Infallability

[gurneyhalleck1]

Is this sort of charity and self-giving a hallmark of the pagan community as well?

I’m not even Christian, but I can give you directions. Get in your car. Drive to the worst street on the bad side of whatever town you live. Find the worst down and out wretch you can. Put them up in a hotel if they have no place to live. Buy them a decent meal. Pay their way for whatever medical/psychiatric attention they may need. Give them at job at your business if you happen to have one. Do whatever it takes to elevate this person to a standard of living decent enough that you would not be ashamed to see your own son or daughter, or yourself living that way. Then do the same thing for another person just like that. Sell all of the high-end lifestyle **** you may have to pay for it - the iPhone, the bazillion inch widescreen TV, your home, if need be.

THAT’s where Jesus’ church is in the world today, and where it’s always been. Everything else is just a branch/denomination.

 

[joe370]

Hey Schaick…

Quick question: Where does the bible claim that the bible or scripture or the word of God, is infallible? If it does not then why do you believe that it is infallible?

You said:

Joe-
You are thinking too concretely. Jesus Church does not exist in it’s entirety in any one denomination/branch or congregation.

Agreed, to a degree, and the CCC agrees with you regarding all those non-Catholics baptized.

Jesus Church is you and gurneyhalleck1 and me and yes even elvisman!!

Agreed. By the way, I have been very impressed with Elvisman’s apologetics. I always put my old protestant hat on and try and debunk claims made by catholics here, but I never can; that is why I am a catholic today.

Joe and gurneyhalleck1-

Don’t think of me saying the Catholic Church is a branch of the church Jesus built as a negative it is simply a fact. It is not necessarily the case that it was not needed

Schaick, stating that the CC is a branch of the church founded by Jesus, and not the actual church founded by Jesus, is not a fact. If it was a fact you would be able to prove it, just as I can prove that 2+2=4. Moreover, your statement belies the claim, made by Jesus, that He would be with His church forever, guiding His church into all truth until the end of time, but I do respect your right to believe it as a theory, or as a fact, I suppose, if that is what you truly believe.

The early Church owned no land, no buildings,no art, no type of material things-

That is because the early church (Christianity) - was illegal. It is truly a miracle that it even survived.

Jesus’ Church was concerned with the spiritual, not the things of this world. The Church was focused on Jesus’ return.

So, you are suggesting that all of the PC’s and the CC and the EOC are concerned with the things of this world and not concerned with the spiritual? Perhaps I misread.

The Church Jesus built existed in Jerusalem first with a Jewish flavor - culture, the first Christians were Jews following Jewish Laws, feasts and traditons.

No argument there brother.

There were no Popes,

The word Pope is merely an affectionate term for the Bishop, and as you know there were bishops. If you do not want to believe in the office of Peter, well, that’s cool. To each their own.

no central rule.

There was no bible, which means that sola scriptura (the protestants final authority via private judgment) - would have been absolutely impossible, so why do you embrace SS today? You seem to equivocate regarding the fact that practice of SS was unheard of until Martin Luther. If you would like I could send you some ECF quotes regarding the authority of the office of Peter, that dates back to the early part of the second century? Perhaps you could do the same regarding the practice of SS?

Worship was done in synagogues until they were run out and went to homes,

Are you suggesting that we should worship in synagogues?

there was much fellowship, smaller congrgations locally organized.

In the CC there are small congregations localy organized as well, and there are larger congregations locally organized, as is the case with the myriad Protestant churches. The difference is: there is a chain of command in the CC that goes all the way back to Jesus Christ, (which is very biblical) - which is crucial to unity and objective truth. In the myriad PC’s this chain of command is not only lacking, but only goes back as far as the protestant reformation, ergo the division and subjective nature of truth.

It did not matter whether Mary was co-redeemer, immaculately conceived, assumed. The focus was on Jesus-the Eucharist.

How do you know that it didn’t matter to the early church, if Mary was sinless or bodily assumed? Did they tell you something that I am unaware of? Many non-Catholics disagree with you about the Eucharist, and they can, because the bible is their only authority via subjective judgment. Do you really think Jesus preferred subjective private judgment over objective judgment of His church leaders in His stead, which He sent out into the world to be His witnesses and to teach?

Evangelism was a priority look how the Church grew, foot washing was done.

So if foot washing is not done in one of the branches of Jesus’ one church, then what? Is foot washing still done in the church founded by Jesus, as opposed to all of the branches? If so where can I go to find that church?

There were no doctrines, christians simply lived as a follwer of Christ.

No teachings…??? So, why do we need doctrines today if they did not have teachings back then? About what were they evangelizing if not the teachings of Jesus???

As time progressed everything Christian needed to be defined, explained- in what way is the Bread and Wine the Body and Blood of Christ even though it seems not important enough to be in GOD’s Word.

Via subjective private fallible judgment/interpretation? Show where that is taught in the infallible word of God, and please don’t quote 2 Tim. 3…

If we as Christians can only fallibly interpret the infallible bible, then you and I could be wrong regarding our fallible interpretations of the infallible bible, just as anyone could be wrong, which means that truth remains subjective and therefore, possibly an untruth, and that Jesus did not do what He promised to do regarding the preservation of truth in John 16:13 and John 14:16.

Your thoughts friend?

 

[kenofken]

Is this sort of charity and self-giving a hallmark of the pagan community as well?

We’re working on it, and in a lot of various quarters of our communities, there is some really good work going on. The moral imperative is somewhat different, but we do feel a deep sense of duty to others for various reasons.

 

[joe370]

Schaick, where does the bible claim that the bible or scripture or the word of God, is infallible? If it does not then why do you believe that it is infallible? I guess we could automatically assume that it is for the simple fact that it is the word of God, and God teaches infallibly, and therefore it must be infallible, but from a purely Sola scriptua perspective, minus all tradition, (of which you are not an exponent) - this really should not be believed. I am told by most SS advocates: if a particular teaching is not in the bible, like the Immaculate conception or ministerial priest (Presbyter vs Hierus) - or purgatory, or Mary as co-redeemer, (we are all co-redeemers when we mediate vis-a-vis non-Christians) - or the assumption of Mary, or the sacrifice of the Mass - it is not to be believed.

You believe that the Infallible holy spirit was sent to Jesus’ church to guide His church into all truth, which would mean that the early church leaders starting with the apostles, (long before the bible was bound and codified) - and including men who were not apostles like Luke and Mark and Titus and Timothy, and of course those men that they appointed, could teach infallibly regarding the teachings of Jesus - right?

The reason I left you in Crete was that you might put in order what was left unfinished and appoint[a] elders in every town, as I directed you.

 

[joe370]

Gurney, always a pleasure to read your posts brother. They are always verifiably factual and lucidly logical.

The fact that the Church started in the synagogue and then merged into the homes of believers and that organization day one of the Church was still in its infancy doesn’t remove the fact that it was the local congregations ALL deciding to have one presbyter acts as episkopos (bishop) over the rest in each community. Each Church started out with councils of presbyters. Over a very short amount of time, by the second century we see ALL the Churches have a monepiscopacy, one bishop. I would suggest you read Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp and take note of how seriously the local churches viewed the power and Christ-driven authority that the local bishops had. In the end of the first and into the beginning of the second centuries the entire Christian landscape was the same:

one bishop
Eucharist (real presence)
Sacrifice of the Mass
Liturgy
organized
priesthood

Jesus planted a seed and at Pentecost the seed was watered and fertilized and nurtured. And very quickly the seed grew into the plant that we call the Church. It’s not that the Church wasn’t the Church day one but it was like a child and the Church we see within a few decades was the adult full grown Church.

The fact is that the local elders all gave the authority to the bishop and the bishop carried the authority from Christ on high to lead the flocks. The Church’s power was present day one but rapidly developed out of its synagogue/home-based cocoon.

There were no denominations in the early Church. It was one. It was called by the Fathers the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. It wasn’t denominational. It was more conciliar, true, and the papacy was more of a primatial See that wielded great respect, people deferred to her, and the papacy was the summit of episcopal rule.

No, the Marian dogmas were not on the table yet. You expect all Christian doctrines, theology, eschatology, soteriology, and doctrinal matters to have been set within 100 years? It took centuries of heresies, misunderstandings, schismatic threats, and diabolical threats on the Church to help clarify, expound, explain, and develop systematically these doctrines and truths we know today. God doesn’t always work quickly, you know that. Look at how long it took for God just to lay out the 10 Commandments! All the way through the Patriarchal period for hundreds of years it took for God to use Moses finally just to give the Law. Then look how long it took for a monarchy in Israel. Then look how long it took for the Messiah! Then look how long it took to develop the theology and dogmas we enjoy today. It’s just God’s way.

Of course evangelism was the priority----the whole world was pagan or Jewish! And there wasn’t a need to define things like the Eucharist or Mary or other things really in the early church as these things were UNDERSTOOD by the apostolic age Church congregants. They knew the Real Presence; they didn’t need it codified. It was only after centuries of misunderstanding about the Eucharist that the Church felt the need to officially explain it.

Keep in mind, Schaik, that heresy usually forces dogmas and codified teachings. Just like in our system of law, laws aren’t created until trouble arises with an issue.

The Church was never a loosey-goosey group of believers with Bibles who decided their own truths and just were held together by an invisible glue of faith. The Church was always concrete, local and global, had visible leadership int he episcopacy, was sacramental, sacrificial (see the Didache for reference and the Fathers), liturgical, and held the four marks of the True Church.

Blessings!

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Much-appreciated, Joe. My middle name’s Joseph so we must be two great minds

Gurney, always a pleasure to read your posts brother. They are always verifiably factual and lucidly logical.

 

[schaick]

Don’t think of me saying the Catholic Church is a branch of the church Jesus built as a negative it is simply a fact.* It is not necessarily the case that it was not needed**.*

Sorry for that incomplete thought it should read: It is not necessarily the case that doctrine that divided the Church was not needed was not needed.

For instance the Nicene Creed- is an amazingly beautiful, easy, in a nutshell statement of our Christian faith. [statement weededs out a lot of pseudo-christians]

We know from Scripture there are 2 natures of Jesus from Scripture-did it really need to be defined more? Aren’t there mysteries in the Church? Do we really know for sure how HE was put together? If we really knew would we understand? Did it cause splintering in the Church?

We know from Scripture there is Real Presence in the Eucharist. Do we really know how it exists in the Bread and Wine and in what form? Do we need to know or just accept that it exists? Did definition, doctrine cause splintering in the Church?

In the early Church there was much discussion about these issues-that is part of being a Christian working by listening, learning, studying to be closer to GOD.

We know from Scripture that Mary was a virgin when she conceived and gave birth to Jesus- do we really need to know she was immaculately conceived? Did it cause splintering in the Church?

We know from Scripture that Jesus’ blood is the New Covenant- I believe Jesus’ body to be the Ark, Catholics believe it is Mary. In order to make Mary the Ark doctrine needs to be developed in spite of the fact that we already know Jesus was sinless. Did it cause splintering in the Church?

We know from Scripture that there is one mediator. Catholics believe there are co-mediators. Did/will it cause splintering in the Church?

No, just that the Catholic Church is a branch of the Church Jesus built. You could worship in a corn field if you needed to. Yes at different times the hierarchy was more interested in amasing wealth then saving souls.

Actually 2 Timothy 3 does not prove that the Bible is GOD’s Word. It tells us that Scripture, not tradition is sufficient to:** completely equipe a servant of God for every good work:**
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

Why would GOD need to tell us HIS Word is infallible? That is just a given either HE is a being of pure truth and love wanting a good relationship with us or HIS Word is a mean trick. So the question is how do we know it is GOD’s Word?

Prophecies fufilled combine with miracles performed by Jesus in front of many eyewitnesses. The Bible tells a truthful story of man sinning- things done way back then still being done by man today. Seeing the effect of lifestyle changes occuring in people on hearing or reading the message.

Moreover, your statement belies the claim, made by Jesus, that He would be with His church forever, guiding His church into all truth until the end of time,

There you go again thinking only concretely again. Jesus promised the Holy Spirit. I have actually had contact with the Holy Spirit-very cool experience.

We have the truth of what we need for our salvation in GOD’s Word, there is no secret tradition that needed or needs to be revealed to us - that is gnostism.

Infallibility - We all agree the office of clergy is to lead us, teach us, guide us to truth - they have the keys. The keys do not allow requirements to be added that has no proof of being needed for your salvation, a person can only bind or loose what GOD has aready bound and loosed in heaven.

Catholics can not prove there was one Pope/bishop in the early Church. Paul did a lot of supervising and teaching. There was never one person with the power to solve spiritual debates - differences were solved by councils. At one time there were 5 Bishops Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem and Romeall of equal status.

1 Peter 5 1 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:

How do we know when an interpretation is false? When the interpretation does not point to Jesus, when taken out of context of the surrounding verses, the chapter, the book, the Bible. When it has an agenda separate from that of the author.

 

[jphilapy]

My problem is infallablity. My issue is that I don’t see where in Acts of the Apostles we see anybody speak of infallability. So how do we know that the Church was always understood to have it?

Just curious, did you see in acts where the church is guided by the Holy Spirit? And did you see in Acts 15 where their decision was in agreement with the Holy Spirit? Couple acts with matt where we are told the gates of hell will not prevail against the church.

Think of it like this: Why were the apostles able to lead the church with truth? Because they did so by the Spirit. Why is the catholic church infallible? Because the Holy Spirit protects it, from error.

 

[joe370]

Hey Schaick…

Don’t think of me saying the Catholic Church is a branch of the church Jesus built as a negative it is simply a fact. It is not necessarily the case that it was not needed.

It is not a fact; if it was, everyone would agree with you, just as everyone agrees that 2+2=4.

Sorry for that incomplete thought it should read: It is not necessarily the case that doctrine that divided the Church was not needed was not needed.

I understand.

For instance the Nicene Creed- is an amazingly beautiful, easy, in a nutshell statement of our Christian faith. [statement weededs out a lot of pseudo-christians]

Which is an authoritative creed drawn up by the leaders of the Catholic Church - correct? Why didn’t they simply say: defer to the authority of the bible for resolution?

We know from Scripture there are 2 natures of Jesus from Scripture-did it really need to be defined more?

Evidently it did, due to all of the misunderstandings early on.

Aren’t there mysteries in the Church?

Yes, like the Eucharist, (true food) - which is rejected by most Protestants.

Do we really know for sure how HE was put together?

Good point!

If we really knew would we understand?

Sure, if it is his will!!!

Did it cause splintering in the Church?

Oh yes…but thanks to the Holy Spirit forever guiding the CC, doctrinal truth prevailed regarding this great mystery.

We know from Scripture there is Real Presence in the Eucharist. Do we really know how it exists in the Bread and Wine and in what form? Do we need to know or just accept that it exists? Did definition, doctrine cause splintering in the Church?

No, but we do know that the bread is Jesus’ flesh, and yet many deny this claim, and yes, this claim caused splintering post protestant reformation, as you know.

In the early Church there was much discussion about these issues-that is part of being a Christian working by listening, learning, studying to be closer to GOD.

And in the end the church found by God decided, and continues to decide what is doctrinally correct and what is doctrinally incorrect, just as the CC did regarding the Nicene creed.

We know from Scripture that Mary was a virgin when she conceived and gave birth to Jesus- do we really need to know she was immaculately conceived?

Yes. Mary is the fulfillment of Genesis 3. “And I will put enmity between you and the woman…” Mary is the new Eve and just as Eve was sinless for a brief period, Mary was sinless forever. If you do not want to believe that God’s mother remained sinless, that’s cool.

Did it cause splintering in the Church?

Not until the protestant reformation, and even Martin Luther believed in the IC, so I guess that splintering started much later.

We know from Scripture that Jesus’ blood is the New Covenant- I believe Jesus’ body to be the Ark, Catholics believe it is Mary.

So who can resolve this difference of opinion? Not you; not me.

Did it cause splintering in the Church?

Not until the protestant reformation, and even Martin Luther believed that Mary was/is the ark, so I guess that splintering started much later.

In order to make Mary the Ark doctrine needs to be developed in spite of the fact that we already know Jesus was sinless.

Not that this will change your mind but:

Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–373) was the main defender of the deity of Christ against the second-century heretics. He wrote: “O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, O dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all O [Ark of the] Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides” (Homily of the Papyrus of Turin).

Gregory the Wonder Worker (c. 213–c. 270) wrote: “Let us chant the melody that has been taught us by the inspired harp of David, and say, ‘Arise, O Lord, into thy rest; thou, and the ark of thy sanctuary.’ For the Holy Virgin is in truth an ark, wrought with gold both within and without, that has received the whole treasury of the sanctuary” (Homily on the Annunciation to the Holy Virgin Mary).

The Catechism of the Catholic Church echoes the words from the earliest centuries: “Mary, in whom the Lord himself has just made his dwelling, is the daughter of Zion in person, the Ark of the Covenant, the place where the glory of the Lord dwells. She is ‘the dwelling of God . . . with men’” (CCC 2676).

The early Christians taught the same thing that the Catholic Church teaches today about Mary, including her being the Ark of the New Covenant.

Continued…

 

[joe370]

We know from Scripture that there is one mediator. Catholics believe there are co-mediators. Did/will it cause splintering in the Church?

Jesus is our only mediator between us and the Father, but that does not stop you and me from mediating as true priests, just as we should. We are co-mediators just as Mary is. She just has a better vantage point.

No, just that the Catholic Church is a branch of the Church Jesus built.

I don’t want to belong to a branch of Jesus’ church; I want to belong to Jesus’ church; help me find said church?

You could worship in a corn field if you needed to. Yes at different times the hierarchy was more interested in amasing wealth then saving souls.

True, but Jesus’ church did not and will not falter, which means there is no need for another church.

Actually 2 Timothy 3 does not prove that the Bible is GOD’s Word. It tells us that Scripture, not tradition is sufficient to: completely equipe a servant of God for every good work:

Agreed.

Why would GOD need to tell us HIS Word is infallible?

I explained why, from a purely sola scriptura perspective. I tell you what God did not do: He did not tell us which books were infallible and which books were not; you can thank the CC for that infallible decision.

That is just a given either HE is a being of pure truth and love wanting a good relationship with us or HIS Word is a mean trick. So the question is how do we know it is GOD’s Word?

Prophecies fufilled…

That does not tell me which books comprise the word of God and which books do not. That does go a long way at proving the deity of Jesus though.

There you go again thinking only concretely again. Jesus promised the Holy Spirit. I have actually had contact with the Holy Spirit-very cool experience.

That is the only way I can think brother. Unlike you the HS is not guiding me into all truth. I wish He was but He is not. I, again, was not entrusted with the authority to infallibly teach. I trust the church founded by God to infallibly teach, just as the church did for the first 400 ears of Christianity.

We have the truth of what we need for our salvation in GOD’s Word, there is no secret tradition that needed or needs to be revealed to us - that is gnostism.

I thought you embraced tradition? Oops…God’s word cannot interpret anything; it’s a collection of books after all; people interpret truth. Can the constitution of the US interpret itself? Of course not; the same logic applies to the infallible bible.

Infallibility - We all agree the office of clergy is to lead us, teach us, guide us to truth - they have the keys.

What do you mean by: the office of clergy…?

The keys do not allow requirements to be added that has no proof of being needed for your salvation, a person can only bind or loose what GOD has aready bound and loosed in heaven.

Who has the authority to bind and loose? It is not you and it is not me and it is not one of the PC’s founded by man.

Catholics can not prove there was one Pope/bishop in the early Church. Paul did a lot of supervising and teaching.

Why did Paul defer to Peter and the church in Acts 15?

So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question…The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe.

Like I said: if you do not want to believe in the office of peter, that’s cool.

There was never one person with the power to solve spiritual debates - differences were solved by councils…

So why don’t you belong to the church comprised of said councils that resolved (and continue to resolve) - said differences? I will send you some quotes regarding the office of Peter because you are mistaken, just as I was.

1 Peter 5 1 To the elders among you…

The current Pope is a fellow elder and servant, just as Peter was.

How do we know when an interpretation is false?

Good question.

When the interpretation does not point to Jesus, when taken out of context of the surrounding verses, the chapter, the book, the Bible. When it has an agenda separate from that of the author.

Not such a good answer. Who, in the end, decides when something is taken out of context? Who has the authority to decide when it has an agenda separate from that of the author? I know it is not you or me.

 

[Irish_Polock]

Actually 2 Timothy 3 does not prove that the Bible is GOD’s Word. It tells us that Scripture, not tradition is sufficient to:** completely equipe a servant of God for every good work:**

16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2 Tm 3:16-17, RSV)

If I remember my studies correctly, there are three significant words that most protestants use to prooftext sola scriptura in 2 Tm 3:16-17, those being:

“profitable”: Bauer’s lexicon defines it as: “useful, beneficial, advantageous, what is particularly helpful” (p. 900). This form appears in two other places in the New Testament, e.g., “for physical training is of some value” (1Tm 4:8) and “these things are excellent and profitable for everyone” (Titus 3:8). The verbal form oopheleoo appears 16 times, denoting the concept of “profitability” or “value,” e.g., Rm 2:25; 1Co 13:3; Gl 5:2; Hb 4:2. The noun form oopheleia appears twice, once translated as “advantage” in Jude 16. All in all, oophelimos does not mean selfsufficient. If Paul wanted to teach sufficiency he could have used a word such as autarkeia (2Co 9:8; 1Tm 6:6), which is lexically defined as “the state of one who supports himself without aid from others; contentment, selfsufficiency” (Bauer, op. cit., p. 122). A similar word is hikanos which can sometimes be translated as “sufficient” (2Co 2:6, 16; 3:5) or “qualified” or “able” (2Tm 2:2); and arkeoo which means “sufficient” or “content” (cf., John 14:8; 2Co 12:9; 1Tm 6:8), but none of them are used to describe Scripture.

Also:

“complete”: pronounced: artios from the verb artidzo.

“equipped”: pronounced: exartismenos from the verb exartidzo, which is a combination of ex + artidzo)

Greek lexicons are somewhat varied in their definition of both artios (RSV “complete”) and exartismenos (RSV “equipped”).

Standard lexical works such as Walter Bauer, Liddell and Scott, Ardt and Gingrich, and Louw and Nida contain a range of meanings from “fit” and “capable” to “complete” or “perfect.”

Liddell and Scott define artios as: (1) “complete, perfect of its kind, exactly fitted” (2) “active, quick, ready.” It defines exartidzo as “to complete, finish, to be completely furnished” (Abridged version, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1977) pp. 105, 233.

Walter Bauer defines artios as “complete, capable, proficient=able to meet all demands.” He defines exartidzo as: (1) “finish, complete” and (2) “equip, furnish.” (2nd edition, revised by Gingrich and Danker, University of Chicago Press, Chicago and London, 1957, 1979), pp. 110, 273.

The definitions of “fit,” “capable,” or “ready” show a preparedness to accomplish a given task but do not guarantee the outcome. The definitions of “complete” and “perfect” speak more to the expected result. Suffice it to say that, coupled with the very infrequent usage of these words in both classical and Koine Greek, the variations in meaning suggests that the understanding and application of the words will depend heavily upon the context in which they are placed.

The New Testament uses artios only here in 2 Timothy 3:17, while it uses exartidzo (from which exartismenos is derived) twice, the other occurrence appearing in Acts 21:5 in the infinitive form, normally translated as “accomplished” or “ended” (“But when those days were ended, we departed and went our way…”).

In the Septuagint exartidzo appears only in Exodus 28:7, translated as “fastened,” while artios appears only once, as a temporal adverb in 2 Samuel 15:34, translated as “until now.” Artios andits derivatives come from the root ar, which means “appropriateness, suitability, usefulness, aptitude.” The cognate katartidzo, its oldest derivative in classical Greek, means “to put in order, restore, furnish, prepare, equip.” These various meanings have a common origin in the basic concept “to make suitable, fitting.”

The Septuagint uses katartidzo 19 times, standing for no less than 9 different Hebrew words, e.g., in the sense of “complete” (Ezra 4:12), “to set up, establish” (Psalm 74:16), “to hold fast” (Psalm 17:5), “God’s equipping” (Psalm 40:6), “to restore” (Psalm 68:9). Katartidzo is also used in the New Testament as “repair” (Matthew 4:21), “prepare” (Hebrews 10:5), “to establish,” “to form” (Hebrews 11:3), “to equip” (1 Peter 5:10). From these various meanings and contexts, we understand Paul to teach that Scripture prepares the man of God to function properly — his function being to do “every good work.”

Commenting on these varied meanings, the Dictionary of New Testament Theology states: “artios here does not imply perfection, as was originally thought, doubtless because of the variant reading teleios, (“perfect”), in Codex D. Rather it refers to the state of being equipped for a delegated task. So too, in Eph. 4:12* katartismos* refers to the preparation of the church for becoming perfect, but not to this perfection itself, as can be seen from the use of teleios (complete, mature > Goal), helikia (stature > Age, Stature), and pleroma (> fulness) in v. 13 (Also 1 Cor. 1:10). The terms artios and katartismos thus have not so much a qualitative meaning as a functional one” (p. 350).

If you look at the Scriptures in its entirety, it is unlikely that anyone could teach a fallacy such as sola scriptura and remain honest with themselves and God.

15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. (2 Thess. 2:15, RSV)

 

[Richard_Kastner]

16 All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work. (2 Tm 3:16-17, RSV)

If I remember my studies correctly, there are three significant words that most protestants use to prooftext sola scriptura in 2 Tm 3:16-17, those being:

v. 15 should be included
2Tim.3
**15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. **

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

If “scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” What more is necessary?

 

[Irish_Polock]

Catholics can not prove there was one Pope/bishop in the early Church. Paul did a lot of supervising and teaching. There was never one person with the power to solve spiritual debates - differences were solved by councils. At one time there were 5 Bishops Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem and Romeall of equal status.

If you are not aware, the Popes signature or “Rota” has St. Peter and Paul’s name in it. St. Paul’s role in establishing the Church in Roma was vital.

The primacy of the Patriarch of Rome was unchallenged throughout the first century.

 

[Irish_Polock]

v. 15 should be included
2Tim.3
**15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. **

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

If “scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” What more is necessary?

Timothy, being in childhood when first introduced to the Scriptures, certainly could not grasp its deep truths by himself, especially since the Old Testament, to which this verse could only apply, contained only the obscure or veiled references to “faith in Jesus Christ” that Paul ascribes to the Old Testament Scriptures in 2 Timothy 3:15. Only a very astute and informed individual could explain the mysteries of “faith in Jesus Christ” from the Old Testament alone, thus proving that knowledgeable teachers are very important in making a fit man of God ( Colossians 1:26-27; Luke 24:27; Acts 8:30-35; 1 Peter 1:10-12). Timothy was dependent on his teachers (his grandmother Lois and his mother Eunice in his childhood (2 Timothy 1:5); Paul and other leaders in his adulthood), who could rightly divide the word of truth, to make him a fit man for every good work. In fact, Timothy’s use and interpretation of Scripture is dependent on the hermeneutical principles he learned from Paul and other his other teachers.

 

[joe370]

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

v. 15 should be included
2Tim.3
**15And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. **

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

If “scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” What more is necessary?

 

[notself]

Could someone post an official list of infallible teachings of the Catholic Church? I have tried searching for a list but have been unable to find one.

Thanks.

 

[Irish_Polock]

Could someone post an official list of infallible teachings of the Catholic Church? I have tried searching for a list but have been unable to find one.

Thanks.

There is no such official list.

 

[notself]

I find that surprising. Is there any reason why a list would not be kept? Is there an unofficial list?

 

[Irish_Polock]

I find that surprising. Is there any reason why a list would not be kept? Is there an unofficial list?

I would guess that a official list of infallible Papal statements would be a rather exhaustive chore.

The CDF has made a few list with examples of infallible statements, although they are by no means a complete list.

See article 11:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFADTU.HTM

 

[notself]

Thank you for the link you posted. It was an interesting read. Perhaps there is a list of infallible statements if there is a list of grave sins (formerly known as mortal sins). It seems to me in my reading that there is a strong correlation between the two. Am I correct in this impression?