for your glory, he enumerates the dangers in special: first, as to the person; secondly, as to the place (v. 32). 958. – Therefore, he manifests the dangers as to his own person; hence he says: Every day I die, i.e., I suffer not just any dangers, but even those of death, because I die daily, i.e., am in danger of death: “For thy sake we are slain all day long” (Ps 44:22). And the Apostle shows that this was said in the person of the apostles: “Always carrying in the body the death of Jesus” (2 Cor 4:10). For your glory, i.e., that I may acquire the glory I await from your conversion to the faith: “You are my glory and my joy” (2 Th 2:20), which I have i.e., hope to have, in Christ Jesus our Lord, i.e., through the charity of Christ. Another text has, by the glory, and then “by the glory” is an oath. As if to say: By your glory which you await, which is God. As if to say: I swear by God, Whom I have in hope in Christ Jesus, i.e., by His passion. From which it appears that even the Apostle swore, and that among those who are perfect, swearing is not a sin. 959. – The when he says, What do I gain, he specifies the dangers as to place. Here it should be noted that this is read in Ac (chap. 19), which says that when St. Paul had converted many to the faith at Ephesus, some stirred up the people against him, so that he would not dare to go out into the theatre, and that he endured many dangers. Therefore, perhaps he mentions this, because he had suffered from a neighboring town. He says, therefore: What do I gain, if humanly speaking, i.e., according to reason, from which man is man, by disputing about the resurrection, I conclude that man does not die as the beast. I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, with men living in a beastly manner at Ephesus. Or if I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, and I say this not from divine revelation but humanly speaking, i.e., from human instinct, if I have endured such perils.
**Haydock Bible: **Ver. 31. By your glory.[2] He seems, especially by the Greek text, to call God to witness, and to protest by the reasons he has to glory or boast in their conversion, that his life is as it were a continual death. Other expound it, I die daily for your glory; or, that I may have reason to glory for the progress of the gospel. (Witham)
J
jerry_kelso
Guest
This is to everyone:
The reasoning on the things that have been posted about infallibility of the Apostolic message and Apostolic authority and whether or not the catholic church is the only apostolic church there is. The catholic church uses history in connection with the early church more than any other thing.many have said they use all the scriptures on a given subject where many protestants only use a few to prove their point. Also, many have said that scriptures like this one has no one distinct interpretation and that it can have more than interpretation.
The reasoning on the things that have been posted about infallibility of the Apostolic message and Apostolic authority and whether or not the catholic church is the only apostolic church there is. The catholic church uses history in connection with the early church more than any other thing.many have said they use all the scriptures on a given subject where many protestants only use a few to prove their point. Also, many have said that scriptures like this one has no one distinct interpretation and that it can have more than interpretation.
- I believe in the apostolic message and apostolic authority as I have been tutored by an apostle with the message to cause people hate or love him. Folks that loved him recognized that he had the truth and loved him and those who hated him was because the gospel is the offense to those who refuse to believe. He never made a big ordeal about being an apostle but there were times he showed proof just like Peter with Annanias and Sapphiira who lied to the Holy Ghost. One time a man said he was going to kill him in a crusade the apostle was holding and the apostle said you’ll not kill the man of God but you will die this moment at the hands of God and the man instantly fell over dead. Another time, certain people didn’t like his message and told him to leave and he pronounced judgement on them. Judgement fell and the town asked him to come back to preach the gospel and folks got saved. Yes; I believe in apostollic message and authority.
- Sometimes what you believe is overrided by perception which happens with protestants too. Because of your constant usage of catholic infallibility makes protestants believe that means every scripture. Even I have said most like not everyone whether catholics or me probably have the corner on ever single jot and title and some not only argued that the catholic church had the truth on every jot and tittle because they had the infallible teachings. I said that the only fallibility catholics or protestants have are the two things that they agree on; being saved and going to heaven.then all of a sudden people started saying no the only thing fallible is the main doctrines concerning faith and dogma. I’m glad somebody decided to agree with me. I agree that protestants in some circles use their pet scriptures and don’t have a clue about understanding context. Catholics tend to go overboard with history and end up not reconciling with the scriptures.
The perception on this board is that scriptures like I die daily are open to different interpretations but must harmonize with the main doctrines like salvation, baptism, confirmation and so on. This is only partly true.the other reason is to rightly divide the word of truth. Paul also said that all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof. for correction, for instruction in righteousness. Your main perception to a protestant is the main doctine. Is more important than the rest of the scriptures.Out of all the hundreds and hundreds of protestants I have talked to about I die daily not one has got it right. I know this has been too long but I felt that it was important to say these thing as an introduction. I will end withis one and post another one with the interpretation of I die daily. God Bless Jerry Kelso
J
jerry_kelso
Guest
To Everyone, This is the full contextual interpretation of I Die Daily.
- All of the chapter talks about the physical resurrection. the problem is that most everyone wants to go to the spiritual application when they get to I Die daily. They say this because they feel you can’t die everyday. Technically, you could die everyday; and the lord could raise you up everday. This is a possibility not a probability.
- Paul starts the chapter off about the death, burial,and resurrection being thegospel that he preached, vs 1-4.
- Paul gives a record of witnesses of the resurrection. Vs. 5-11.
- He is talking to people that didn’t believe in the physical resurrection. Vs. 12.
- If Christ died and there is no resurrection then everything is in vain meaning Christ died in vain, preaching is in vain, faith is in vain and those who died have perished and the hope we have in Christ is gone and of men they would be most miserablle.vs. 13-19
- The resurrection from the first fruits. All the way to God all in All.vs,20-28.
7.What good is baptism for the dead if they don’t rise at all.vs. 29.
8 why were they in danger.every hour vs.30. - Paul was protesting because living for God was serious business and he could be killed at anytime. The conclusion is that Paul was putting his life on the line for the cause of Christ everyday and if there was no physical resurrection then everything was in vain and he ought to eat, drink, and be merry cause there is no tomorrow.and permanently die.
- This is the context and in 2 Corinthians 4:10 backs it up by saying; we bear about in our bodies the dying of the Lord Jesus. It was the message of the death, burial, and resurrectiion that the were at risk of losing their life everyday and if there was no hope of a physical resurrection their whole life was in vain. The reason this is important; is that when someone doesn’t rightly divide the word this is how we get wrong doctrine and we can’t say the same thing like Paul said to the Corinthians. This is proper exegesis of this verse and its context so there be no divisions among us. And God knows we need to come together;j all of us. God Bless jerry Kelso
N
NHInsider
Guest
So your point is that this unnamed evangelist has the charism of infallibility and since the Church doesn’t insist upon the same interpretation of this specific verse as he does, you conclude proves the Church is not authentically apostolic?
I would observe, btw, that the interpretation you have posted is a good one - but I for one would hesitate to suggest that the entire passage is therefore without application for those of us who live in places and times where one is not at daily risk of martyrdom.
And, of course, I would reject utterly the notion that one man’s “inspiration” trumps the promise of the Holy Spirit’s guidance Jesus gave to the Apostles. cf. William Branham, William Miller, Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith . . .Pelagius, Arius, Simon Magus?
I would observe, btw, that the interpretation you have posted is a good one - but I for one would hesitate to suggest that the entire passage is therefore without application for those of us who live in places and times where one is not at daily risk of martyrdom.
And, of course, I would reject utterly the notion that one man’s “inspiration” trumps the promise of the Holy Spirit’s guidance Jesus gave to the Apostles. cf. William Branham, William Miller, Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith . . .Pelagius, Arius, Simon Magus?
J
jerry_kelso
Guest
NHInsider: you’re missing the whole point.
- Infallibility isn’t the best word necessarily because it gives the perception of haughtiness and highmindness. In this respect protestants and catholics should both be ashamed before God and man. A plain statement of fact is “The Bible is Infallible” and is alriight in this manner. I know that protestants and catholics would defend themselves by saying they mean the word of God and I’m sure they do but either way the perception is that your is infallibility is the church themselves.
- 1 Peter 5:2-4 the apostle Peter says talks to apostles, bishops, and preachers, though not mentioning them by name; and says:
Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind. Neither as being Lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. And when the chief shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away. Even when protestants and catholics try to defend their church and there church and doctrine they usually come off as being proudful and condescending to an etreme detriment to them and others and this doesn’t mean that everybody does it on purpose or with malicious intent. Sometimes it is the nature of the beast of how we are used to responding among other numerous reasons. - What is the authentic apostleship is a great question. If it is being right on every single jot or ittle we may be in trouble. Being right on prominent doctrine both catholics and protestants believe this. This is basically true because all the prominent doctrines like salvation, the Godhead, and so on entails our whole christian lives. At the same time it is not right to give the impression that other scriptures are not as important for doctrine. All scripture is good for doctrine. Such is the passage with I Die Daily
- A certain part of protestants always say it means they die to sin or crucify the flesh. It doesn’t mean that Paul did’t believe in the but. It wasn’t in that passage. In Romans 6; Paul said to die once as Christ did. He also said crucifying the flesh when you get saved and the crucifixion was in the form of spiritual baptism of death; that is the old nature of sin. Some people believe you have to drag the old man which is stupid cause he’ll beat you evey time. This leads into different avenues of a defeated life which is for another post.
- The reason it’s important to be careful with handling the Bible is that it says to rightly divide the word and it cause other wrong doctrines that contradict other main doctrine.
- The men you mention William Branham, etc. were we’ll meaning christians. Some were a little off off doctinally like Pelegais while Branham started gettiing off with things were not necvessarily sdcriptural. Early church fathers didnkt agree on many things. Like Augustine who affected Calvin who still has a hold on protestants and catholic members whether it is legalism or Once saved Always saved. And there’s Origen who thwarted the Godhead.some of may go to heaven, some may not. One thing is for sure is that we will all be judged how we handled the word of God including our motives. God help us not to take the word for granted. God Bless! Jerry Kelso
D
Della
Guest
Not to speak for NHInsider, but this is simply not the case. Firstly, the Bible is not an authority. It is a document. Documents need a proper authority to interpret them be they a letter from a friend (only the friends would know what was meant between them) or the Constitution of the United States of America (only the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret it although it belongs to the people) or the Bible, which is interpreted by Christ’s Church, not the other way around.
Secondly, the Church claims infallibility because it is one of the charisms Christ conferred upon it–in the same way the Queen Elizabeth claims to be the Queen of England–because she is the Queen of England, not because she wishes to put on airs. The Church claims for itself only what Christ gave it.
Protestants deciding matters of faith and morals for their own ecclesial bodies is fine. If they were to claim to have the authority to bind all Christians that would be wrong because they don’t have that authority. It all boils down to Apostolic authority–who has it, who doesn’t and why.
Unless this person was ordained a bishop in the Catholic Church his claims to being an apostle are simply a chimera. It doesn’t matter what “signs” he might demonstrate, apostolic authority can’t simply be claimed, it must be passed down through bishops. In the same way a member of the Supreme Court of the United States of America is appointed and approved, so anyone claiming apostolic succession must be ordained through the proper apostolic channels. He cannot just claim it for himself. That is not the biblical form.
As to interpreting Scripture, as long as it does not contradict Church teaching it is fine. So, most of what you have written about Paul’s writings is probably fine–I simply don’t have the time or inclination to sift through it all.
The Church doesn’t comment on every verse of Scripture. It defines very few passages authoritatively. Why? Because the Bible is not a proof-text for doctrine. It never was meant to be that, and never will be. The Bible is the witness to God’s actions and commandments, Jesus’ life and the life of the Church he founded. It is meant to help and inspire us, not divide us. Jesus founded a Church so we could all be one. It is men who have left it to found their own ecclesial bodies based on their own ideas under the false banner of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide and other such false claims.
J
jerry_kelso
Guest
Della, Jesus said; all power was given to him in and in earth. This authority was given to Christ by the father. John said; in the beginning was the word and the word was with God and the word was God. Jesus and the word are the same and Jesus is the authority and so is the Word. Paul said in Timothy that all scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for docrtrine, reproof,correction, and instruction in righteousness. So Jesus has the authority, he and the word are the same and the word is instruction in righteousness. So the Bible is authoratative and the authority.Not to speak for NHInsider, but this is simply not the case. Firstly, the Bible is not an authority. It is a document. Documents need a proper authority to interpret them be they a letter from a friend (only the friends would know what was meant between them) or the Constitution of the United States of America (only the Supreme Court has the authority to interpret it although it belongs to the people) or the Bible, which is interpreted by Christ’s Church, not the other way around.
Secondly, the Church claims infallibility because it is one of the charisms Christ conferred upon it–in the same way the Queen Elizabeth claims to be the Queen of England–because she is the Queen of England, not because she wishes to put on airs. The Church claims for itself only what Christ gave it.
Protestants deciding matters of faith and morals for their own ecclesial bodies is fine. If they were to claim to have the authority to bind all Christians that would be wrong because they don’t have that authority. It all boils down to Apostolic authority–who has it, who doesn’t and why.
Unless this person was ordained a bishop in the Catholic Church his claims to being an apostle are simply a chimera. It doesn’t matter what “signs” he might demonstrate, apostolic authority can’t simply be claimed, it must be passed down through bishops. In the same way a member of the Supreme Court of the United States of America is appointed and approved, so anyone claiming apostolic succession must be ordained through the proper apostolic channels. He cannot just claim it for himself. That is not the biblical form.
As to interpreting Scripture, as long as it does not contradict Church teaching it is fine. So, most of what you have written about Paul’s writings is probably fine–I simply don’t have the time or inclination to sift through it all.
I agree with apostolic teaching and apostolic authority. The fact is that the catholic church is sorta falls the pattern of the tulip which involves circular reasoning. In it’s own interpretation it cannot be wrong. When the complete truth unfolds in it’s proper bibical context it falls apart. The Bible records that the jews, God’s chosen people he gave the written word through. The catholic church misuses history about history apostollic succession from Peter , some apostles who were protege’s of the apostles and using the word catholic to substantiate there claim there were catholic jews in the early church not to mention the fact that they use the word church without iunderstanding what the one trrue church really is. There is some logic but, on the other hand they tend to be straw men built up to pretend they have the ultimate truth. They do not have the truth completely and the Bible doesn’t back it up, doesn’t imply it or agree with it at all.
Paul was given the revelation by God and eventually went to the other apostles and conferred withem and realized that he had the truth and he didn’t go see them for 3 years.
If you want to talk about history; the apostle I received it from was tutored by a jewish rabbi. Who better than a Jew would know the correct history.
Since Jesus and the word are the same and both are the authority then one who claims to be an apostle must be tried to see whether or not they tell the truth. This is the truth according. the authority of the word and it cannot lie! God Bless
D
Della
Guest
This idea is most certainly not correct. Jesus is not the written words of the Bible. He is the Word of God–the final revelation of God to man. While the Bible is the word of God is it not self-interpreting. If that were the case there would be no disagreements among Protestant ecclesial bodies about basic things like baptism, salvation, predestination, etc. The Bible is a document. Documents need an authoritative interpreter. The Bible’s interpreter is Christ, and who is the Body of Christ, his voice, his witness on earth? The Church he founded. Nowhere in the Bible does it say it interprets itself and is sufficient in matters of faith and morals. Christ gave that authority to his Apostles. That is the biblical pattern.
No, I don’t accept your interpretation of history. Apostolic succession was never questioned by anyone until the 16th century. Sorry, you have been misinformed. And no, a Jewish rabbi would not be the best person to comment on the history of a Church he neither believes in nor supports. There is no real history that supports these ideas. None. And Paul confirmed his election with the other Apostles. He didn’t go off on his own and start his own thing. He was recognized by Peter and worked with him. It is only natural for you as a Protestant to come at these questions from the perspective you were taught, but the truth is not what you have been instructed to believe. As a former Protestant I know right where you are coming from, and I struggled to accept the truth for months and months before finally “getting it”. I don’t expect you to accept my word for any of this. And I consider this discussion closed because I cannot convince you and am not trying to do so. I am merely telling you facts. It’s up to you to look into what I and others have told you, letting the Holy Spirit guide you into all truth.
J
jerry_kelso
Guest
Della, 1. The reason I talked about Christ and the word is because the perception cast is one that the church is so infallible that the word of God is secondary to human beings that supposedly have the truth. Now this is the perception and I am beginning to believe it’s the truth because of the seemingly powerful motive that is evoked as being superior. Now I understand that the truth is powerful in itself but, because you cannot provide adequate facts where history and the Bible harmonize.
2. I already told you that I believe in apostolic teaching and apostolic authority.
3. I knew you would not except the Jew not having the truth for it is true as a nation they are still blinded though there are many that have the truth and they know history. I highly doubt they’ll back up your claim that Peter started succession of Apostles. If you think that you can show history and bible agree on this then prove it. As a former protestant and as a catholic now did you and do you unerstand the Kingdom of Heaven and the Kingdom of God message from the gospels? If you cannot adequately address these subjects the I must believe that the reason you consider this discussion closed is because you have no worthy answer. I believe we all need the Holy Spirit but, at the same time it says to try the spirits and try those who say they are. Apostles… God Bless Jerry Kelso
po18guy
Well-known member
jerry, first, the Church has successors to the Apostles, not actual Apostles. The Catholic Church teaches that the literal meaning of scripture is the true meaning. That is the meaning intended by the author. The CC has not systematically gone over each and every word to set it in stone. Those few times that the Church has done this are solely in response to heresy, as Paul did in his letters and teaching.
Jesus said in Luke 9:23 that if one is to follow Him, he must “deny himself, take up his cross daily, then come, follow me”. Paul’s passage is a clear allusion to the quote of our Lord, even though Paul would know this by revelation, rather than as an eyewitness. If you have another take on this, let’s hear it!
God did not intend this and His Church does not do it. To -]define/-] confine God’s word to what would be the limitation of man’s ability is wrong, and contrary to God’s plan. The mark of the true Church is authority - but also when that authority is not used. Scripture is intended to appeal to each and every soul that reads it. Thus, it must be flexible (within limits) to appeal to each. BUT, I am sure that you will agree that scripture needs proper interpretation, correct?
po18guy
Well-known member
jerry, I think you misunderstand infallibility. Infallibility is normally exercised by the Church in response to heresy, and only in relation to teaching in the areas of faith and morals. Period. The Church has not spoken infallibly in our lifetimes. If it was a false, man-made organization, it would have defined nearly everything, as the cults do.
J
jerry_kelso
Guest
Po18guy:
- I’ve already stated that apostolic succesion which started from Peter cannot be harmonized between history and the Bible and why from the scriptures.
- I understand about hermeneutics.
- I understand the difference between eyewitness and revelation by one who was not an eyewitness.
4, I believe in apostolic doctrinal teaching and authority. You’re not wrong in the principle of the church being apostolic by succession but, in reality it doesn’t measure up with the word of God. - There were at least 20 or more true apostles in the new testament. In revelation the church of Ephesus was commended for trying those who said they were apostles and were not.
- I made this post to not only see if anybody could interpret it right to show why it is important to get it right. All I can say is that they were much closer than most protestants but, still there was no detailed contextual thought. Yes, I agree some scriptures are not gonna make or break our salvation. There are other scriptures that wrongly interpreted will affect our salvation. You say catholic teacing believes in the true intended meaning but they are not sure what it is for I Die Daily or else it don’t really matter if you rock the boat and spiritualize it. This is not rightly dividing the word and this is why we can’t say the same thing. And trust me if one that believes in the true intended meaning can’t interpret a simple passage like this do you think I can trust him to interpret my doctrine? Maybe or maybe not.
- As far as infallibility the perception is that infallibility covers all scripture. Most likely it is percieved this way because of the way believers outside of catholics are seemingly belittled like than cannot understand anything about scripture at all. I finally had to say that the only thing they might or could be infallible about were the main doctines of the church. Then they started agreeing with me.
8.Flexibility does not take precedence over a specific context especially to appeal to people. God’s word is quick and powerful and sharper than any two edged sword piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit and of the joints and marrow and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. God bless! Jerry kelso
- Status