Calling all non-Catholic Christians!

[Non_Serviam]

Kay Cee,

I’m not ignoring all you wrote in your 1st post, it seems that you’ve clearly addressed the difference in how we are approaching this topic in your 2nd post.

As for your question, let’s look at the example you gave from Corinthians. What did God do in that case? He sent a person to provide the answer.

God often works through human beings. He worked through Moses to free the Hebrew slaves. He worked through the prophets to deliver messages to the people. He worked through the early Christians to write the New Testament.

Agreed. We both see a need for leadership in the church. The difference seems to be in the nature of the leadership and the communication.

If there is a misunderstanding, doesn’t it take some sort of evaluative process to even realize a misunderstanding has occurred? And, unless God is speaking directly to the individual with the misunderstanding, doesn’t it take some sort of human participation to clear up that misunderstanding?

To give an example: I mentioned I used to teach high school. Let’s say one day I was teaching a certain concept, one included in the textbook. A student raises his hand and says, “I don’t get it.”

I don’t think the textbook can evaluate that this student doesn’t understand, nor can it take steps to correct him. However, I, as his teacher, would then explain it again, this time in different words and perhaps in more detail.

Now suppose this student says, “Oh, I see.” and then proceeds to tell me his understanding. If he’s right, I tell him so. If he’s wrong, I can still take steps to correct him. It might take quite a bit of communication back and forth before he comes to the correct understanding.

I like your example as it clarifies things. The New Testament speaks frequently to the importance of teachers and teaching. Teaching helps the student (Christian) understand and apply the material learned.

My question is “Did your students believe that you were correct in everything you taught about the subject before they submitted to your instruction?” And further “Did every teacher you worked with correctly know and understand all they were teaching in their subject?”

I know my teachers didn’t teach everything correctly and I made some mistakes when I taught in a couple of different colleges (the mistakes grew fewer as I gained experience ).

Here’s a quote I found on an Apostolic Succession thread asking whether infallibility is needed to avoid doctrinal relativism:

I would say, first, that there’s a big difference between fallibility and relativism. Every human being is fallible in mathematics (me more than most). People make mistakes, and any given mathematical theorem or solution could, in principle, be erroneous in light of the fact that we have no infallible mathematical institution to give us infallibly true math answers. Yet this doesn’t make us mathematical relativists. To the contrary, we do our best, work as carefully as we can, and recognize that there are real right and wrong answers out there, regardless whether we ever achieve perfection in finding them. Exact same thing with matters of doctrine for me. I’m the furthest thing from a relativist, but the first to admit my own fallibility, and every other mortal person’s.

In education, the legal system, government, etc. a group of imperfect people are creating a better overall outcome than any would do individually, “the wisdom of groups” to use a popular term today. I believe the church functions in the same manner. The difference between the church and these other institutions is that God has put His thumb down on our side of the scale and predestined the outcome.

My point with all this is that it takes a human being who can do some sort of evaluation to determine if an understanding is correct or not. Now, in any subject (including theology) you’d have to be certain the teacher understood the concept correctly or he might teach it wrong. Paul, in the example you used, understood correctly and taught correctly. That is, there must be some sort of “getting it right” in order to pass it on right.

So the question that arises for me is: can we find a teacher within Protestantism whom we are certain “gets it right”?

If not, how does God choose to lead us into all truth?

I believe that God places teachers and other leaders in the church to bring the church toward unity and truth without necessarily certifying a specific pastor or teacher as free from teaching any error. So I don’t point to a specific time or denomination that “has/had” it right" but rather to the tendency toward unity of understanding and a refocusing on core essentials of the faith.

In doing so I recognize that God will use His own scale to judge those who have done their best to serve, follow and understand Him and that He will decide when and if someone’s knowledge of him is so deficient as to merit judgment.

One additional point:consider the historic nature of the church. For most of its existence it has lacked access to mass communication. If “getting it right” hinges on one person or a small group of individuals teaching the correct things, then many if not most Christians since the time of Jesus had no access to some or all of those teachings for varying periods of time.

OTOH if God has been working with leaders and teachers, however imperfect, since Jesus walked the earth and He corrects their mistakes and human tendencies toward pride and seeking authority (both of which we see in the Epistles) through various means including permitting divisions then we have cause for hope and faith even if “the church” isn’t currently as neat and tidy as we might desire it to be.

Once again we’re back at the question of how God chose to work with the church in this age. déjà vu or what!

 

[qui_est_ce]

That person was going off topic, and so are you.

(It’s very easy to do, in this thread.)

OOPS, I fell for it too, sorry.

 

[LutheranDK]

To the starter of this thread: Greetings. I did not have room to include your original post. Hope you can remember what you wrote

As you might guess from my nick, I would claim that Lutheran orthodoxy (not the heresy so politically correctly called "liberal theology) that has run rampant across my native Denmark in the past century) is what comes closest to the original gospel.
Luther went ad fontes - to the sources - i.e. Scripture, of course, and Augustine.

I think that the Church (and by that I mean the one universal church - the hidden community of all believers - and not any one denomination) lost its roots sometime in the Dark Age, indeed it started going haywire when Constantine the Great, and later Theodosius the Great, decided that Christianity would be an excellent way to control the masses.

As for your “There cannot be a universal “spiritual” Christian church without theological unity” - comment, I would like to know your reasons for claiming this.
I must admit that the current divisions in Christendom is a burden for me. I would like nothing more than for the Church of Christ to be visibly one, as it is one in spirit. But the errors of men, which have formed theology, have made this impossible on this side of the Last Day.
For instance. In the movie “Luther” (which I do NOT mention to start a debate about it…only to illustrate a point), cardinal Cajetan says, on the pope’s deathbed, “He was a spiritual dwarf, when we needed a giant like Luther”. I doubt very much that the cardinal ever said that, of course, but I can subscribe to the words. Or maybe Phillip Melanchton would have been a better choice. Anyway - my point is that if the Curia had elected a pope that was more concerned with theology than Italian politics, and who had made the reforms that even reformed catholics deemed neccessary, I doubt very much that the Reformation would have occured at all.

My point in all this? Ideally speaking, I would like unity in organisation. But it is not feasible. The Roman church subscribes to doctrine that Scripture contradict, and recognize as canonical writings which are filled with anachronisms and other errors, clearly indicating their non-authenticity (I’m talking about the Apocrypha).

You refer to the Apostles, and to Our Lord’s promise to be with the Church always. And finish off by asking why protestants trust the Bible, when it is the product of the Roman church.

My answer is this: All of those objections are flawed. And here’s why:

1: From the time of the Apostles to the first claim from the leadership in Rome on special authority, the so-called easter dispute around 190 AD, there were some 100 years, AT LEAST. Plenty of time for the traditions of men to work its influence - especially in a church that did not yet think of the congregation in Rome as the Roman church does today. Indeed, before 140 AD, there wasn’t even a bishop in Rome - the church there was lead by a council of “πρεσβυτερoι” - “presbyterians” → “priests”. One was then elected to speak for the church in Rome, but he was nothing more than “prima inter pares” - “the first among equals”; there was no monarchical episcopate like in the rest of
Christendom.

2: No, Jesus was not lying, but He was not talking about the Roman church either. He was talking about the one church - the “εκκλεσια” (“gathering”) of believers.
The Roman church as we know it did not even exist until after the fall of the Western Empire.

Which leads me to.

3: The Roman church did not give Christendom the Bible. Virtually all of what today comprises the Bible was recognized as canonical by the middle of the second century - well before the denomination now known as the Roman church came into existence (which was indeed a gradual process, beginning with the beginning cults of saints and Mary, and culminating with the increased power of the bishop of Rome after the fall of the Western Empire and beyond).
True, that the present canon was not compiled in its entirety until the Council of Nicea in 325. But what of it? The parts of the Bible that was not recognized already by Muratori’s canon in the middle of the second century, certainly brings a lot of blessing, and offer depths of theology, but bring no essentially earth-shattering theology to the canon.

I agree with your last point. The division in Christendom was not Christ’s intention. But the directions the church took was not His intentions either.

A Danish proverb roughly translates as: “That’s like choosing between catching the plague, and cholera.”. That proverb would seem to apply here.

Your entire reasoning is build on the premise that the present-day Roman church was the “original” church. A premise that I cannot subsribe to, because of the lack of evidence FOR it, and abundance of evidence AGAINST it.

Finally: If the Roman church is infallible, why has it then contradicted itself so many times? For instance: Why can the Council of Trent so boldly declare that those who are not part of the Roman church are lost, while Vatican II recognize Protestants as Christians, and even leave room for the salvation of Rabbinic Jews, and Moslems?
If the Roman church is infallible, it cannot make doctrinal mistakes. But one of those above mentioned statements are false. Ergo - the Roman church CAN commit doctrinal errors → it is not infallible.

And if it can fail in ONE area, why not in another?

I hope you get my points, because it’s about time I get to bed…have to be at the Faculty tomorrow at 8 to prepare for two Greek lessons on Thursday, so I need to get some sleep.

In Him

LutheranDK

 

[jmcrae]

Finally: If the Roman church is infallible, why has it then contradicted itself so many times? For instance: Why can the Council of Trent so boldly declare that those who are not part of the Roman church are lost, while Vatican II recognize Protestants as Christians, and even leave room for the salvation of Rabbinic Jews, and Moslems?

The Council of Trent declared them “anathema” (not Catholic, with the implication that they are in error) - it had no authority to declare them or anybody else to be “lost.”

 

[LutheranDK]

The Council of Trent declared them “anathema” (not Catholic, with the implication that they are in error) - it had no authority to declare them or anybody else to be “lost.”

Absolutely LAST comment before I’m off to bed…can’t seem to be able to drag myself away from the computer

Isn’t the description you give a slightly…pedantic, I believe is the right word, when the axiom “Extra ecclesiam nulla salvus” was still thought to be about the Roman church?
What I mean is: Could the Council of Trent declare Protestants anathema without thereby claiming that they were outside of salvation - that is, from the view of the Roman church?

 

[MawmawRae]

The Catholic church did NOT give us the Bible~~~~~~~!
God inspired individual men to write the Bible.
The Jews gave us the Bible if you want to be technical.
There is One Church the Bride of Christ, the Body of true believers
scattered all over the world.
We happen to gather in local congregations of like faith.
But there is One Faith, One Lord, One Baptism.
Jesus did not start a denomination, Peter simply made the first confession of faith that Jesus is the Son of God and upon that
confession of Truth Jesus has been building His Church—which is His Bride.

 

[jmcrae]

Absolutely LAST comment before I’m off to bed…can’t seem to be able to drag myself away from the computer

Isn’t the description you give a slightly…pedantic, I believe is the right word, when the axiom “Extra ecclesiam nulla salvus” was still thought to be about the Roman church?
What I mean is: Could the Council of Trent declare Protestants anathema without thereby claiming that they were outside of salvation - that is, from the view of the Roman church?

To the natural eye, it would certainly seem that they had disembarked from the Ark of Salvation, yes. Of course there is nothing to say that they can’t just swim for it.

Keep in mind too that the Council fathers were referring to schismatics who were perfectly well aware of what they were doing - go to St. Andrew’s just outside of Dundee, if you are under the illusion that the Protesants were a bunch of nice guys who were just asking a few questions, and read the graffitti that is painted on the smashed statues of the Apostles - these guys knew they were rejecting the religion that Jesus founded and that the Apostles had practiced, and they were quite proud of the fact, too.

Modern day Protestants for the most part have no idea of history or where they came from; they are born into these religions and have no way of knowing any differently.

 

[twopekinguys]

The Catholic church did NOT give us the Bible~~~~~~~!
God inspired individual men to write the Bible.
The Jews gave us the Bible if you want to be technical.

If you want to get “technical”, the Jews gave us the old testament.The new testament wasn’t added until the 4th century(well before the reformation). So, “technically”, you did get the Bible from the Catholic church. Even though it was truly inspired by God. Here is a link to a very site you may find interesting.
biblicaltheology.com/Research/MartinezR01.html

 

[LutheranDK]

To the natural eye, it would certainly seem that they had disembarked from the Ark of Salvation, yes. Of course there is nothing to say that they can’t just swim for it.

Keep in mind too that the Council fathers were referring to schismatics who were perfectly well aware of what they were doing - go to St. Andrew’s just outside of Dundee, if you are under the illusion that the Protesants were a bunch of nice guys who were just asking a few questions, and read the graffitti that is painted on the smashed statues of the Apostles - these guys knew they were rejecting the religion that Jesus founded and that the Apostles had practiced, and they were quite proud of the fact, too.

Modern day Protestants for the most part have no idea of history or where they came from; they are born into these religions and have no way of knowing any differently.

No one “knew” that they were rejecting “the religion that Jesus founded and the Apostles had practiced”. Luther continued to call himself “catholic” to the day he died - thereby NOT meaning, however, that he was in communion with the pope. He believed, as do I, that he had rediscovered doctrines of truth that the Roman church had done away with. In essence - it was Luther’s belief that it was the Roman church that had rejected “the religion that Jesus founded and the Apostles had practiced”.

 

[Nick_Jones]

That person was going off topic, and so are you.

(It’s very easy to do, in this thread.)

Very easy indeed. I quoted from post #1 of this thread. That means this thread got side tracked even before anyone had a chance to respond!

 

[ChristianRoots]

The Catholic church did NOT give us the Bible~~~~~~~!

Question: How do you know that the Gospels are inspired by God? Afterall, no where in the Gospels does it say that they are inspired. There were many other books written about Jesus’ life during this time. Why don’t you believe in any of those books? Why just the four gospels? Answer: It was the Catholic Church, inspired by the Holy Spirit, to declare which books were inspired and which were not.

God inspired individual men to write the Bible.

No serious Protestant biblical scholar holds to that interpretation anymore. Peter is the rock and on that rock, the Church would be built. Gender differences in the Greek concerning word rock prevented Matthew to use the same exact word. But do not forget that in Aramaic, the language spoken by our Lord, there is no such distinction.

 

[O.S.Luke]

Hypothetically, let us say that the Catholic Church is indeed completely false…

You guys cannot trust Catholicism, then which of these man-made churches and interpretations are we to go to for truth? There cannot be a universal “spiritual” Christian church without theological unity. Why is it taking two thousand years after Christ’s resurrection for people to figure out Christianity? Did Jesus not teach His Apostle’s well enough to pass it through the generations? Was Jesus lying when He said He would be with His Church always?

Instead of listing the doctrines of Catholicism you cannot understand, show me the reasons why a Protestant church is superior among another Protestant church, etc.

If the Catholic Church is so wrong, why do you trust it enough to trust the Bible that she gave us? Despite the lack of books in a Protestant Bible, the rest was compiled by the Catholic Church. If the Catholic Church is so wrong how did it compile the New Testament correctly but pervert the rest of the religion in the meantime?

Jesus did not send His disciples out to teach differently. So each denomination teaching differently cannot be what Christ intended.

I desire any responses!

The original post - above.

This is just another baiting thread. In fact, from what I’ve read over the years, any post that starts with “Calling all Protestants!” or “Calling All non-Catholic Christians” or “Attention, all Protestants” is just bait and a set up.

The first sentence is the give away: “Hypothetically…” It’s a set up for a fight.

Other statements are already asserting a negative tone, and assumes that all Protestant Churches assert that their church is superior than others. This is certainly not the case in many communions.

I would submit that these types of baiting threads are a bit disingenuous, and suggest that fellow non-Catholics not take the bait anymore.

How is the purpose of the Kingdom and the Body of Christ served by these threads?

Pax,

O+

 

[Kay_Cee]

Kay Cee,

I’m not ignoring all you wrote in your 1st post, it seems that you’ve clearly addressed the difference in how we are approaching this topic in your 2nd post.

Not a problem. Let’s do skip ahead if we can. It seems we agree on a lot, so that’s helpful.

Agreed. We both see a need for leadership in the church. The difference seems to be in the nature of the leadership and the communication.

This would seem to be the heart of the matter, all right.

I like your example as it clarifies things. The New Testament speaks frequently to the importance of teachers and teaching. Teaching helps the student (Christian) understand and apply the material learned.

My question is “Did your students believe that you were correct in everything you taught about the subject before they submitted to your instruction?” And further “Did every teacher you worked with correctly know and understand all they were teaching in their subject?”

I know my teachers didn’t teach everything correctly and I made some mistakes when I taught in a couple of different colleges (the mistakes grew fewer as I gained experience ).

Of course neither I nor my teachers were infallible. However, I wasn’t being guided by God (I taught English), and neither were they.

Here’s a quote I found on an Apostolic Succession thread asking whether infallibility is needed to avoid doctrinal relativism:

I’m not seeing the relevance here. Forgive me, I woke up with a migrane this morning and am a bit out of it.

In education, the legal system, government, etc. a group of imperfect people are creating a better overall outcome than any would do individually, “the wisdom of groups” to use a popular term today. I believe the church functions in the same manner. The difference between the church and these other institutions is that God has put His thumb down on our side of the scale and predestined the outcome.

I believe that God places teachers and other leaders in the church to bring the church toward unity and truth without necessarily certifying a specific pastor or teacher as free from teaching any error. So I don’t point to a specific time or denomination that “has/had” it right" but rather to the tendency toward unity of understanding and a refocusing on core essentials of the faith.

I have to argue that you believe in infallibility of a sort. Didn’t those who penned scripture do so infallibly? If God can guide them to act infallibly, certainly he can guide others to act infallibly too. The question is whether or not he does, don’t you think?

In doing so I recognize that God will use His own scale to judge those who have done their best to serve, follow and understand Him and that He will decide when and if someone’s knowledge of him is so deficient as to merit judgment.

You’re getting into salvation again, and the idea you seem to ascribe to me that one must have correct doctrine in order to be saved. I don’t believe that, and it’s not my point.

My point is that ideas have consequences. False doctrine can lead people astray. For example, someone who is considering Christianity may look at the various denominations, see no doctrinal unity, and conclude that, since they disagree with each other, these folks don’t know what they’re talking about when they say they have the truth. He therefore rejects Christianity. I’ve heard of people who have done exactly that. I find it extremely worrisome.

One additional point:consider the historic nature of the church. For most of its existence it has lacked access to mass communication. If “getting it right” hinges on one person or a small group of individuals teaching the correct things, then many if not most Christians since the time of Jesus had no access to some or all of those teachings for varying periods of time.

I would argue that if there’s a hierarchy of leadership, then one could appeal to one’s local leader, and if he didn’t know the answer to one’s question, he could appeal further up the hierarchy. I’d also like to point out that we see examples in early Christianity where councils were called to settle issues, such as the circumcision issue in Acts. So, when questions arose, there was a way to deal with them, even in an age when mass communication was impossible.

OTOH if God has been working with leaders and teachers, however imperfect, since Jesus walked the earth and He corrects their mistakes and human tendencies toward pride and seeking authority (both of which we see in the Epistles) through various means including permitting divisions then we have cause for hope and faith even if “the church” isn’t currently as neat and tidy as we might desire it to be.

Once again we’re back at the question of how God chose to work with the church in this age. déjà vu or what!

And that’s the crux of the matter, huh?

Allow me to kind of recap where we’ve come so far:

We agree that God desires unity of doctrine, and he desires for his children to have the truth. However,

1. Scripture, even though it is the inerrant word of God, is open to misinterpretation.
2. A claim to being guided by the Holy Spirit is no guarantee that one actually is, despite how sincere the believer might be (else all who implore him would come to the same conclusions).

So what are we left with? Just our best guess? Is that really the best God provides his children even though he desires for them to be united in the truth? What kind of God is this if he desires such unity for his children but gives them no means of attaining it?

 

[jmcrae]

No one “knew” that they were rejecting “the religion that Jesus founded and the Apostles had practiced”. Luther continued to call himself “catholic” to the day he died - thereby NOT meaning, however, that he was in communion with the pope. He believed, as do I, that he had rediscovered doctrines of truth that the Roman church had done away with. In essence - it was Luther’s belief that it was the Roman church that had rejected “the religion that Jesus founded and the Apostles had practiced”.

Then why did they smash the statues of the Apostles, and write derogatory and hateful things about them on the walls of St. Andrew’s Cathedral?

 

[LutheranDK]

Then why did they smash the statues of the Apostles, and write derogatory and hateful things about them on the walls of St. Andrew’s Cathedral?

Please prove that!
And after having done that, tell me WHO did it. Sounds like something Karlstadt might have come up with, or the “Schwärmers” - who linked their twisted theology to the peasant riot in Germany.

As your post is right now, it is nothing more than an unsubstantiated claim, which you’ll have to forgive me not taking your word for…

 

[jmcrae]

Please prove that!

I was there!! You can go there, too - they are quite proud of their “Protestant heritage.” I can’t remember if I took photos of it, but I’ll go through my photo albums and see.

And after having done that, tell me WHO did it.

John Knox and some of his followers, according to the tour guide.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Of course neither I nor my teachers were infallible. However, I wasn’t being guided by God (I taught English), and neither were they.

I hope you are feeling better by now. I can understand how that would make it difficult to go through our points.

What I was saying with the teaching and mathematics examples was that humans are confident that there is a body of correct mathematical knowledge that exists without having an ultimate authority who is the final arbiter of that knowledge. There are relative authorities for bodies of knowledge (you were one as an English teacher, I was one when I taught Communications and Marketing). Neither of us was the final authority, nor did we submit our decisions and teaching to a final authority and yet generally there was confidence that what we were teaching was correct.

I agree that there has been disunity and diversity of doctrine for some time. I believe that there are a number of reasons for this that are outside the scope of this thread. I also believe that God is initiating dialogue and discussion between believers and is using various means to move His body toward unity and truth. people of different Christian backgrounds are discovering similarities and reaching joint conclusions on matters of belief. Having said that I also believe it will take a long time before we get there.

I have to argue that you believe in infallibility of a sort. Didn’t those who penned scripture do so infallibly? If God can guide them to act infallibly, certainly he can guide others to act infallibly too. The question is whether or not he does, don’t you think?

I have to disagree, although you may call it a question of semantics. For me God has specified that a certain body of texts is inerrant in the originals. While God did indeed preserve the individuals that wrote these texts from writing error (within the normal context of the writings) there was not necessarily any promise given or awareness on the part of these people that this was occurring. That for me is the difference from the typical definition of infallibility. We know for example that in Scripture Paul references another Epistle that he wrote but we have no copy of that Epistle. Did it contain error? I don’t know, likely a minuscule amount if any but I would contend that we couldn’t label it inerrant simply because Paul wrote it.

Does that make sense?

You’re getting into salvation again, and the idea you seem to ascribe to me that one must have correct doctrine in order to be saved. I don’t believe that, and it’s not my point.

My point is that ideas have consequences. False doctrine can lead people astray. For example, someone who is considering Christianity may look at the various denominations, see no doctrinal unity, and conclude that, since they disagree with each other, these folks don’t know what they’re talking about when they say they have the truth. He therefore rejects Christianity. I’ve heard of people who have done exactly that. I find it extremely worrisome.

Aha! Now I see where the miscommunication was. When you wrote about people being “lost” due to false doctrine, I interpreted it to mean those who are already believers, not those who are considering Christianity. My mistake.

In that light, I would agree it would be a terrible thing, but my experience has been more often that people don’t choose Jesus as a result of a lack of love on the part of his followers or if they see believers acting hypocritically.

I feel better now that I’m not misunderstanding you.

(continued below)

 

[Non_Serviam]

(continued from above)

I would argue that if there’s a hierarchy of leadership, then one could appeal to one’s local leader, and if he didn’t know the answer to one’s question, he could appeal further up the hierarchy. I’d also like to point out that we see examples in early Christianity where councils were called to settle issues, such as the circumcision issue in Acts. So, when questions arose, there was a way to deal with them, even in an age when mass communication was impossible.

Agreed. We see this in the New Testament. We also see in the Epistles of Paul and John the rise of local leaders who weren’t leading the church properly, in spite of being properly chosen and “ordained” and we see that even this early in the church’s history that this was a problem they were finding difficult to address.

There seems to be a reluctance to remove someone from leadership except as a last resort. As a result the “less than ideal” leaders were able to have significant impact on the churches they were a part of. So I am simply trying to account for both situations in my understanding of how the church functions. The good with the bad, the the shepherd and the hireling, the Peter and the Judas.

And that’s the crux of the matter, huh?

Allow me to kind of recap where we’ve come so far:

We agree that God desires unity of doctrine, and he desires for his children to have the truth. However,

1. Scripture, even though it is the inerrant word of God, is open to misinterpretation.
2. A claim to being guided by the Holy Spirit is no guarantee that one actually is, despite how sincere the believer might be (else all who implore him would come to the same conclusions).

So what are we left with? Just our best guess? Is that really the best God provides his children even though he desires for them to be united in the truth? What kind of God is this if he desires such unity for his children but gives them no means of attaining it?

Agreed on the first two points, although it would be good to remember that God’s promise of the Spirit’s guidance can be kept sometimes in spite of ourselves and our preferences.

I would add to the list:

1. We have the previous example of Israel, who in spite of many fallible leaders and less that shining historical moments, was still used of God to bring the Messiah to the world, thus fulfilling His will for Israel.
2. We have examples of good and bad leadership, church divisions and misunderstandings of even the most foundational Christian doctrines in churches the Apostles had founded.
3. Jesus with foreknowledge of the church, felt that it needed prayer for unity and for guidance into all truth.

I don’t think it’s a matter of guessing, but rather “studying to show ourselves approved”, prayer and worshiping and discussing with other believers and those who have come before us as we attempt to grow in unity and truth.

I think we are very close, but there is still a gap. I also think we understand each other’s position better than we did a few days ago, which should make for better discussion between us and with others in the future.

 

[Kay_Cee]

I hope you are feeling better by now. I can understand how that would make it difficult to go through our points.

Thank you, yes. The migrane is gone today.

What I was saying with the teaching and mathematics examples was that humans are confident that there is a body of correct mathematical knowledge that exists without having an ultimate authority who is the final arbiter of that knowledge. There are relative authorities for bodies of knowledge (you were one as an English teacher, I was one when I taught Communications and Marketing). Neither of us was the final authority, nor did we submit our decisions and teaching to a final authority and yet generally there was confidence that what we were teaching was correct.

True, but mathematics is not divinely revealed knowledge. Mathematical rules are discoverable by human reasoning. While some of Christian theology is discoverable by human reasoning (for example, philosophical arguments for God’s existence), I submit that a great bulk of it is known only by divine revelation.

And when God communicates a message, isn’t he going to do it in a way that insures the messenger gets it right? For example, in the Old Testament, when he selected prophets, didn’t he make certain those prophets delivered his message correctly?

I agree that there has been disunity and diversity of doctrine for some time. I believe that there are a number of reasons for this that are outside the scope of this thread. I also believe that God is initiating dialogue and discussion between believers and is using various means to move His body toward unity and truth. people of different Christian backgrounds are discovering similarities and reaching joint conclusions on matters of belief. Having said that I also believe it will take a long time before we get there.

What to do about the situation now does seem a bit off-topic. I can’t, however, believe the disunity we see was ever God’s plan (I doubt you think that either), since he did pray for unity. And since he wants us to be united in doctrine, wouldn’t he provide a way for that *at all times? *That is, wouldn’t he have provided a way in the past, even though some may not have followed that way?

For example, God desires the salvation of men. He provides a way for that to happen. The fact that some don’t take advantage of this way doesn’t mean the way doesn’t exist. So that fact that we see disunity doesn’t mean God didn’t provide a way for that unity to exist.

I have to disagree, although you may call it a question of semantics. For me God has specified that a certain body of texts is inerrant in the originals. While God did indeed preserve the individuals that wrote these texts from writing error (within the normal context of the writings) there was not necessarily any promise given or awareness on the part of these people that this was occurring. That for me is the difference from the typical definition of infallibility. We know for example that in Scripture Paul references another Epistle that he wrote but we have no copy of that Epistle. Did it contain error? I don’t know, likely a minuscule amount if any but I would contend that we couldn’t label it inerrant simply because Paul wrote it.

Does that make sense?

I see what you’re saying, but it’s not my point. Guess I’m not communicating this well.

What I meant was that God protected the writers of scripture from error under a certain circumstance. That is, he protected them from writing error. This doesn’t mean they were infallible in all ways at all times. I would further argue that the early Christians who canonized those scriptures were protected from error when they did so. This doesn’t mean they couldn’t make mistakes in other regards.

I’m getting the impression that you think of infallibility as something that renders a person incapable of making a mistake under all conditions and at any time. I would define it as a charism that protects a person from teaching error under particular circumstances. Note that this is a negative charism, that is, it only protects a person from doing something–teaching error. It’s about what he can’t do, not what he can or should do.

And I submit that the writers of scripture were given this charism of infallibility while they were penning scripture. Somehow God guided them to put the correct characters on the scroll. Otherwise, I would have to conclude that scripture might be full of errors.

Aha! Now I see where the miscommunication was. When you wrote about people being “lost” due to false doctrine, I interpreted it to mean those who are already believers, not those who are considering Christianity. My mistake.

In that light, I would agree it would be a terrible thing, but my experience has been more often that people don’t choose Jesus as a result of a lack of love on the part of his followers or if they see believers acting hypocritically.

Maybe so, but the fact remains that some are lost because of disunity. Even one soul eternally lost is far too many.

I feel better now that I’m not misunderstanding you.

(continued below)

I’ll try to be more clear in the future.

 

[Kay_Cee]

(continued from above)
Agreed. We see this in the New Testament. We also see in the Epistles of Paul and John the rise of local leaders who weren’t leading the church properly, in spite of being properly chosen and “ordained” and we see that even this early in the church’s history that this was a problem they were finding difficult to address.

And I’ll take special note of the fact that God worked through human beings here to settle these issues.

Nobody is saying that all leaders (for example, your local minister) are granted infallibility. If, however, even one person existed whom God had granted a charism to make him incapable of teaching error, you could appeal to that individual to get a doctrinal point straightened out.

Let’s say, for example, that it’s the first century. You and I disagree about a doctrinal issue. If we could ask Jesus directly, I’m sure you would agree he would give us the right answer. However, he’s already ascended into heaven. So, instead, we go to one of the apostles. After all, Jesus did tell them, “Whoever listens to you listens to me.” (Luke 10:16) So we tell the apostle our dilemma, and we listen to him. I for one would take his answer as an absolute certainty, even if he said you were right and I was wrong.

There seems to be a reluctance to remove someone from leadership except as a last resort. As a result the “less than ideal” leaders were able to have significant impact on the churches they were a part of. So I am simply trying to account for both situations in my understanding of how the church functions. The good with the bad, the the shepherd and the hireling, the Peter and the Judas.

If you’re speaking about sinning, I would argue that infallibility and impeccability are two different things.

Agreed on the first two points, although it would be good to remember that God’s promise of the Spirit’s guidance can be kept sometimes in spite of ourselves and our preferences.

I would add to the list:

1. We have the previous example of Israel, who in spite of many fallible leaders and less that shining historical moments, was still used of God to bring the Messiah to the world, thus fulfilling His will for Israel.

And again I would like to point out that God often brought Israel back from its less than shining moments by using human beings to relay his messages.

1. We have examples of good and bad leadership, church divisions and misunderstandings of even the most foundational Christian doctrines in churches the Apostles had founded.

Which were handled, again, through human beings.

1. Jesus with foreknowledge of the church, felt that it needed prayer for unity and for guidance into all truth.

I would argue that Jesus prayed this because of human nature, not because something was intrinsically wrong with the church Jesus established. If it were a case of something intrinsically wrong with the church, then I would have to conclude God is not very good at establishing one.

Come to think of it, why would God establish a church within which one, in many cases, could never be sure of doctrinal truth? Wouldn’t he have provided for cases that are not covered by scripture, like cloning? Wouldn’t he have given us a way to know with absolute certainty if cloning is morally acceptable or not? Is there no place a Christian can go to find the answer to that?

I don’t think it’s a matter of guessing, but rather “studying to show ourselves approved”, prayer and worshiping and discussing with other believers and those who have come before us as we attempt to grow in unity and truth.

Just so we’re clear, are you saying that was God’s plan from the start?

I think we are very close, but there is still a gap. I also think we understand each other’s position better than we did a few days ago, which should make for better discussion between us and with others in the future.

I agree, although I have to admit the lack of clarity was mostly due to me (and perhaps the migrane). I didn’t mention it before, but I’ve been ill for about a week. First I had a cold, then the flu, then another kind of flu. Today, fortunately, I feel fine. Let’s just hope my brain is firing on all thrusters, and that I don’t come down with something else!