Gates of hell question

[DeFide]

Fredricks:

No. Not anymore than two competing views of church authority, Catholic and Orthodox do.

It always boils down to how one person interprets(accepting Sola Scripture or accepting a Church authority(whichever one you choose).

Catholics & Orthodox have different approaches, so there’s no expectation of the same outcome.

The two Sola Scriptura adherents have the same approach and yet get contradictory answers.

How can Sola Scriptura be valid, then?

 

[Eden]

Fredricks:

I do not believe the Holy Spirit has given me the gift of infallibility.

Then when you say that you believe everything that the Bible teaches, you admit that what you *think *it teaches is open to personal interpretation and that you are capable of making errors when reading or teaching about it? In other words, you can not infallibly explain what the Bible teaches when you are posting on these forums?

 

[Fredricks]

DeFide:

Catholics & Orthodox have different approaches, so there’s no expectation of the same outcome.

The two Sola Scriptura adherents have the same approach and yet get contradictory answers.

How can Sola Scriptura be valid, then?

I think that is a false dichotomy.
How is there no expectation of the same outcome? Elaborate please.

Second of all, do you agree that EVERYONE must make a choice what to follow(Catholic/Orthodox authority view or Sola Scripture) that involves personal interpretation?

 

[Fredricks]

Eden:

Then when you say that you believe everything that the Bible teaches, you admit that what you *think *it teaches is open to personal interpretation and that you are capable of making errors when reading or teaching about it? In other words, you can not infallibly explain what the Bible teaches when you are posting on these forums?

That is correct.

 

[Eden]

Fredricks:

That is correct.

So, you are expecting Catholics who believe in the infalliblity of the Church to teach on matters of faith and morals to see your interpretation of “the gates of hell” as holding more authority than the Church?

 

[Fredricks]

Eden:

So, you are expecting Catholics who believe in the infalliblity of the Church to teach on matters of faith and morals to see your interpretation of “the gates of hell” as holding more authority than the Church?

Yes.
Just like I would expect any member of a church that interprets for its members(LDS, JW’s) as well. No I am not comparing your doctrine to them, just the point over authority.

 

[DeFide]

Fredricks:

I think that is a false dichotomy.
How is there no expectation of the same outcome? Elaborate please.

Second of all, do you agree that EVERYONE must make a choice what to follow(Catholic/Orthodox authority view or Sola Scripture) that involves personal interpretation?

If Catholicism is true, the Orthodox approach is incorrect.

However, the two Sola Scriptura adherents must abandon the idea that Sola Scriptura is correct, since the exact same approach yields contradictory results.

They would now be free to examine other possibilities.

 

[Eden]

Fredricks:

Yes.
Just like I would expect any member of a church that interprets for its members(LDS, JW’s) as well. No I am not comparing your doctrine to them, just the point over authority.

Right - Because Christ and his authority given to the apostles which passes down through “apostolic succession” to our bishops is equivalent to the authority of Americans named John Smith and Charles Taze Russell.

Is that what you are saying? And what is the source of your authority?

 

[Fredricks]

Eden:

Right - Because Christ and his authority given to the apostles which passes down through “apostolic succession” to our bishops is equivalent to the authority of Americans named John Smith and Charles Taze Russell.

Is that what you are saying? And what is the source of your authority?

We disagree on what Apostolic Succession means, it is a different thread.

My only authority is the Lord, revealed in his inspired scripture, the Holy Bible.

 

[Fredricks]

DeFide:

If Catholicism is true, the Orthodox approach is incorrect.

However, the two Sola Scriptura adherents must abandon the idea that Sola Scriptura is correct, since the exact same approach yields contradictory results.

They would now be free to examine other possibilities.

Another false either/or situation.

Both Catholicism and Orthodoxy require a personal interpretation to accept their authority.

Are you suggesting that all Sola Scripture go into their interpretation with the exact same historical/theological/personal/cultural traits?

The scripture is perfect. We are not.

It is like saying that because not everyone interprets God correctly, God must be false.

How come you will not admit that everyone must interpret?
You skip that one. I am answering your questions.

 

[Eden]

My only authority is the Lord, revealed in his inspired scripture, the Holy Bible.

That is what Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, King Henry VII, Robert Browne, John Smyth, Joseph Smith, Jr., William Booth, Mary Baker Eddy, Ellen Gould White, Charles Taze Russell, Charles Parham Fox, Sam Seabury, John and Charles Wesley, etc. said too.

If it’s not from the apostles, it’s not authority.

Jesus Wants Us to Obey Apostolic Authority

Acts 5:13 - the people acknowledged the apostles’ special authority and did not dare take it upon themselves.

Acts 15:6,24; 16:4 - the teaching authority is granted to the apostles and their successors. This teaching authority must be traced to the original apostles, or the authority is not sanctioned by Christ.

2 Cor. 2:17 - Paul says the elders are not just random peddlers of God’s word. They are actually commissioned by God.** It is not self-appointed authority**.

2 Cor. 3:6 – Paul says that certain men have been qualified by God to be ministers of a New Covenant. This refers to the ministerial priesthood of Christ handed down the ages through sacramental ordination.

2 Cor. 10:8 - Paul acknowledges his authority over God’s people which the Lord gave to build up the Church.

1 Thess. 5:12-13 - Paul charges the members of the Church to respect those who have authority over them.

2 Thess. 3:14 - Paul says if a person does not obey what he has provided in his letter, have nothing to do with him.

1 Tim. 5:17 - Paul charges the members of the Church to honor the appointed elders (“priests”) of the Church.

Titus 2:15 - Paul charges Timothy to exhort and reprove with all authority, which he received by the laying on of hands.

Heb. 12:9 – in the context of spiritual discipline, the author says we have had earthly fathers (referring to the ordained leaders) to discipline us and we respected them.

Heb. 13:7,17 - Paul charges the members of the Church to remember and obey their leaders who have authority over their souls.

www.scripturecatholic.com

 

[DeFide]

Fredricks:

Another false either/or situation.

Both Catholicism and Orthodoxy require a personal interpretation to accept their authority.

Are you suggesting that all Sola Scripture go into their interpretation with the exact same historical/theological/personal/cultural traits?

The scripture is perfect. We are not.

It is like saying that because not everyone interprets God correctly, God must be false.

How come you will not admit that everyone must interpret?
You skip that one. I am answering your questions.

Evaluating approaches/methods is not the same as the approach/method itself. Once I see that the approach of Sola Scriptura is false, since it yields contradictory results, I can evaluate other methods.

Evaluating the approach of Catholicism, for example, you can see that controversies can be settled definitively and without contradiction since there is a final authority that can tell people directly that they are misinterpreting information, and so we need not abandon this approach out of hand. We can then look to historical evidence.

Now, it is true that we will be held responsible for doing the best we can what we know. I’m just asserting that we can know immediately from its results that Sola Scriptura is invalid.

 

[JaneFrances]

Fredricks:

My only authority is the Lord, revealed in his inspired scripture, the Holy Bible.

That’s not Biblical.

 

[JaneFrances]

Fredricks:

Well, this is turning into something quite differrent, I just wanted your guys view but I cannot seem to shut up!
ok, but this is going to get me eaten up because it takes so much longer to explain and I do not have my other verses to show what they mean all ready yet.
BUT, let me try, in short, which will leave me to be eaten alive, but concise manner.

Both verses too relate to eternal life, ie gates of hell.

Peter, did receive authority(keys of kingdom), which I think we need to be clear about how he CHOSE to use this based upon the whole NT, not just Matthew 16:18, or the keys to the kingdom. I cannot explain how he administered that, with the other apostles, although he is primary, concise enough without all of my verses.
The Apostles, with Peter being primary, set up the form of church government(local control but I know that you will not buy that) in the hands the elders, deacons, etc. I do not believe that a single bishop over a whole city is biblical, that developed about 50 to 100 years later. Okay, the keys(which Peter had) are their ability to expand everything, which they did, especially as it relates to the organization of his church, by which the message of eternal life was spread. We see this during that whole Apostolic era. Understanding that, for me, church in these passages is not talking about a huge world wide organization headed by one person, which would contradict the rest of the Bible. When we next see the keys, Christ has them in Revelation. Jesus allowed Peter and the Apostles to spread his message of eternal life by giving Peter the keys.

bind and losen
essentially the same thing but it is given to all of the Apostles two chapters later. Once again, the clear way that Peter used the key and losen and binding was with regards to the Gentiles. Jesus said he came for the Lost Sheep during his earthly mission. Peter, in his role of keeper of the keys, along with James and John decide exactly what that meant. Thus we have a truly universal church with ethnic and racial diversity, instead of a smaller sect of Judaism.

This is a very interesting overview of your doctrinal and scriptural theology.

I look forward to the fully expository text that you are planning.

Much can already be said, but I’ll wait until you’re ready. . .no rush.

 

[Eden]

JaneFrances:

That’s not Biblical.

Indeed. I don’t see where it says in the Bible that believing in the Lord and reading the Bible gives me authority.

I wonder if Fredericks denomination has changed the early Christian creed from "We believe in one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church” to “we believe in Holy Scripture”.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Fredricks:

My only authority is the Lord, revealed in his inspired scripture, the Holy Bible.

Hello Fredericks;

I find this comment (and you’re not the first to make it on these forums) difficult to accept given your previous admission that you cannot assure us (or yourself) that your interpretation of scripture is infallibly correct. Stated another way, you are saying that the Lord is your authority, but he is speaking to you only through a collection of writings that you concede you cannot interpret with certainty. How is that not a very big theological problem for you?

I know that there are several stock answers to this question:

(1) There is the “unity in the essentials” response - from which arises the question "Who decides what are the “essentials.”

(2) There is also the “I rely on the Holy Spirit” argument, from which arises the conundrum of competing personal interpretations. Why does the Holy Spirit give you one interpretation, while Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, JWs and SDAs receive a different interpretation from Him?

(3) Finally there is the “I’m not interpreting, I’m only reading the bible and attributing the clear meaning” argument - which completely ignores reality. Everyone interprets the bible; the question is one of authority.

You’re on the right track Fredericks. There is an authority but it’s not the Bible alone. If Christ intended to establish one faith, wouldn’t he have left in place the beginnings of an organization to teach that faith - faithfully?

-Peace.

 

[djrakowski]

Fredricks:

My only authority is the Lord, revealed in his inspired scripture, the Holy Bible.

If your only authority is the Lord, revealed in his inspired scripture, then there was a time that Christians were guided by an incomplete revelation (the Old Testament). Or, they were guided by the Old Testament and sacred Tradition. So, when the canon of the Bible was compiled, did that sacred Tradition fall by the wayside?

 

[Nicene]

Fredricks:

We disagree on what Apostolic Succession means, it is a different thread.

My only authority is the Lord, revealed in his inspired scripture, the Holy Bible.

Seriously, every time you interpret the sacred scripture you show authority over it. Sacred sripture itself cannot make a decision.

If the Lord is telling you what it says, why is he teaching others differently as to what it says?

I know this has been said a thousand times and is rather redundant, but it is the truth.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[Fredricks]

djrakowski:

If your only authority is the Lord, revealed in his inspired scripture, then there was a time that Christians were guided by an incomplete revelation (the Old Testament). Or, they were guided by the Old Testament and sacred Tradition. So, when the canon of the Bible was compiled, did that sacred Tradition fall by the wayside?

The Books of the Bible were inspired and reflected truth the minute they were written. It was not a gradual process, the instant they were written, they codified the apostolic tradition with no errors. Traditions which match scripture NEVER fell by the wayside. What occured is that new traditions were added that did not match the unchanging truth of scripture and any traditions that match it. The apostles wrote the teachings of Christ so that we would forever have this truth. So you see, your question about the canon is inaccurate, these true teachings in scripture did not change when God formed a canon, they existed from the time Christ taught and then when he gave his apostles, led by Peter, the authority to set it all up and write it down.

 

[Fredricks]

Nicene:

Seriously, every time you interpret the sacred scripture you show authority over it. Sacred sripture itself cannot make a decision.

If the Lord is telling you what it says, why is he teaching others differently as to what it says?

I know this has been said a thousand times and is rather redundant, but it is the truth.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

Every person makes that decision to follow Christ. It is your decision. You do have free will to decide to follow him or not. You are correct, a person must interpret(decide) if they will follow his word written by the men who knew him and he entrusted with caring for his universal church, the apostles. God does not teach others differently, they all have access to his Word. It is their choice to accept it or not, according to him, most will chose the wrong path, but the few who find it, will never die.