Denominations which allow Women Pastors.

[EvangelCatholic]

I don’t really see the significance. Not that you necessarily believe that, but many people think that LWF has ecclesial jurisdiction. It does’t. If the LWF makes a statement, its member churches can ignore it completely if they so wish.

This makes the Catholic–Lutheran Dialogues a bit weird, since we have one Church (the Roman Catholic Church) in discussion with a federation without any real jurisdiction to speak on behalf of its member churches.

There is no ecclesial jurisdiction among Lutherans aside from the bishops/ archbishops/ synod presidents. Lutherans are united only in our faithful adherence to holy Scripture and the Confessions. It doesn’t matter who or what organization represents the Lutheran partner in dialogue with the Roman Catholic church. It is because we believe Augustana is Catholic. For example, even the Missouri Synod accepts and fully participated in the Dialogue up until recently.

 

[Porknpie]

Where did I say it wasn’t?

However, what would be the secondary propositions to use a fortiori that are being based on this one?

Isaiah,

I think PR and myself mistook your “faith or morals” comment - that the Church is infallible on these topics - to exclude scripture which PR was conversing on: that the Church has been right over and over … and over … in consistently proclaiming that there are 27 books in the NT and 46 in the OT.

What is the a fortiori question you are asking?

PnP

 

[TheSeeker2014]

Yep. That’s what I said. The Holy Spirit protects the Church from teaching that which is false as true.

And they “just happened” to get it right all those times?

The Holy Spirit guided them in these councils–you acknowledge that.

But it didn’t protect them from teaching error.

They just did it on their own.

Oh, the convoluted logic that people will accept in order to justify their rejection of the Church being given the charism of infallibility!

Im sorry but I just have to comment on this one even though almost this whole thread now is off topic… (and I promised not to comment to add to it)
You just admitted the church was led by the Holy Spirit while deciding on the cannon and did it on their own authority.
But you had said in the past posts that they did not pray and study (*look into ) the books. They just picked up whatever Christians at that time were reading.
How else can the Holy Spirit lead you if you are not in communication (prayer) about the books? and which ones should be put in the cannon? And if God was leading them to pick out the books to make the cannon, they obviously did not do it on their own authority.

So the earlier people could have been led by the Spirit but people of now cannot? hmm… interesting…
oh, because everyone will come to different conclusions?
no.
Oh, because people are deciding things by their own authority…
again, no.
because if they were really being led by the Spirit they would all be led to the same.

For the Church to discern the Spirit who was talking to and to help them make the RIGHT decision, they had to test the spirits that were talking like script says one should. In doing so sincerely, God leads you to Himself as he does not want to be misrepresented (as i stated earlier) God or the Holy Spirit will speak… it is ones choice to listen… and also to clear their mind to have ears that hear.
And if this processes is done in sincerity and an err is met, God will eventually get their attention and lead them to where they need to be.
This whole thing is part of the praying and testing to know whether scripts are God inspired or not… or on other matters.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m not sure but maybe recognizing any possibility at all of human fallibility in the teaching of faith not necessarily being right in all circumstances, might ruin their faith.

Recognizing any possibility at all of human fallibility would ruin any arguments *you *have when you seek recourse to using the NT.

Thus, whenever you say, “I believe that God is love”.
When, say, an atheist asks you: how do you know?
And you cite: 1 John…

you’ll have to say, “Except that I don’t really know for sure if that is true, because I don’t really know for sure if 1 John is God’s Word, because I don’t really know if the Church which discerned this for me, is correct, because I don’t really believe the Church has been given the charism of infallibility.”

See? Ruined.

Also, whenever you argue against any Catholic teaching your position will be ruined.

For example. Let’s say you say, “Well, God wouldn’t care if [fill in the blank] because God said [fill in the blank] which seems to argue against Catholic teaching A”

All the Catholic has to do is say, “Well, since you don’t believe that the Church has been given the charism of infallibility, then you can’'t know that the Church got it right in discerning that this Scripture verse is actually theopneustos, then you can’t actually know that God really said [fill in the blank], can you?”

Your argument against Catholic teaching A will be ruined.

 

[PRmerger]

Im sorry but I just have to comment on this one even though almost this whole thread now is off topic… (and I promised not to comment to add to it)
You just admitted the church was led by the Holy Spirit while deciding on the cannon and did it on their own authority.

Nope. Not on their own authority. Never on their own authority.

But you had said in the past posts that they did not pray and study (*look into ) the books. They just picked up whatever Christians at that time were reading.

Nope. Never said that “they just picked up whatever Christians at that time were reading” either.

 

[TheSeeker2014]

Thus, whenever you say, “I believe that God is love”.
When, say, an atheist asks you: how do you know?
And you cite: 1 John…

I would hope I would not quote from a book to answer that… mostly because one should be telling the Atheist their experience of God loving them through a relationship with God…
How do you have one?
Prayer.

 

[TheSeeker2014]

Nope. Not on their own authority. Never on their own authority.

Nope. Never said that “they just picked up whatever Christians at that time were reading” either.

glad we agree on those two things.

 

[SteveVH]

glad we agree on those two things.

Before you agree too much you should understand that the Church was given unprecedented authority; the authority to bind and loose and the authority to forgive sins. The authority did not originate with “men”, it originated with Jesus who had received all authority from his Father. It also received the Holy Spirit who would lead it into all truth.

So the Church has its own authority, given by Christ. Because of the authority to bind and loose, what it says, goes, and we can be assured, by the Holy Spirit, that it will not err. The voice of the Church is the voice of Christ.

Something that I think is often overlooked is the fact that the Catholic Church does not look to itself for its authority, but rather to Christ and the Holy Spirit, which is very well laid out in the New Testament.

 

[PRmerger]

So the earlier people could have been led by the Spirit but people of now cannot? hmm… interesting…

And here, Seeker, you have just unwittingly provided great apologia for the charism of infallibility.

It is indeed present in the “people of now”, just as it was present in the “earlier people”. Yes, indeed!

But let’s be clear here about our terms. When you refer to “earlier people” (who discerned the canon of the NT), what you are actually referring to is “Catholic people”. Catholic men. Catholic bishops, to be exact.

For they met during the Councils of Rome, Hippo, Carthage, Nicea, Florence, Trent to infallibly discern this 27 book canon of the NT.

So, yes, indeed, “earlier people” (who were Catholic men. Catholic bishops) were given the charism of infallibility.

And you are indeed correct: why should the “people of now”, who are their successors, be any different.

Thus, our Catholic bishops, too, enjoy the charism of infallibility.

 

[TheSeeker2014]

Because of the authority to bind and loose, what it says, goes, and we can be assured, by the Holy Spirit, that it will not err. The voice of the Church is the voice of Christ.

Only if they yield to the Holy Spirit in prayer. The Church has choices like everyone else…
But like I said,
If they are discerning sincerely, then God will led them to where He wants them to be if they err,
because he will eventually get their attention and then they will yield to His calling.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Isaiah,

I think PR and myself mistook your “faith or morals” comment -

Yes. 10-4

What is the a fortiori question you are asking?

PnP

The common argumentation that because the Church did not err with the Scriptures then it doesn’t err in anything else (or in whatever other secondary proposition is presented - which is why I am asking for specifics).

IOW - to use the strong proposition of Scriptures and then piggy back on other arguments used, which become weaker and are in fact, a secondary proposition and dependent on the 1st one. That’s why Novo’s logical mind is tingling.

 

[TheSeeker2014]

And here, Seeker, you have just unwittingly provided great apologia for the charism of infallibility.

It is indeed present in the “people of now”, just as it was present in the “earlier people”. Yes, indeed!

But let’s be clear here about our terms. When you refer to “earlier people” (who discerned the canon of the NT), what you are actually referring to is “Catholic people”. Catholic men. Catholic bishops, to be exact.

For they met during the Councils of Rome, Hippo, Carthage, Nicea, Florence, Trent to infallibly discern this 27 book canon of the NT.

So, yes, indeed, “earlier people” (who were Catholic men. Catholic bishops) were given the charism of infallibility.

And you are indeed correct: why should the “people of now”, who are their successors, be any different.

Thus, our Catholic bishops, too, enjoy the charism of infallibility.

are you insisting that the Church is a specific group of leaders (bishops) rather than being made up of all who follow Christ?
Then I disagree.
They can represent as a whole… and even so, your term of infallibility would be available to all.
The Church has the ability to err, but also has the ability to be led correctly…
How?
By listening… really listening.
They have the ABILITY to err. But do they?
Kinda like sin huh?
We all receieve the Holy Spirit sometime in our lives while following Christ…
are we infallible to sin?
God forbid anyone say yes.
The answer is no.
Oh because men are in a fallen state?
Yes…
and the Church?
made of men who have choices being led by Christ

 

[PRmerger]

I would hope I would not quote from a book to answer that… mostly because one should be telling the Atheist their experience of God loving them through a relationship with God…

Let’s say, then, that the dialogue was with a Christian who didn’t believe that God is love.

How do you have one?
Prayer.

Amen!

 

[TheSeeker2014]

Let’s say, then, that the dialogue was with a Christian who didn’t believe that God is love.

Amen!

First part even then… I would rather go with experience than script.

second:

 

[PRmerger]

]The common argumentation that because the Church did not err with the Scriptures then it doesn’t err in anything else (or in whatever other secondary proposition is presented - which is why I am asking for specifics).

I usually don’t go that far in stating, “Therefore the Church doesn’t err in anything else.” That argument comes later.

Initially, I simply aim to make it evident that whenever someone rejects the idea that the charism of infallibility has been given to the CC but also quotes from the NT as being theonpeustos, he is, LOGICALLY, and incontrovertibly, giving tacit submission to the authority of the CC.

And also giving tacit acknowledgement that he does indeed believe in the charism of infallibility. At least as far as the canon of the NT goes.

And also, LOGICALLY, one must conclude that he is also not a Sola Scriptura advocate, for he knows that there are 27 books in the NT NOT FROM THE WORDS OF THE BIBLE, but from the mouth of the Church.

It is 3 points that are incontrovertible when pointed out to any Christian who quotes from the NT as being theopneustos.

In all my years here on the CAFs I have had 2 men of integrity, finally, after following the logic, acknowledge the necessary conclusions: yes, I do submit to the authority of the CC whenever I quote from the NT; yes, I believe that the CC had been given the charism of infallibility, and yes, I am not, therefore a Sola Scriptura advocate. This was after dozens and dozens of posts with them resisting the logic, until, finally, their rational minds won out over their recusant selves.

Of course, there are thousands of lurkers on the CAFs as well, so we’ll never know who else will follow the logic to its natural conclusion.

 

[PRmerger]

are you insisting that the Church is a specific group of leaders (bishops) rather than being made up of all who follow Christ?

Who is it that you think met at the Council of Rome?

Did the Church, “all who follow Christ” come together in one building and read over ALL the 400 texts and come to a majority vote about which 27 belonged in the Bible?

**All who followed Christ **decided on the 27 books?

Is that your position?

Or was it bishops, leaders of the Church, who met and discerned this?

 

[PRmerger]

are you insisting that the Church is a specific group of leaders (bishops) rather than being made up of all who follow Christ?

Who is it that you think met at the Council of Rome? And at the Council of Hippo? And at the Council of Florence?

Did the Church, “all who follow Christ” come together in one building and read over ALL the 400 texts and come to a majority vote about which 27 belonged in the Bible?

**All who followed Christ **decided on the 27 books?

Is that your position?

Or was it bishops, leaders of the Church, who met and discerned this?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I usually don’t go that far.

I simply want to make it evident that whenever someone rejects the idea that the charism of infallibility has been given to the CC but also quotes from the NT as being theonpeustos, he is, LOGICALLY, and incontrovertibly, giving tacit submission to the authority of the CC.

And also giving tacit acknowledgement that he does indeed believe in the charism of infallibility. At least as far as the canon of the NT goes.

And also, LOGICALLY, one must conclude that he is also not a Sola Scriptura advocate, for he knows that there are 27 books in the NT NOT FROM THE WORDS OF THE BIBLE, but from the mouth of the Church.

It is 3 points that are incontrovertible when pointed out to any Christian who quotes from the NT as being theopneustos.

The problem is that it was never specified what infallibility consists of. And it came off as an authority and perfection comment.
“Because the Church has been right and because the Church says so”

An argumentation from authority without establishing other grounds (Like identity) is fallacious. And sadly, one used ad nauseum here. I have fallen for it as well

 

[PRmerger]

We all receieve the Holy Spirit sometime in our lives while following Christ…
are we infallible to sin?
God forbid anyone say yes.

Infallible and sinless are not synonymous.

The correct term is impeccable.

The pope may be infallible but he is not impeccable.

The answer is no.
Oh because men are in a fallen state?
Yes…
and the Church?
made of men who have choices being led by Christ

Well, I can think of millions of folks who, at this very moment, are not in a fallen state.
Baptism removed their state of being fallen…

 

[SteveVH]

Only if they yield to the Holy Spirit in prayer.

An what evidence do you have that the Church yielded to the Holy Spirit when discerning the canon of Scripture? And what evidence do you have that the Church does not constantly yield to the Holy Spirit in matters of faith and morals. Who makes the call?

Here’s the deal, Seeker. We have had some pretty crumby, if not downright “bad” popes in our history. According to their behavior one would not necessarily come to the conclusion that they ever yielded to the Holy Spirit. Yet not one contradicting doctrine has ever been inserted into Catholic teaching by one of these “bad popes”. In other words, the Church was prevented from error, even when we had a less than desirable person at the helm.