Do non-Catholic church pastors claim to teach infallibly or fallibly?

[MDK]

Does it show that I’ve been honing my debate skills?

Just awesome!

 

[1voice]

Another of your false statements is that it’s a bet. It’s putting your money where your mouth is, donating to God’s real Church if you’re wrong. We see that you will not do this when there are consequences to your falsehoods. It clearly means that money is more important than truth to you. It also means you really don’t believe the nonsense you’re posting… neither do I… and of course neither does God.

Call it whatever you choose…
You are creating a straw man argument and using it to support your false assumption which can only lead to your false conclusion.
In addition:
your method of derision? … Is that a Catholic tactic to win respect and admiration from God as described in the Sermon on the Mount?

… Based on what I’ve experienced so far … why would I aspire to embrace anything that you project?

 

[MDK]

If you want to debate …
Here I’ll start.
Peter was not the rock upon which the Church is built.
That concept is built on a misinterpretation of the text.
The word rock in the Greek has 2 spellings and 2 meanings in that passage.
You are Peter (Petros - masculine form ) and upon this rock (Petra - feminine form)

Here’s why you should not put money where your mouth is…

Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, not Greek.
In Aramaic, it has no gender problem and it reads “You are Kepha and upon this Kepha I will build my Church.”

Another reason… in the Koine Greek of the 1st century, the words Petros and Petra meant exactly the same thing. One is masculine and the other feminine. It’s proper Greek to call a large rock feminine. It is not proper to refer to a man with a feminine ending.

Also, Jesus changes Simon’s name at that point to Rock. God only changes someone’s name when He’s giving them a new mission, like Abram (exalted father) to Abraham (father of the multitudes). God doesn’t change someone’s name for no reason, or to belittle them. If God is telling Peter he is a “small rock” then Jesus is being uncharitable, and that’s against His nature.

Next, the proper word for “small rock” or pebble in the 1st century Koine Greek is “lithos” which was not used in the Greek translation of Matthew.

The backdrop for the passage makes the point as well, being at a place where people worship the false god at a large rock. Jesus says He is the true God, and Kepha (Peter) will be the Kepha (Rock) of Jesus’ Church.

Free lesson for you here… and good thing for you that you didn’t offer to donate $25,000 if you were wrong… but you really need to love truth more than your money (another free lesson).

 

[MDK]

Call it whatever you choose…
You are creating a straw man argument and using it to support your false assumption which can only lead to your false conclusion.
In addition:
your method of derision? … Is that a Catholic tactic to win respect and admiration from God as described in the Sermon on the Mount?

… Based on what I’ve experienced so far … why would I aspire to embrace anything that you project?

A review of what I’ve written will show that I call it like it is… the truth. This is why you don’t like it, because it exposes what you prefer which is your own way instead of God’s way.

First, there is no straw man. The arguments here are real. I hope you can come to grips with this reality at some point, because it is important for all of us who call ourselves Christian.

You perceive derision, but it’s simply that you’re on the wrong side of the truth. When you choose to be on the right side of truth, you will no longer feel the way you do when looking at truth. In reality, there is no derision of your person. That is clear, because I’m showing you the way to truth… the way to Christ.

You are afraid of the truth I have given, but I’m not asking you even to “embrace what I project”. I’m asking you and all of us to embrace what God has given us. That’s the only point here.

 

[PJM]

Any debate would have to assume that the Papacy is supreme and final word on doctrine and that the only true Christian leaders throughout history were under allegiance to the Papal line recognized as true and correct by the Roman Catholic church …

I would not agree with those ground rules …
… as far as making a bet … and making it the point. LOL! I give to God and manage my money according to his will and not your goading.

If you want to debate …
Here I’ll start.
Peter was not the rock upon which the Church is built.

I’m not sure what your position on the Bible is; but your view is contrary to it. But let’s overlook for a moment Matt.16:15-19, and the logic that Christ had “no choice” [God always has a choice; but hear me out]… He Had to had a Sucessor if in fact the Mandate that he gave specifically to Peter and the Apostles were to be fulfilled: **Mt.28:19-20 **
" Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."

This could not be done within the life span of the Apostles; 2,000 years later; its still not done. So a system of succession was in an absolute sense DEMANDED.

Now as for Peter: Are you aware that in every list of the Apostles in the BIBLE; pETER IS LISTED first. aND IN THIS PASSAGE HE IS EVEN CALLED FIRST: **Matt.10: 2 **1.“The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zeb’edee, and John his brother;”

***And here my friend are a few Quotes from the early Church Fathers on Primacy: ***

QUOTE: The Early Church Fathers understood from the beginning that Peter and his successors held a place of primacy in the Church.

Clement of Rome
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:[A.D. 95]).

Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 **inter A.D. 180-190]). **END QUOTE]

I can supply a Bible list if FIFTY First for Peter; so dear friend if NOT peter; them whom did Jesus Choose to head his church? And on what evidence?

Eph. 2:19-20 “So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, [singular] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, ***Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, *** in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; [singular] in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit. “

Eph. 4: 4 -8“There is one body [Only One Church] and one Spirit, [Only One set of beliefs] just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, [Only One God] ONLY one faith, [Only One set of doctrine and dogma] one baptism, By water in the Trinity] one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. "

May God continue to Bless and guide you;

Pat

 

[diorthosis]

With God’s assistance, man is infallible as well. Otherwise, the Scriptures could have never been written in the first place, right? They’re free from error and were written by men inspired by the Holy Spirit.

The Greek word for “inspired” is theopneustos, meaning “God-breathed.” It’s not the men who wrote the Scriptures but the One who breathed them that’s infallible. As I said in a former post, for this reason (alone) the Scriptures are inerrant.

With the same Holy Spirit, man can be an infallible teacher. Infallible doesn’t mean perfect. It means free from error.

Infallible means incapable of error. The God-breathed Scriptures are inerrant, because the One who breathed them is Himself infallible, therefore, incapable of error.

God has established this charism of infallibility in His one Catholic Church, with the office of Peter, and the Magisterium. This charism of infallibility was never promised outside of God’s Catholic Church.

I don’t deny that your Magisterium has claimed infallibility. But that’s not the issue of this thread. Men may teach accurately, but no man is infallible except the Man Christ Jesus.

In fact, this teaching Church came before the New Testament was written.

There’s no such thing as a “teaching church.” However, within His church Christ has raised up teachers (the Apostles themselves were teachers; Acts 2:42) for the equipping of the saints for the work of service (Eph. 4:11-12). But Peter warned early on that from within the church there would arise false teachers (2 Pet. 2:1). Paul calls them savage wolves (Acts 20:30). So you see, there’s no such thing as an infallible, teaching church. Within it there were and are false teachers. But if infallibility is assigned to men, by men, and proclaimed by men, and that proclamation accepted by men, then how will the false teachers (and their erroneous doctrines) ever be discerned?

But in respect to the question posed by this thread, I’ve not yet met a Protestant preacher or teacher that has claimed infallibility. Such is the practice of cults (even so-called “Christian” cults), though not necessarily proclaimed by their leaders (however, blindly followed as if they are), but this is not the norm for your Bible believing Protestant congregations.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Greek word for “inspired” is theopneustos, meaning “God-breathed.” It’s not the men who wrote the Scriptures but the One who breathed them that’s infallible. As I said in a former post, for this reason (alone) the Scriptures are inerrant.Infallible means incapable of error. The God-breathed Scriptures are inerrant, because the One who breathed them is Himself infallible, therefore, incapable of error.I don’t deny that your Magisterium has claimed infallibility. But that’s not the issue of this thread. Men may teach accurately, but no man is infallible except the Man Christ Jesus.There’s no such thing as a “teaching church.” However, within His church Christ has raised up teachers (the Apostles themselves were teachers; Acts 2:42) for the equipping of the saints for the work of service (Eph. 4:11-12). But Peter warned early on that from within the church there would arise false teachers (2 Pet. 2:1). Paul calls them savage wolves (Acts 20:30). So you see, there’s no such thing as an infallible, teaching church. Within it there were and are false teachers. But if infallibility is assigned to men, by men, and proclaimed by men, and that proclamation accepted by men, then how will the false teachers (and their erroneous doctrines) ever be discerned?

But in respect to the question posed by this thread, I’ve not yet met a Protestant preacher or teacher that has claimed infallibility. Such is the practice of cults (even so-called “Christian” cults), though not necessarily proclaimed by their leaders (however, blindly followed as if they are), but this is not the norm for your Bible believing Protestant congregations.

Christ told the people in Matthew 23:

Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

Seems to be a certain confidence there that He could protect His truth, even through sinful men. That did not change.

Speaking ONLY to those men He chose and appointed, He said He would send the Spirit of Truth, to teach them ALL things. These were men He chose and appointed over His Church. He said He would be with them until the consummation of the world. These were mortal men, who eventually died. Christ was speaking to His authoritative Church.

Scriptures are ‘God breathed’. But interpretations are not and they are not infallible. That’s why Jesus built a Church. He never wrote anything, nor ordered anything scribed.

The inspired word of God calls the Church the pillar and foundation of truth, the place where the manifold wisdom of God maybe made known, instead of scriptures.

Scriptures are ‘useful’, but that is not fully sufficient alone. The Ethiopian had scriptures, but could not understand them until Philip ‘preached’ the word of God to him.

Read Nehemiah 8 and see how interpretations have always been through the earthly authority, as chosen by God.

 

[1voice]

Here’s why you should not put money where your mouth is…

Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, not Greek.
In Aramaic, it has no gender problem and it reads “You are Kepha and upon this Kepha I will build my Church.”

Another reason… in the Koine Greek of the 1st century, the words Petros and Petra meant exactly the same thing. One is masculine and the other feminine. It’s proper Greek to call a large rock feminine. It is not proper to refer to a man with a feminine ending.

Also, Jesus changes Simon’s name at that point to Rock. God only changes someone’s name when He’s giving them a new mission, like Abram (exalted father) to Abraham (father of the multitudes). God doesn’t change someone’s name for no reason, or to belittle them. If God is telling Peter he is a “small rock” then Jesus is being uncharitable, and that’s against His nature.

Next, the proper word for “small rock” or pebble in the 1st century Koine Greek is “lithos” which was not used in the Greek translation of Matthew.

The backdrop for the passage makes the point as well, being at a place where people worship the false god at a large rock. Jesus says He is the true God, and Kepha (Peter) will be the Kepha (Rock) of Jesus’ Church.

Free lesson for you here… and good thing for you that you didn’t offer to donate $25,000 if you were wrong… but you really need to love truth more than your money (another free lesson).

Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, not Greek.

Well it may have been… but there is no copy of it.
The official position of the Pontifical Biblical Comission asserted in 1911 that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic.
But…
The vast majority of Biblical scholars believe that Matthew was originally written in Greek.
and in fact…
The oldest manuscript available is the Codex Vaticanus … in Greek … from the fourth century…Perhaps the next great archeological discovery will be an early manuscript in Hebrew or Aramaic but til then … Greek is the oldest.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Well it may have been… but there is no copy of it.
The official position of the Pontifical Biblical Comission asserted in 1911 that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic.
But…
The vast majority of Biblical scholars believe that Matthew was originally written in Greek.
and in fact…
The oldest manuscript available is the Codex Vaticanus … in Greek … from the fourth century…Perhaps the next great archeological discovery will be an early manuscript in Hebrew or Aramaic but til then … Greek is the oldest.

Caesarea Philippi was a mountain, which primarily consisted of a massive rock. Originally, Caesarea Philippi was Panion, the city of the Greek God Pan. Pan was the God of shepherds and flocks, among other things. It was believed by people of the time of Christ and before, that there was an entrance to a great abyss, or hades/hell, located in the mountain.

Panion had statues of Zeus, as well as Pan, on this pagan holy place.

Why, of all places, did Christ choose Caesarea Philippi, so named Caesarea in honour of Caesar Augustus? Herod the Great, Herod Philip, had built a temple to Augustus there. This place, where men worshipped side by side the forces of nature and political power, was the place chosen by our Lord. The same place His divinity was professed by Peter.

It was not chance, it was meaningful. The place that had kept men from the kingdom of heaven was chosen by our Lord to be the place where He announced His Church that would bring men to the kingdom of heaven.

This was the place He re-named Simon, Kipha, rock, Peter. This was the place He said He would give the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter. The same place He stated, “…and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Name changes in the Bible were significant. Name changes in the Old Testament always included explanations. Abram becomes Abraham because God will make of him a great nation. Jacob becomes Israel because he contended and had power with God and with men and prevailed.

Simon becomes Peter, Kipha/rock, because his strength of faith would have Christ’s Church built upon it.

To understand the symbolism of the “keys”, I suggest reading the passage containing Isaiah 22:22.

Isa 22:22 And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open.

1Chron 9 details the specifics of the keys.

The person who was designated as the keeper of the keys was the “right hand man” of the king. He literally sat at the right hand of the king’s throne.

1Ch 29:23 And Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king instead of David his father, and he pleased all: and all Israel obeyed him.

The keeper of the keys serves as prime minister to the King. He sits upon the earthly throne…until Christ returns.

 

[1voice]

Caesarea Philippi was a mountain, which primarily consisted of a massive rock. Originally, Caesarea Philippi was Panion, the city of the Greek God Pan. Pan was the God of shepherds and flocks, among other things. It was believed by people of the time of Christ and before, that there was an entrance to a great abyss, or hades/hell, located in the mountain.

Panion had statues of Zeus, as well as Pan, on this pagan holy place.

Why, of all places, did Christ choose Caesarea Philippi, so named Caesarea in honour of Caesar Augustus? Herod the Great, Herod Philip, had built a temple to Augustus there. This place, where men worshipped side by side the forces of nature and political power, was the place chosen by our Lord. The same place His divinity was professed by Peter.

It was not chance, it was meaningful. The place that had kept men from the kingdom of heaven was chosen by our Lord to be the place where He announced His Church that would bring men to the kingdom of heaven.

This was the place He re-named Simon, Kipha, rock, Peter. This was the place He said He would give the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter. The same place He stated, “…and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Name changes in the Bible were significant. Name changes in the Old Testament always included explanations. Abram becomes Abraham because God will make of him a great nation. Jacob becomes Israel because he contended and had power with God and with men and prevailed.

Simon becomes Peter, Kipha/rock, because his strength of faith would have Christ’s Church built upon it.

To understand the symbolism of the “keys”, I suggest reading the passage containing Isaiah 22:22.

Isa 22:22 And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open.

1Chron 9 details the specifics of the keys.

The person who was designated as the keeper of the keys was the “right hand man” of the king. He literally sat at the right hand of the king’s throne.

1Ch 29:23 And Solomon sat on the throne of the Lord as king instead of David his father, and he pleased all: and all Israel obeyed him.

The keeper of the keys serves as prime minister to the King. He sits upon the earthly throne…until Christ returns.

Jesus gave the same ability to all the disciples in this passage …

Matt 18:18
18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

 

[zz912]

Jesus gave the same ability to all the disciples in this passage …

Matt 18:18
18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

No, He gave the authority to the Apostles in communion with Peter.

He did not give this authority to all His disciples.

 

[MDK]

Well it may have been… but there is no copy of it.
The official position of the Pontifical Biblical Comission asserted in 1911 that Matthew was originally written in Aramaic.
But…
The vast majority of Biblical scholars believe that Matthew was originally written in Greek.
and in fact…
The oldest manuscript available is the Codex Vaticanus … in Greek … from the fourth century…Perhaps the next great archeological discovery will be an early manuscript in Hebrew or Aramaic but til then … Greek is the oldest.

You’re a bit short on history, and poor on knowledge of Scriptures. We don’t have a surviving copy of the original Matthew in Aramaic. We do have testimony of such, like from St. Jerome who apparently did have a copy. St. Jerome who translated the Scriptures into Latin Vulgate testified that Matthew wasn’t written first in Greek. BTW, he lived a long time before 1911, so your time line is pretty incomplete.

We also know that Jesus spoke to His Apostles in Aramaic, not Greek. The Aramaic word Jesus used for Peter is recorded in Scriptures. It’s quite clear what Jesus said to them.

It is also quite false to say the “majority of scholars believe that Matthew was written originally in Greek.” That’s just not the case for legitimate historical scholars.

Your logic also fails quite miserably as well. Even though Matthew was originally written in Aramaic, it wouldn’t even matter if Matthew were not written first in Aramaic, because even the first century Koine Greek used means the same thing for both Peter (Petros, or Rock), and Petra (Rock). Your testimony to the contrary is not upheld by the truth. That Petros and Petra meant the same thing in 1st century Koine Greek is widely acknowledged today, even by Protestants.

You’re also ignoring the rest of the context, as is done by those who use eisegesis and not exegesis.

So, sorry… history is not what you prefer. It’s what happened. Go back and read and learn for a change. God’s wisdom comes to the humble, not the arrogant.

 

[MDK]

Jesus gave the same ability to all the disciples in this passage …

Matt 18:18
18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Sorry, but God’s word doesn’t support the implication you’re making.

What we have first in Matt 16, is Jesus changing Simon’s name (and only Simon gets his name changed) to “Rock” for his new mission that Jesus gives him as Rock of His one Church. It was the first time in recorded History that a man has his name changed to Rock. Jesus gives to Rock (Peter in English) and only to Rock the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. The Apostles understood this to be the Chief Steward (Prime Minister to the King) in the Davidic Kingdom, like is shown in Isaiah 22.

So, if one actually looks at the context of Matt 18;18, in conjunction with the rest of the Scriptures, we see that Jesus is discussing a derivative subordinate authority as royal ministers in Jesus’ Kingdom. The authority given in this context is church discipline, like excommunication (which was discussed in Matt 18:17 about those who would be disciplined by His Church leaders), and by extension, it is also a sacramental authority to forgive sins.

Let’s please stay with what Jesus actually did.

 

[MDK]

Jesus gave the same ability to all the disciples in this passage …

Matt 18:18
18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

St. Jerome, who translated the Scriptures to Latin Vulgate, opposes your idea that equal authority was given to all apostles, as do I.

“‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division” (*Against Jovinian *1:26 [A.D. 393]).

“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (*Letters *15:2 [A.D. 396]).

 

[MDK]

…
The oldest manuscript available is the Codex Vaticanus … in Greek … from the fourth century…Perhaps the next great archeological discovery will be an early manuscript in Hebrew or Aramaic but til then … Greek is the oldest.

The surviving Greek manuscripts also translate to Rock (Peter) being the Rock of the Church.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Jesus gave the same ability to all the disciples in this passage …

Matt 18:18
18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

It would have been nice to have seen your thoughts on all of the information I provided in my post.

The same ability was not given to all the disciples in the passage where Peter identified who Christ was, as revealed to him by the Father, and Peter was renamed by Christ, and Peter was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the authority to bind and loose, with a promise it would be made so in heaven, as Christ announced the building of His Church.

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Jesus renamed Peter and said that it was the Father in heaven who revealed His identity to him. Christ went on to say, ‘AND…’ when He announced He would build His Church. He continued addressing Peter in verse 19 by saying, ‘AND…’ when He announced giving keys to Peter. Christ explained authority when he went on to say, ‘AND…’ whatsoever THOU bind and loose, will be made so in heaven. The keys were not given to a ‘statement’ and a ‘statement’ cannot bind and loose.

Oh, just in case, here’s a link that explains the Jewish view of bind and loose.

Bind and Loose, Jewish Encylopedia

Rabbinical term for “forbidding and permitting.” The expression “asar” (to bind herself by a bond) is used in the Bible (Num. xxx. 3 et seq.) for a vow which prevents one from using a thing. It implies binding an object by a powerful spell in order to prevent its use (see Targ. to Ps. lviii. 6; Shab. 81b, for “magic spell”). The corresponding Aramean “shera” and Hebrew “hittir” (for loosing the prohibitive spell) have no parallel in the Bible.
The power of binding and loosing was always claimed by the Pharisees. Under Queen Alexandra, the Pharisees, says Josephus (“B J.” i, 5, § 2), “became the administrators of all public affairs so as to be empowered to banish and readmit whom they pleased, as well as to loose and to bind.” This does not mean that, as the learned men, they merely decided what, according to the Law, was forbidden or allowed, but that they possessed and exercised the power of tying or untying a thing by the spell of their divine authority, just as they could, by the power vested in them, pronounce and revoke an anathema upon a person. The various schools had the power “to bind and to loose”; that is, to forbid and to permit (Ḥag. 3b); and they could bind any day by declaring it a fast-day (Meg. Ta’an. xxii.; Ta’an. 12a; Yer. Ned. i. 36c, d). This power and authority, vested in the rabbinical body of each age or in the Sanhedrin (see Authority), received its ratification and final sanction from the celestial court of justice (Sifra, Emor, ix.; Mak. 23b).
In the New Testament.
In this sense Jesus, when appointing his disciples to be his successors, used the familiar formula (Matt. xvi. 19, xviii. 18). By these words he virtually invested them with the same authority as that which he found belonging to the scribes and Pharisees who “bind heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but will not move them with one of their fingers”; that is, “loose them,” as they have the power to do (Matt. xxiii. 2-4). In the same sense, in the second epistle of Clement to James II. (“Clementine Homilies,” Introduction), Peter is represented as having appointed Clement as his successor, saying: “I communicate to him the power of binding and loosing so that, with respect to everything which he shall ordain in the earth, it shall be decreed in the heavens; for he shall bind what ought to be bound and loose what ought to be loosed as knowing the rule of the church.” Quite different from this Judaic and ancient view of the apostolic power of binding and loosing is the one expressed in John xx. 23, where Jesus is represented as having said to his disciples after they had received the Holy Spirit: “Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.” It is this view which, adopted by Tertullian and all the church fathers, invested the head of the Christian Church with the power to forgive sins, the “clavis ordinis,” “the key-power of the Church.”

Once Peter had been singled out, and two chapters later, Christ repeated a part of the conversation by explaining more authority of His Church. If disputers will not hear the Church, let him be as the heathen, AMEN, whatsoever you shall bind and loose, will be so in heaven.

**
Mat 18:17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church**. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
Mat 18:18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

Bind and loose is like…forgiving and retaining…

‘Yes, he is…’

 

[MDK]

Jesus gave the same ability to all the disciples in this passage …

Matt 18:18
18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Please note the Jesus is talking to His Apostles, not all disciples. Like has been said here on this thread accurately, Jesus was giving a derivative subordinate authority of church discipline and by extension the sacramental authority to forgive sins, as royal ministers in Jesus’ Kingdom. Rock (Peter in English) remains the Chief Steward, while others are given derivative and subordinate authority in Jesus’ Church. When we say Jesus’ Church, that’s what it was at its beginning, what it is today and always will be… His Church. It’s the ONLY Church established by the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Only this one Catholic Church has never and will never teach error in faith and morals.

All other Christian denominations are not “churches” in the proper sense, not being God’s Church and can only be called ecclesial communities made by fallible men based upon and teaching one or more forms of heresy.

 

[PJM]

=MDK;7742450]Please note the Jesus is talking to His Apostles, not all disciples. Like has been said here on this thread accurately, Jesus was giving a derivative subordinate authority of church discipline and by extension the sacramental authority to forgive sins, as royal ministers in Jesus’ Kingdom. Rock (Peter in English) remains the Chief Steward, while others are given derivative and subordinate authority in Jesus’ Church. When we say Jesus’ Church, that’s what it was at its beginning, what it is today and always will be… His Church. It’s the ONLY Church established by the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Only this one Catholic Church has never and will never teach error in faith and morals.

All other Christian denominations are not “churches” in the proper sense, not being God’s Church and can only be called ecclesial communities made by fallible men based upon and teaching one or more forms of heresy.

CORRECT! care must be taken in seperating the two; at times synomous names …

**Matt.10: 1 **And he called to him his twelve disciples and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal every disease and every infirmity

**Matt.11: 1 **And when Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples, he went on from there to teach and preach in their cities.

Matt.13: 36 Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples came to him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.”

Mark.4: 34 he did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[diorthosis]

Christ told the people in Matthew 23:

Quote:
Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not

Seems to be a certain confidence there that He could protect His truth, even through sinful men. That did not change.

Jesus is not saying there that the Pharisees were infallible in their teachings. Quite the opposite, indeed. They were experts in the Law, based on the Scriptures, but He often rebuked them for the the introduction of their extra-biblical traditions, as well as their hypocrisy. Jesus wasn’t telling the people to blindly follow all that the Scribes and Pharisees taught, but rather those teachings that naturally and correctly arose from the Law of Moses which is found in the Scriptures.

Speaking ONLY to those men He chose and appointed, He said He would send the Spirit of Truth, to teach them ALL things.

Yes. But He didn’t say they would be infallible. What the Spirit taught them was subsequently preserved in inerrant Scriptures for future generations. The One sent to teach them all things is the very One who was/is infallible, not those whom He taught. Not even the human agents through whom the Spirit subsequently inspired the Holy Text were infallible; but the One who inspired those writing through them. And for this reason they’re inerrant.

These were men He chose and appointed over His Church. He said He would be with them until the consummation of the world. These were mortal men, who eventually died. Christ was speaking to His authoritative Church.

None of this addresses the idea of infallibility. Christ’s church/body is made up of men, and none are infallible except the Head of the church Himself. That’s why He’s the Head of it.

Scriptures are ‘God breathed’. But interpretations are not and they are not infallible.

That’s right. It’s men that interpret Scripture, and no man is infallible, except the Son of Man. That’s why they must study the Scriptures in order to handle them accurately.

That’s why Jesus built a Church.

No. That’s why He raises up teachers within the church.

He never wrote anything, nor ordered anything scribed.

That’s right. That would be the work of the Holy Spirit whom He and the Father sent.

The inspired word of God calls the Church the pillar and foundation of truth, the place where the manifold wisdom of God maybe made known, instead of scriptures.

LOL It’s in Scripture itself that you read that the church is the pillar and support of the truth. It’s not what “the church” has infallibly said of itself. Scripture doesn’t doesn’t say that the church IS itself the truth, nor does it ever describe the church to be infallible. It, as an organism, is to support the truth. That’s what a “pillar” does. Again, the church of Christ is made up of men and no man is infallible, except the Son of Man.

Scriptures are ‘useful’, but that is not fully sufficient alone. The Ethiopian had scriptures, but could not understand them until Philip ‘preached’ the word of God to him.

The Ethiopian did not yet have the N.T. We, however, do.

Read Nehemiah 8 and see how interpretations have always been through the earthly authority, as chosen by God.

After the captivity Ezra brought the Law (Scriptures) before the people (Neh. 8:2ff). But It doesn’t say there that Ezra was infallible. Teachers of Scripture (like Ezra and the Levites) can be accurate in handling (interpreting) the Scriptures (Law), but that doesn’t make them infallible.

And not all Scripture needs “interpreting.” Much of it just has to be believed. It is God’s Word, you know.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Jesus is not saying there that the Pharisees were infallible in their teachings. Quite the opposite, indeed. They were experts in the Law, based on the Scriptures, but He often rebuked them for the the introduction of their extra-biblical traditions, as well as their hypocrisy. Jesus wasn’t telling the people to blindly follow all that the Scribes and Pharisees taught, but rather those teachings that naturally and correctly arose from the Law of Moses which is found in the Scriptures

To be honest, it appears you’ve added to the passage. Christ never held the people to interpret scriptures for themselves. Had scriptures had been a more important ministry to Christ, you would think He would have written something or ordered something scribed. To see how people of the Old Testament interpreted scriptures, read Nehemiah 8.

He told the people to, ‘ALL THINGS therefore WHATSOEVER they shall say to you, observe and do…’ No qualifying as you suggest. He continued, ‘but according to their works do ye not. For they SAY and do not.’ God’s truth can be protected, even through the mouths of sinful men. Christ knew what He was building His Church on, and who would succeed them. None would be perfect.

After telling the people to do whatsoever they shall say to you, He warned the scribes and Pharisees with a list of ‘woes’.

.Yes. But He didn’t say they would be infallible. What the Spirit taught them was subsequently preserved in inerrant Scriptures for future generations. The One sent to teach them all things is the very One who was/is infallible, not those whom He taught. Not even the human agents through whom the Spirit subsequently inspired the Holy Text were infallible; but the One who inspired those writing through them. And for this reason they’re inerrant.

The following was spoken only to the 12 Christ chose and appointed.

Mat 10:19 But when they shall deliver you up, take no thought how or what to speak: for it shall be given you in that hour what to speak:
Mat 10:20 For it is not you that speak, but the spirit of your Father that speaketh in you.

Again, read Nehemiah 8 and see how the people of the Old Testament interpreted scriptures.

None of this addresses the idea of infallibility. Christ’s church/body is made up of men, and none are infallible except the Head of the church Himself. That’s why He’s the Head of it.

When the Father speaks through the men rightfully appointed in the Church Christ built, is it infallible in your opinion?

That’s right. It’s men that interpret Scripture, and no man is infallible, except the Son of Man. That’s why they must study the Scriptures in order to handle them accurately.

Sorry, but someone’s wrong. There are many interpretations, all from the study of scriptures. There is only one truth which means there are many wrong interpretations.

No. That’s why He raises up teachers within the church.

Christ built one Church. That’s one set of doctrines. Where was that Church for the first thousand years after the death and resurrection of Christ? Christ is not going to divide Himself and the Christian world is divided by many denominations, with different doctrines/teachings.

It’s in Scripture itself that you read that the church is the pillar and support of the truth. It’s not what “the church” has infallibly said of itself. Scripture doesn’t doesn’t say that the church IS itself the truth, nor does it ever describe the church to be infallible. It, as an organism, is to support the truth. That’s what a “pillar” does. Again, the church of Christ is made up of men and no man is infallible, except the Son of Man.The Ethiopian did not yet have the N.T. We, however, do

Your problem is the scriptures never say that scriptures are the sole and final authority. When the US was formed, a constitution was written. It was not mailed to every citizen for them to figure out for themselves. A legislative body was formed to interpret that constitution for the citizens. Those founding fathers could not have been smarter than God.

The scriptures are a record. They do not give us a table of contents. They, themselves, call scriptures ‘useful’, not sufficient. Christ built a Church, but never wrote anything or ordered anything scribed.

The men of the Church wrote scriptures and the Catholic Church preserved them and the traditions to present day. When the reformers took the Bible, many denominations arose and now today we have people that deny the very Church that preserved scriptures through hundreds and hundreds of years, so that we can have one in our possession today. You trust the scriptures, but do not trust the Church that gave them to us? There’s no logic in that train of thought.