I am still being told, here at CAF, that my understanding of sola scriptura is lacking, so I guess I am still attempting to learn.....

[mark_a]

Both sides use the same scripture to foster their point.
So what is the deciding factor?The tradition in which the scripture is interpretated.

For me, the deciding factor, on any interpretation of any teaching, is this:

Who has the greatest story ever told? Clearly, it’s the Apostolic Chruches. Most Protestants, in my humble opinion, just won’t let God be wonderful.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

The Catholic Church is a shining example of the fact that it doesn’t matter if one claims to have an infallible interpreter, that still there exists stark divisions in the Church of Rome.

You are missing the point. Certainly there will always be those who disagree with the statements of authority. Some may even demur for good and noble reasons. But that does not diminish the fact that within the Catholic Church there exists the means for resolving a dispute over matters of doctrine, whereas under the doctrine of sola scriptura, there is at best an agreement to disagree.

tester:

Is the Protestant a separated brother or anathema? Is Vatican II infallible or is it not? Is it absolute necessity for salvation that we are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff or not? Is eating meat on Fridays during Lent a mortal sin or not?

There are several issues packed into this string of questions. First, one needs to understand that the first statement (separated brother or anathema) is no dichotomy at all. As for the second, “Vatican II” is referring to a set of conciliar documents, all of which carry magesterial authority. Those who reject it are separating themselves from the Catholic Church. As for the third statement, it has been reaffirmed that salvation comes through the Catholic Church, but how one must be connected to it has been a matter upon which the Church has reflected for many years following the reformation. Again, however, none of these points hinders the position that the Church properly has a teaching authority that renders binding teaching on matters of faith and morals. The discipline of not eating meat on Fridays was relaxed in the years following Vatican II. It was never a matter of doctrine. However, any willful rejection of Church discipline by Catholics can objectively be understood as grave matter.

tester:

As Dr. James White stated:
“Let’s say James Akin writes the PERFECT textbook on logic. It is completely perspicuous: It is fully illustrated, completely consistent, and it provides answers to all the tough questions in plain, understandable terminology. It covers all the bases. Now, would it follow, then, that every other person who consulted this textbook would agree with every other person who consulted this textbook on matters of logic? Well, of course not…Now the question I have to ask is this: Is there something wrong with Mr. Akin’s textbook if it does not produce complete unanimity on questions logical? Is the problem in the “textbook” or in the people “using” the textbook?”

This is an incomplete hypothetical. We’re dealing with Scripture written thousands of years ago. It MUST be interpreted and those who interpret it do so fallibly, which is why the teaching authority of the Church was created when Christ set up his Church. Consider that a James Akin book as described would have to be translated into different languages for others to read, and those translators would be required to interpret meanings and struggle with nuanced and culturally related terms and phrases. Similarly, as the years passed the language of the “perfect text” would become more outdated and its context and historical perspective would be lost and reinterpreted. These things cry out for an authoritative teacher that can look to Tradition and Scripture to resolve disputes and teach what is True while being assured that it is avoiding the teaching of error.

tester:

The so-called “infallible interpreter” of Rome just adds more debate to the fire than Scripture itself does. It is not the fault of Scripture that others find disagreement with it.

No. It settles the debate that is presented. You miss the point. Catholics don’t say that scripture is imperfect. We say it must be interpreted correctly.

tester:

And having a Magisterium has NOT prevented disagreements in the Catholic Church.

Having an authority is necessary BECAUSE there are disagreements in the Church. Of course there will be more disagreements. That is the nature of truth and human experience.

tester:

Or, furthermore, when the Catholic has an argument on doctrine, can they call the Magisterium for a ruling?

YES.

tester:

And will that ruling solves the problem or add fuel to the debate?

It solves the problem presented.

tester:

Once again the point must be noted that a so-called infallible human interpreter has done nothing to alleviate debate amongst Catholics.

Again, it must be noted that it was never intended to remove inquiry and stifle debate. It was intended by God to keep doctrine unified. It has done so for 2,000 years.

tester:

The Bible is clear with regards to salvation…

To some degree this is so, but not on all matters and not with the specificity that is necessary to prevent the disputes among Catholics and Lutherans, Lutherans and Baptists. Baptists and Presbyterians. Presbyterians and Methodists. Methodists and Pentecostals. Pentecostals and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons, etc. etc. etc.

tester:

The Catholic claim about the necessity of an infallible human interpreter means Scripture is only knowable to a select few who claim to know Scripture so well that they can point out who is correct and who is in error. The very nature of Gnosticism!

Ridiculous! The Catholic claim is that where there is dispute among the faithful about what Scripture teaches, there is an authority that can resolve that dispute. There is no hidden secret about a dispute. All parties are made aware of the case.

Peace,
Robert

 

[joe370]

Jon, maybe I am wrong about Martin Luther and tradition, I hope. Did ML embrace tradition? Could you maybe furnish some quotes by ML embracing tradition?

:

Joe, by your own reasonable rendition of SS, I’m not sure how you come to the conclusion that ML rejects Sacred Tradition, unless you are saying he rejects it equal to scripture. If that’s the case, this is what Lutherans believe. Tradition is subject to scripture, at least in our practice of SS for hermeneutics.

I think you hit the nail on the head; Tradition - teachers and teachings, councils and creeds, are an important and necessary aid in understanding the message of the Gospel. These things should never be rejected lightly, particularly those accepted by both east and west, in my opinion. But they are all subject to scripture, when one practices SS.

Jon

 

[Rightlydivide]

God Bless!

And you as well Nicea.

 

[Rightlydivide]

RD, you have already admitted that we have an inerrant bible without any means to in-errantly interpret the inerrant word of God, so I am not sure there is anything more to discuss regarding this OP, friend.

Oh, there is a lot left to unpack. I like participating in your Protestant themed or directed threads.

 

[joe370]

Oh, there is a lot left to unpack. I like participating in your Protestant themed or directed threads.

Well, that’s good to hear. A few non-catholics hear seemed to be quite sick of my questions. I am, and always will be a Christian belonging to the CC but I enjoy trying to understand the Sola scriptura perspective and learning things that I found difficult to understand as a former non-catholic. However, it all seems rather moot if no one can inerrantly interpret the inerrant word of God.

But I digress. I am still being told, here at CAF, that my understanding of sola scriptura is lacking, so I guess I am still attempting to learn.

When I ask the following question, it seems that JonNC is correct regarding the fact that there doesn’t seem to be a definitive consensus among SS advocates regarding SS, and I agree with him regarding the fact that, whatever Martin Luther’s definition of SS was, should really be the definitive consensus among SS advocates; after all, he coined it, and was the first to define it; that seems logical don’t you think. If so could you please tell me what ML’s definition of sola scriptura was? Jon tells me that ML did not reject tradition and others tell me that he did.

SS advocates, are you referring to the bible alone (sola scriptura) - as the Christians final authority via private judgment? The Bible needs an interpreter?

The Bible seems to suggest that it needs an authoritative interpreter. In 2 Peter 3:16 Peter says, about Paul’s epistles: "there are “certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest [distort], as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.”

It is obvious from these considerations that Peter did not believe scripture to be easily interpreted, nor should it be authoritatively done on an individual bases, and Paul seems to agree with him, and it seemed very important to Peter that we avoid distorting truth for he said: "epistles there are “certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest [distort], as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.”

Like the Ethiopian eunuch said to Steven: “And how can I, unless some man show me?” Did Steven hand him scripture and tell him to figure it himself? No. Steven was not one of the twelve Apostles, but he was nonetheless, someone who was commissioned by the Apostles (Acts 6:6) - and who preached the good news with authority (Acts 8:4-8). Consequently, his preaching would reflect legitimate Apostolic teaching. My point is: the Ethiopian’s statement verifies the fact that the Bible is not sufficient in itself as a teacher of Christian doctrine, and people who hear the word of God do need an authority to instruct them properly so that they may understand what the Bible says. If the Bible were indeed sufficient of itself, then the eunuch would not have been ignorant of the meaning of the passage from Isaiah - yes, no, maybe?

RD, Jesus did not simply give His apostles a Bible, whole and entire, and tell them to go out and make copies of it for mass distribution (this would have been impossible anyway) - and allow people to come to whatever interpretation they may, but that is what many SS advocates are suggesting, and to boot, you are suggesting that whatever interpretation is eventually drawn, an infallible interpretation is not possible when it comes to the tough stuff that divides Christianity. If you are right and the bible cannot be infallibly interpreted, then why does Peter care so much about unlearned and unstable people wresting or distorting, scripture, to their own destruction I might add? Peter (Kepha) - should have said something like:

Scripture is the infallible word of God but it cannot be infallibly interpreted, not even by us or our successors so do your best and don’t worry too much if you have doubts regarding your interpretation, and if you distort the truth, no big deal. The bible teaches just the opposite, thank God.

Your thoughts friend?

 

[joe370]

Rightlydivide, biblical scholars tell us that the last book of the New Testament was not written until the end of the 1st century A.D., (that is, until around the year 100 A.D.) This fact would leave roughly a 65-year gap between Jesus’ascension into Heaven and the completion of the Bible as we know it. The question that begs to be asked, therefore, is this: “Who or what served as the final, infallible authority during that time?”

If the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura were true, then since the Church existed for a time without the entire written Word of God, there would have been situations and doctrinal issues which could not have been resolved with finality until all of the New Testament books were complete. The ship would have been left without a rudder, so to speak, at least for a time. But this goes contrary to the statements and promises that Jesus made about His Church – particularly, “behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world” (Matt. 28:20) – not to mention that He told His disciples: “I will not leave you orphans.” (John 14:18)

This issue is of particular importance, as the first several decades of the Church’s existence were tumultuous. Persecutions had already begun, believers were being martyred, the new Faith was struggling to grow, and some false teachings had already appeared (Galatians 1:6-9). If the Bible were the Christian’s only rule of faith, and since the Bible was not fully written – much less settled in terms of its canon – until 65 years after Christ’s Ascension, how did the early Church possibly deal with doctrinal questions without an authority on how to proceed?

Your thoughts friend?

 

[Rightlydivide]

=joe370;7286607]

Well, that’s good to hear. A few non-catholics hear seemed to be quite sick of my questions. I am, and always will be a Christian belonging to the CC but I enjoy trying to understand the Sola scriptura perspective and learning things that I found difficult to understand as a former non-catholic. However, it all seems rather moot if no one can inerrantly interpret the inerrant word of God.

I would not worry too much about what people think. You do post a lot of threads but I enjoy them.
I do not think it is moot. If you do, then why post a thread? That seems inconsistent. If you know that we do not believe anyone can infallibly interpret the Bible, and that view makes discussion moot…
Please elaborate

But I digress. I am still being told, here at CAF, that my understanding of sola scriptura is lacking, so I guess I am still attempting to learn.

I am glad it is about learning. The use of the term “admitted” in a previous post indicated that you were trying to get someone to admit something. That is rather different than attempting to learn.

When I ask the following question, it seems that JonNC is correct regarding the fact that there doesn’t seem to be a definitive consensus among SS advocates regarding SS,

Nor does there have to be. People have different beliefs based on a number of factors. If they were to agree on the definition, it would denote an agreement in practice. Any attempt to place unlike groups under a common umbrella would result in this. It would be like an attempt by me, something I should make clear I would not do, to lump everyone who adheres to scripture and tradition and believing there is a consensus when clearly there is not. Different groups hold different view.

and I agree with him regarding the fact that, whatever Martin Luther’s definition of SS was, should really be the definitive consensus among SS advocates; after all, he coined it, and was the first to define it; that seems logical don’t you think. If so could you please tell me what ML’s definition of sola scriptura was? Jon tells me that ML did not reject tradition and others tell me that he did.

No, it seems completely illogical. Words and meanings evolve. That is why the revise a dictionary every few years. It would also denote that an original concept is not open to revision. It would also denote that one particular person, the founder of the German Reformation, is also authoratative over perhaps groups that stem from the Radical Reformation or even the English Reformation?

SS advocates, are you referring to the bible alone (sola scriptura) - as the Christians final authority via private judgment? The Bible needs an interpreter?

No.

The Bible seems to suggest that it needs an authoritative interpreter. In 2 Peter 3:16 Peter says, about Paul’s epistles: "there are “certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest [distort], as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.”

It suggests that? Does Peter in this crucial letter let people know who that authoritative interpreter is?

It is obvious from these considerations that Peter did not believe scripture to be easily

interpreted, nor should it be authoritatively done on an individual bases, and Paul seems to agree with him, and it seemed very important to Peter that we avoid distorting truth for he said: "epistles there are "certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest [distort], as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction

."
That conclusion is lacking in consistency and has too many presuppositions. So it is not a problem with understanding but conclusions drawn on the basis of one’s understanding. I understand your view but the text does not support the conclusion.

.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Like the Ethiopian eunuch said to Steven: “And how can I, unless some man show me?” Did Steven hand him scripture and tell him to figure it himself? No. Steven was not one of the twelve Apostles, but he was nonetheless, someone who was commissioned by the Apostles (Acts 6:6) - and who preached the good news with authority (Acts 8:4-8). Consequently, his preaching would reflect legitimate Apostolic teaching. My point is: the Ethiopian’s statement verifies the fact that the Bible is not sufficient in itself as a teacher of Christian doctrine, and people who hear the word of God do need an authority to instruct them properly so that they may understand what the Bible says. If the Bible were indeed sufficient of itself, then the eunuch would not have been ignorant of the meaning of the passage from Isaiah - yes, no, maybe?

The Bible clearly speaks about teachers and others. However, this does not mean that which should be taught or is the standard is not the Bible itself. In fact, this is an attempt to use authoratative scripture to prove it is not authoratative!
As far as your statement about the Eunuch, it once again presupposes a certain level of understanding on his part and knowledge about how this is fulfilled in Christ (which I would argue based upon the text he did not possess). Its curious that someone is using passages that have not been infallibly interpreted to argue for an infallible interpreter. I am not aware that the Catholic Church has infallibly intepreted this passage of scripture?

RD, Jesus did not simply give His apostles a Bible, whole and entire, and tell them to go out and make copies of it for mass distribution (this would have been impossible anyway) -

Of course not. This is a caricature of our view.

and allow people to come to whatever interpretation they may,

Of course not.

but that is what many SS advocates are suggesting,

What SS advocates are you referring to and why should those who hold incorrect views have to be defended by those who do not hold the views you just stated?

and to boot, you are suggesting that whatever interpretation is eventually drawn, an infallible interpretation is not possible when it comes to the tough stuff that divides Christianity.

If you are right and the bible cannot be infallibly interpreted, then why does Peter care so much about unlearned and unstable people wresting or distorting, scripture, to their own destruction I might add? Peter (Kepha) - should have said something like:

Because Peter wanted to correct groups of people, not argue for an infallible interpreter. I suggest believing that someone CAN infallibly interpret scripture but in fact CANNOT is far more of a problem in practice.

Scripture is the infallible word of God but it cannot be infallibly interpreted, not even by us or our successors so do your best and don’t worry too much if you have doubts regarding your interpretation, and if you distort the truth, no big deal. The bible teaches just the opposite, thank God.

Those are not my views. If you believe those are my views or others, I am surprised

 

[Rightlydivide]

Rightlydivide, biblical scholars tell us that the last book of the New Testament was not written until the end of the 1st century A.D., (that is, until around the year 100 A.D.) This fact would leave roughly a 65-year gap between Jesus’ascension into Heaven and the completion of the Bible as we know it. The question that begs to be asked, therefore, is this: “Who or what served as the final, infallible authority during that time?”

The teachings of the Apostles and scripture were in written form and people had oral teachings. The central question is does a group now possess verifable oral teachings that came directly from the Apostles? I understand that your church does believe that based upon their interpretation of scripture and tradition. There were absolutely gaps. God at various times used prophets we agree. These prophets did not have access to all of Israel. They were not written down and distributed to every single Israelite. There is no contradiction between proper oral teaching and what is written in scripture during this era. The question I ask is why I should believe that one group’s tradition is superior to another? We have several groups with apostolic succession who have different traditions. As such, when I evaluated their contradictory teachings, I found that many of these traditions are not from the Apostles.

If

the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura were true, then since the Church existed for a time without the entire written Word of God, there would have been situations and doctrinal issues which could not have been resolved with finality until all of the New Testament books were complete. The ship would have been left without a rudder, so to speak, at least for a time. But this goes contrary to the statements and promises that Jesus made about His Church – particularly, “behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world” (Matt. 28:20) – not to mention that He told His disciples: “I will not leave you orphans.” (John 14:18)

 

[tester]

… Its curious that someone is using passages that have not been infallibly interpreted to argue for an infallible interpreter. I am not aware that the Catholic Church has infallibly interpreted this passage of scripture?

A very important point.
Note: I completely understand the difference between authoritative and infallible.

So Joe370 , can you please provide us with a list of Scriptures that the Catholic Church has infallibly interpreted? (vs. authoritatively interrupted)

I am NOT asking for a complete list : there are over 8000 verses in a Bible , but can you provide a list of a dozen or so verses that the Catholic Church has infallibly interpreted?

You have stated that you left a Protestant Church due to the lack of an “infalalble interpreter”, so for what dozen or so infallibly interpreted verses did you switch?

 

[jlhargus]

I am still being told, here at CAF, that my understanding of sola scriptura is lacking, so I guess I am still attempting to learn.

SS advocates, are you referring to the bible alone (sola scriptura) - as the Christians final authority via private judgment?

JL: There is no agreement among Protestant groups to ONE definition of SS, at lest in practice. The Lutheran view is far from that of the non-denomination from which I came. SS runs from an ecclesiastic group, from all the congregations of that denomination. To the local congregation, to one charmatic individual pastor, to individual interpretation. Individual interpretation would be my former denomination. SS has degenerated from the Lutheran view to a tower of babel. It had even done so in Luther’s day. If I remember correctly Luther lamented that ever milk maid has become a theologian.

 

[fbl9]

JL: There is no agreement among Protestant groups to ONE definition of SS, at lest in practice. The Lutheran view is far from that of the non-denomination from which I came. SS runs from an ecclesiastic group, from all the congregations of that denomination. To the local congregation, to one charmatic individual pastor, to individual interpretation. Individual interpretation would be my former denomination. SS has degenerated from the Lutheran view to a tower of babel. It had even done so in Luther’s day. If I remember correctly Luther lamented that ever milk maid has become a theologian.

I remember reading that copmment somewhere too.
What i have read in this thread makes me wonder , given that nobody can pin down what SS is. Can we trust these persons to interprete the word of God.if they can’t interprete the word of man?

 

[joe370]

Hey RightlyDivide…

I do not think it is moot. If you do, then why post a thread? That seems inconsistent. If you know that we do not believe anyone can infallibly interpret the Bible, and that view makes discussion moot…
Please elaborate

What I meant was: If you and I (all catholics and non-catholics) - can never know, with certainty, who is definitively right regarding doctrinal truth then we have reached a permanent impasse; resolution remains evasive. However, it is not moot to me for I believe that the teaching office of the church can infallibly interpret the infallible bible, just as the 1st century teaching office of the church could, and I believe this is very crucial. Take the Eucharist for example: I believe that truth can be definitively known; I don’t believe in the symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist like so many non-catholics do, and I don’t believe Jesus would fail to leave His church with the means to know who is right and who is wrong regarding the Eucharist.

Nor does there have to be. People have different beliefs based on a number of factors. If they were to agree on the definition, it would denote an agreement in practice. Any attempt to place unlike groups under a common umbrella would result in this. It would be like an attempt by me, something I should make clear I would not do, to lump everyone who adheres to scripture and tradition and believing there is a consensus when clearly there is not. Different groups hold different view.

That’s just it, there shouldn’t even be unlike groups with different beliefs; Jesus established one group (the church) - and prayed that this one group (the church) - would remain one, for the simple fact that the HS is guiding this one group into all truth, and I believe that one group (the church) - still exists today. If I were to break away from the church founded by God and start my own church, and teach something that conflicts with what Jesus’ church teaches, am I being guided by the HS into all truth? Of course not. Either the church founded by joe370 is wrong or the church founded by Jesus is wrong.

You said:* “If they were to agree on the definition, it would denote an agreement in practice.” *

But they don’t agree.

So it is OK for sola scriptura advocates to have different interpretations of sola scriptura? That is your answer to the OP?

Fbl9 said: “What i have read in this thread makes me wonder , given that nobody can pin down what SS is. Can we trust these persons to interpret the word of God, if they can’t interpret the word of man?”

He makes a good point, but then again, you don’t believe the bible needs an interpreter, so I guess he doesn’t make a good point to you.

No, it seems completely illogical. Words and meanings evolve. That is why the revise a dictionary every few years. It would also denote that an original concept is not open to revision. It would also denote that one particular person, the founder of the German Reformation, is also authoratative over perhaps groups that stem from the Radical Reformation or even the English Reformation?

This is what I mean by moot. What seems logical to me, seems illogical to you, so what’s the point of discussing the matter any further? Again, we have reached an impasse. **Since there doesn’t seem to be a consensus among SS advocates then my understanding of SS cannot be lacking. **

I don’t even know what the original concept of sola scriptura is. Based on your pen name I am assuming that you are pro-division, but Jesus and the apostles were anti-division. To me, sola scriptura should have one clear definition for it to work, but it does not, and that is one of the reasons why there is so much division in the protestant world. It’s not just the sin of man that causes division. Sola scriptura via private judgment is the cause of division. My sisters Pastor, for example, started his own church about 25 years ago and he teaches a symbolic interpretation of the Eucharist and that baptism is not biblical, and the Lutheran church up the street from my house teaches just the opposite, and they both base their teachings on their private judgment of their bibles. They both embrace the practice of Sola scriptura, what ever that is, and remain divided. SS clearly does not work. Now a days, anyone can just pick up a bible, read it, and start a church and proceed teach anything they want; they become the pope of their church; that is not at all biblical.

SS advocates, are you referring to the bible alone (sola scriptura) - as the Christians final authority via private judgment? The Bible needs an interpreter?
No

.

This is what is so confusing. You insist that the bible does not need an interpreter; I don’t even know what that means?

You insist that the Christians final authority is not the private judgment of each and every Christian, (yet that is all I see in the protestant world) - so what is the Christians final authority, and please don’t say the bible is the Christians final authority unless you want to tell me who has the authority to interpret the bible; the bible cannot interpret the bible.

Continued…

 

[joe370]

It suggests that? Does Peter in this crucial letter let people know who that authoritative interpreter is?

The teaching office of the apostolic church founded by Jesus, and the other books of the NT agree with that. Peter said: And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things…But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

In his first letter, he said:

"To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ’s sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed: Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away. In the same way, you who are younger, submit yourselves to your elders.

Clearly teachers are necessary, and said teachers belonging to the church founded by God, just as was the case in the 1st century, continue to possess the charism needed to infallibly teach, but that’s just my opinion, and Paul reminds us that we must defer to their authority:

*“Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account.”
*

interpreted, nor should it be authoritatively done on an individual bases, and Paul seems to agree with him, and it seemed very important to Peter that we avoid distorting truth for he said: "epistles there are “certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest [distort], as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction
.”
That conclusion is lacking

in consistency and has too many presuppositions. So it is not a problem with understanding but conclusions drawn on the basis of one’s understanding. I understand your view but the text does not support the conclusion.

Hence the OP, which says: I am still being told, here at CAF, that my understanding of sola scriptura is lacking, so I guess I am still attempting to learn…

 

[joe370]

[tester;7287188]A very important point.
Note: I completely understand the difference between authoritative and infallible.

So Joe370 , can you please provide us with a list of Scriptures that the Catholic Church has infallibly interpreted? (vs. authoritatively interrupted)

Infallible simply means inerrant. The teaching office of the CC, in my opinion, possess the necessary charism to infallibly (inerrantly) - interpret all revealed truth, like the Eucharist for example. There are some things that the CC cannot infallibly interpret, like some things found in the book of Revelation, for example, the identity of the two witnesses in Revelation 11:3-12. Very few official/formal infallible proclamations have been made from the chair.

I am NOT asking for a complete list : there are over 8000 verses in a Bible , but can you provide a list of a dozen or so verses that the Catholic Church has infallibly interpreted?

You have stated that you left a Protestant Church due to the lack of an “infalalble interpreter”, so for what dozen or so infallibly interpreted verses did you switch?

Tester, I thought we agreed that no man or woman is infallible? The Pope is not infallible or impeccable. If the pope was infallible he would know everything regarding everything in the world. The fallible leaders of the CC (just as the apostles were fallible) - possess the necessary charism to inerrantly teach in my opinion. Everything the CC teaches regarding revealed doctrinal truth, be it officially defined or not, is error free. The CC has never officially proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus to be an infallible teaching like they did with the Immaculate conception, because no one within Christendom, ever challenged this teaching, but it is an infallible teaching of the CC. As a former non-catholic, no one church claimed to teach infallibly, in other words: possess error free doctrine, or do they make that claim?

 

[fbl9]

Based on your pen name I am assuming that you are pro-division, but Jesus and the apostles were anti-division.I believe his pen name is a reference to a verse in the bible about rightly dividing the word of God.

 

[joe370]

Hey RD…

The Bible clearly speaks about teachers and others. However, this does not mean that which should be taught or is the standard is not the Bible itself. In fact, this is an attempt to use authoratative scripture to prove it is not authoratative!

Not at all. I am using the authoritative word of God to illustrated the necessity of authoritative teachers.

As far as your statement about the Eunuch, it once again presupposes a certain level of understanding on his part and knowledge about how this is fulfilled in Christ (which I would argue based upon the text he did not possess). Its curious that someone is using passages that have not been infallibly interpreted to argue for an infallible interpreter. I am not aware that the Catholic Church has infallibly intepreted this passage of scripture?

What else do I have at my disposal to make my claims, and back them up? You reject the teaching office of the CC, so I can’t reference the CC. Why can’t a catholic use the bible to back up their claims? I don’t understand your reasoning. I will always use the bible, codified by the CC, to back up my beliefs, but in the end, I will always defer to the church, founded by God, if I am having trouble understanding something, and in need of guidance.

You say that the bible does not state that the bible has an infallible interpreter? The bible doesn’t even make the claim that the bible is the infallible word of God. You just assume that it is infallible because the bible calls the bible, the inspired word of God. Jesus’ church is inspired too. The bible tells us that Jesus will be with His church forever, and that the HS is forever guiding Jesus’ church into all truth, and if that is true then the CC (if the CC is the church founded by Jesus, and I believe it is) - possess the necessary charism to teach error free doctrine, in spite of the fact that every catholic leader is very fallible, just as we all are.

Scripture is the infallible word of God but it cannot be infallibly interpreted, not even by us or our successors…
Those are not my views. If you believe those are my views or others, I am surprised.

So scripture can be infallibly interpreted?

 

[Rightlydivide]

I believe his pen name is a reference to a verse in the bible about rightly dividing the word of God.

Yes.

 

[Rightlydivide]

Its fairly apparent we agree on some things Joe.
What we do not agree on is your personal choice of who you trust to be an infallible interpreter or the authority of scripture. You do. I do not.
We obviously agree that the Bible teaches the proper role of teachers and then the threefold ministry etc…although we would disagree what that constitutes.
I would like to continue to particpate in any thread that Catholics start about our belief. Is there a particular area you would like to highlight?