Infallibility of Church?

[John_Martin]

Yet as I posted from John, where he calls us little children , “that we know all things, by an unction from the Holy Ghost”. As I also posted, He is neither Catholic, nor Orthodox, nor Protestant.

And that is YOU deciding the “denomination of John” when we know he is Catholic, under Peter as his Pope (or it may by the time of that writing be the second Pope).
And that is YOU deciding on an interpretation of a text without consulting the apostolic successors of John to see what John was really saying.

You are denying that the Church, Catholic Church, is from Heaven, instituted by Jesus to infallibly guide us as our fully faithful shepherds, and to guarantee that we have the correct interpretation and understanding of the Scriptures. When someone calls me, “Little Child”, I listen and obey. This is what the Catholic Church is to us, a Mother saying, with the Apostolic Words, “Little Children, do not give ear to private interpretations like mcq72, but listen to the guaranteed truth from the Church that sealed you with the Holy Spirit by the Laying on of Hands in Confirmation that you know the Truth.”

We trust the Church; it is You we do not trust because you are devising every answer of yours by your private reasoning and conclusions.

John Martin

 

[mcq72]

And that is YOU deciding the “denomination of John” when we know he is Catholic,

if so, you do by going along with my point, that apostolic is as apostolic does, or catholic as Catholic does. John was not catholic but you may say or believe he was in action and deed and teaching. Protestants do the same. They claim to be apostolic in action,deed and teaching.

Anyways, if I may respectfully say John was Jewish, who then became a "Christian’, even a person “of the way”, as they were also later called. But he lived a long time, and indeed the term “universal” had begun to be used as adjective for the true church , just not sure twas a proper noun by then.

And that is YOU deciding on an interpretation of a text without consulting the apostolic successors of John to see what John was really saying.

Pray tell, what interpretation do his successors have on said verse (1 John 2:20) ?

I only posted verse, not sure I gave an interpretation.

 

[mcq72]

You are denying that the Church, Catholic Church, is from Heaven, instituted by Jesus to infallibly guide us as our fully faithful shepherds, and to guarantee that we have the correct interpretation and understanding of the Scriptures.

Again, it is your strawman, to lump everything together, like you are all Orthodox or you are not, or you are Lutheran , or you are not. You speak for yourself when asserting what I deny or do not deny of the Catholic Church…quite sectarian.

do not give ear to private interpretations like mcq72,

Again, all or nothing. Indeed some of my interpretations are contrary, but not sure it is on this grace thing we speak of in these past few posts. Is this unCatholic,

“I mean is not grace the conveyor belt of anything good anything Righteous, Godly, Christ like, of the Virtues you were expounding, even in action, change within us, the inner man, the new man, ”?”

you are devising every answer of yours

lol, reminds me of a spousal disagreement, where one spouts out “You always…” or “You never…”.(throw out the garbage…never?) …intended hyperbole.

 

[mcq72]

Jesus ultimately required everyone to be together. Not just sort of together, but perfectly together.

"If it be possible, as much as is in you, have peace with all men. "

Sorry , not quite exact on my quote, but still same, that perfection of togetherness is conditional (two people), if not problematic, but yes the goal

 

[John_Martin]

Pray tell, what interpretation do his successors have on said verse (1 John 2:20) ?

I only posted verse, not sure I gave an interpretation.

Oh, my mistake; so then you are in agreement that the “We” referred to by John is the Church, Catholic Church, “We (the Catholic Church) know all things, by an anointing of the Holy Ghost.”

However, you have misquoted the text that reads John addressing “You”, Telling and not allowing his readers to disagree with his Telling them what is what. The Child is not allowed to instruct the Teacher, but must listen obediently. He actually said, “You, however, have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth.”
The anointing from the Holy One is their Baptism and the Laying on of Hands in Confirmation, which is repeatedly demonstrated in the Book of Acts if you wish to read about it happening.

Prior to this John warns them about some of their members who rebelled or protested against the truth,

“18 Children, [and children are obedient to their father in the Faith, their Bishop John] it is the last hour; and just as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have appeared. This is how we know it is the last hour. 19 They went out from us [Protestors who were Catholics but abandoned the Truth], but they did not belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us. But their departure made it clear that none of them belonged to us.”

And after these two verses is where their Bishop, John, reminds them that he gave them the Anointing from God in their Baptism and Confirmation, and taught them, so they are fully aware of what is true and what the Antichrists are falsifying:

“20 You, however, have an anointing from the Holy One, and all of you know the truth”

You gave an interpretation of the verse by how you posted it and by the fact you hoped to prove your private interpretations of doctrine where you deny the authority of the Church to give full truth and to give the New Birth and give the Holy Spirit in Baptism to all the Baptized, not just those you would evaluate to be truly born again.

John Martin
enough; we walk on, and if you are not with us you are not with us.

 

[mcq72]

Oh, my mistake; so then you are in agreement that the “We” referred to by John is the Church, Catholic Church, “We (the Catholic Church) know all things, by an anointing of the Holy Ghost.”

Well, no, because as you say, I imposed we for ye…it is an apostle, a shepherd, speaking to “we” (ye) the sheep, or little children (disciples?). So not sure about injecting church , for it is explicit only about two parts of the church (apostle and his spiritual children)…but for sure parts of the church.

But it is interesting that here the inference, the credit for “knowing”, is explicitly given not to the church per say though implied, but to the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the believer. A bit like Augustine , while admitting the role of the shepherd (Ambrose), admonishes or credits also the real teacher, Jesus Christ, in the believer

However, you have misquoted the text that reads John addressing “You”, Telling and not allowing his readers to disagree with his Telling them what is what.

Yes, a misquote, we instead of ye, but still the same object.Yes later on he talks of dissenters and to of course listen to the apostle, but the verse I quote talks of the partnership the gospel has with Holy Ghost…

The anointing from the Holy One is their Baptism and the Laying on of Hands in Confirmation, which is repeatedly demonstrated in the Book of Acts if you wish to read about it happening.

Again, the box of what later became to be known as Confirmation. For sure some received the gift of Holy Ghost with laying on of hands, and some not (Cornelius, Jesus, the apostles). Agree folks were baptized and received the gift, the unction.

You gave an interpretation of the verse by how you posted it and by the fact you hoped to prove your private interpretations

Well I posted it more to disprove your opinion that “others”, brethren not being full fellowhship with Rome, know nothing about grace and the soul and virtue etc., forgetting we too have been baptized in water and by the Holy Ghost and can know such things.

Now for sure I do use that verse and others not to prove my interpretations but to show that indeed the Catholic church or others can teach, but that she is restrained or is done conditionally when agreeing with Holy Spirit, or that once baptized, the believer not only has the church teacher, but Jesus the teacher. (and of course not to mention apostolic writings, but that is another topic).

enough; we walk on, and if you are not with us you are not with us.

Well, again, all or nothing, and sectarian, and if these “others” not with you say see you on the other side at the Pearly Gates then what ?..such a shame, some Catholics, some Orthodox, and some Protestants together forever but here…?

 

[mcq72]

This is the reason why I think you are against Baptizing infants. Because they have yet to become sinners. That’s what you mean by hindsight correct?

No. The hindsight is the bent man has, the original sin that would make one sin in the first place, if they had the opportunity, to grow beyond an infant.

I thought you say this with the IC, that without it , the preconvenience of taking away her original sin, the sin nature, before she was conceived, of making her spirit alive towards God from the beginning.

An infant has no idea what is happening to him when being baptized, compared to a consenting child or adult, even apart from any cooperation, or exercise of free will.

What I meant by out of love was before sinning, like infants. The unruly teenager was one who already sinned.

Yes, but what does Jesus say about the one who will love more, the one who was forgiven much sin, or the one who has not sinned or just a little?

 

[mcq72]

and like Cornelius, Nicodemus needed the Body of Christ to Baptize him and grant him the New Birth. To this fully validated Jew, full of Trust in God, Jesus declared, “You must be born again.”

And pray tell, was not Cornelius first covenanted with God by the old, yet still covenanted? And were there not saints bonded to God in that covenant, and was that too weak to save them from hell? How did Abraham or David not only see the kingdom but eventually be taken out of paradise and then enter the kingdom of heaven? Were they water baptized or not ? Were they born again? So why is it illogical to say Cornelius was not born again before, without, any baptism?

Seems like folk are being myopic here, even parochial, narrow minded, seeing no connection between old and new testament and the restoration of spirits dead by sin back to God thru regeneration.

God is a respecter of Baptisms

No He is not, and according to even your church since Pope Stephen, has ruled all baptisms valid.

That is fine that you do not want to be confined, but we have our King and the official Gospel he sends to us by official messengers, thus Paul must say, “Woe to me if I do not preach the Official Message from the King that I was sent to preach.”

Well, sounds a lot like what the Jewish leaders argued back to Jesus, that they were justified by their relationship, succession from, Abraham and Moses, oblivious to the need for any “reform:”

 

[MT1926]

No. The hindsight is the bent man has, the original sin that would make one sin in the first place, if they had the opportunity, to grow beyond an infant.

I thought you say this with the IC, that without it , the preconvenience of taking away her original sin, the sin nature, before she was conceived, of making her spirit alive towards God from the beginning.

Please pick a topic, which one do you want to discuss? We were discussing actual sin not original sin. Actual sin being washed away in Baptism is a different discussion than original sin being washed away in Baptism.

That’s why I asked…

I assumed we were talking about actual sin when you used the words convicted of sin. Which is what I meant when I said God can save infants, make them born again, before they commit actual sin.

An infant has no idea what is happening to him when being baptized, compared to a consenting child or adult, even apart from any cooperation, or exercise of free will.

Once again why is our being born again dependent on us knowing what is happening when we are being Baptized. You just keep listing more and more “stuff”.

Yes, but what does Jesus say about the one who will love more, the one who was forgiven much sin, or the one who has not sinned or just a little?

I’m assuming you are talking about Luke 7.

Jesus asked Simon who will love him more and Simone replied “The one, I suppose, to whom he forgave more.”

Jesus didn’t ask which one will be born again. He never even implied that the one who loves less, or not at all, can’t be born again.

So how does this apply to our discussion about being born again?

God Bless

 

[mcq72]

Once again why is our being born again dependent on us knowing what is happening when we are being Baptized. You just keep listing more and more “stuff”.

Did not say it was dependent on knowing, in fact that it was apart from cooperation and free will

I’m assuming you are talking about Luke 7.

Jesus asked Simon who will love him more and Simone replied “The one, I suppose, to whom he forgave more.”

Jesus didn’t ask which one will be born again. He never even implied that the one who loves less, or not at all, can’t be born again.

So how does this apply to our discussion about being born again?

I think you were implying that infant baptism regeneration can be just out of love, apart from any context of sin, or not due to sin. So I merely suggest that Love is always behind any regeneration, be that of an infant who has not sinned or an adult who has sinned or “unruly teenager” as you said.

 

[MT1926]

Did not say it was dependent on knowing, in fact that it was apart from cooperation and free will

OK. Then where is the hang up with infants? Why did you say…

An infant has no idea what is happening to him when being baptized, compared to a consenting child or adult, even apart from any cooperation, or exercise of free will.

If it’s not dependent on knowing, could you further explain the difference you are trying to show between the infant and the adult?

If it is apart from and not dependent on cooperation and free will I see this as it not being dependent on the person. So logically what’s the difference between the infant and the adult, in God’s eyes?

I think you were implying that infant baptism regeneration can be just out of love, apart from any context of sin, or not due to sin.

Well from the Catholic point of view we believe the infant would be regenerated from original sin not actual sin. Which is why I asked if we were talking about “actual sin”. So my point was that the infant can be Baptized apart from any context of actual sin.

So I merely suggest that Love is always behind any regeneration

Agreed. I think the difference is, I believe God accepts the love and promise of the parent, to raise the child in the faith, and he doesn’t wait for the child to grow up an decide for themselves.

If you really think about it, when the kid comes to the age of reason do they really fully understand what they are “signing up for”? Do they understand the responsibility of what it means to be a child of God? I would argue many of those young Christians present themselves, at least partly, on the faith of their parents. So from my point of view if God regenerates them when it is not fully on their “Love”, I honestly see no difference between God doing it for them or for infants.

God Bless

 

[Wannano]

John_Martin:

Oh, my mistake; so then you are in agreement that the “We” referred to by John is the Church, Catholic Church, “We (the Catholic Church) know all things, by an anointing of the Holy Ghost.”

Well, no, because as you say, I imposed we for ye…it is an apostle, a shepherd, speaking to “we” (ye) the sheep, or little children (disciples?). So not sure about injecting church , for it is explicit only about two parts of the church (apostle and his spiritual children)…but for sure parts of the church.

But it is interesting that here the inference, the credit for “knowing”, is explicitly given not to the church per say though implied, but to the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the believer. A bit like Augustine , while admitting the role of the shepherd (Ambrose), admonishes or credits also the real teacher, Jesus Christ, in the believer

However, you have misquoted the text that reads John addressing “You”, Telling and not allowing his readers to disagree with his Telling them what is what.

Yes, a misquote, we instead of ye, but still the same object.Yes later on he talks of dissenters and to of course listen to the apostle, but the verse I quote talks of the partnership the gospel has with Holy Ghost…

The anointing from the Holy One is their Baptism and the Laying on of Hands in Confirmation, which is repeatedly demonstrated in the Book of Acts if you wish to read about it happening.

Again, the box of what later became to be known as Confirmation. For sure some received the gift of Holy Ghost with laying on of hands, and some not (Cornelius, Jesus, the apostles). Agree folks were baptized and received the gift, the unction.

You gave an interpretation of the verse by how

Well, again, all or nothing, and sectarian, and if these “others” not with you say see you on the other side at the Pearly Gates then what ?..such a shame, some Catholics, some Orthodox, and some Protestants together forever but here…?
[/quote]

---

Maybe there is a special section of heaven reserved for the proud and condescending Catholics where they will not have to mingle with the "brothers and sisters in Christ " that they detested in earthly life.

 

[mcq72]

Maybe there is a special section of heaven reserved for the proud and condescending Catholics where they will not have to mingle with the "brothers and sisters in Christ " that they detested in earthly life.

Well, to be charitable, some would say all carnal, sectarian “virtues”, be they Catholic or Protestant or Orthodox, will be purged before entry, or as some would say their very own purgatory .

Certainly no reward for it, being burned up, before the judgement seat of Christ.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

Maybe there is a special section of heaven reserved for the proud and condescending Catholics where they will not have to mingle with the "brothers and sisters in Christ " that they detested in earthly life.

Well, to be charitable, some would say all carnal, sectarian “virtues”, be they Catholic or Protestant or Orthodox, will be purged before entry, or as some would say their very own purgatory .

Certainly no reward for it, being burned up, before the judgement seat of Christ.

Yes, and I never meant all Catholics are proud and condescending, just to clarify.

 

[thistle]

I feel it is important to note that not every thing the Church teaches is taught infallibly.

That is true but we are bound by all teachings, both infallible and non-infallible.

 

[mcq72]

OK. Then where is the hang up with infants? Why did you say…

just saying it can be problematic, doesn’t have to be but can be, for same cited reasons that circumcision was.

If it is apart from and not dependent on cooperation and free will

No , I said knowing what is happening to you is one thing (that you are being baptized, or that you “changed”), apart from any cooperation and free will, which is utilized by an adult baptism, though effected by grace.

 

[John_Martin]

Well, again, all or nothing, and sectarian, and if these “others” not with you say see you on the other side at the Pearly Gates then what ?..such a shame, some Catholics, some Orthodox, and some Protestants together forever but here…?

Maybe there is a special section of heaven reserved for the proud and condescending Catholics where they will not have to mingle with the "brothers and sisters in Christ " that they detested in earthly life.

According to these words of yours, since you think it is wrong to “be sectraian”, since you say it is wrong in God’s eyes to say that another Church is teaching incorrectly and not welcome them with their teaching to teach their incorrect teachings to you, then this means that to be in good standing in God’s eyes you are willing, for the sake of being one, to say that you are just guessing about any interpretation you have spoken, and are willing to join with Catholics in praying to Mary for intercession to Jesus on your behalf, and willing to join in learning the teachings of the Catholic Church as True and infallible, just to maintain unity, allowing the Pope and Bishops to teach to you and you will welcome their teaching on their terms, as infallible.??? Look at all the teachings you have denied and countered in this series of posts, just to be the correct teachers yourselves. You wish all the readers to follow you.

If you say the Catholic Church is not the Infallible Church built by Jesus on the Rock (Peter), then you are the Sectarian. I have told you nothing new in the History of the Church, as if I were splitting it. You however are seeking to draw people who are reading here to split by telling them that they are sectarian if they do not allow that you can be correct (but if they were to submit and say, “well Wannano, well mcq72, you can be correct also.” then they are saying the Catholic Church is incorrect - Mother Church cannot be right and you also right when you disagree - one is mistaken, and you want the Catholics here, without thinking through this clearly, to be “nice” to you and give you the bone of saying “you are not wrong”, when you disagree with the Church. That is “peace, peace, where there is no peace.”

John Martin (I was a Sectarian, I was a Lutheran, but I gave up Sectarian Ways and returned Home)

 

[mcq72]

since you say it is wrong in God’s eyes to say that another Church is teaching incorrectly

No, and as I have said before, I welcome your firm stand to your church convictions, even when they differ with mine. What I find sectarian is not finding the common ground, even any common ground, like for example that we are lost to any meaning of grace or soul. Like all others are wrong and only yours is right, all the time. It reminds me very much of JW’s, or the Way, where all of Cristendom is wrong, except for them…very cult like.
I wish not to use the term sectarian, yet within Catholicism, even within all churches, are “hardliners”, where there is no salvation outside their box, their doctrine, much less looking at individuals as such, that the term is applied negatively.

allowing the Pope and Bishops to teach to you and you will welcome their teaching on their terms, as infallible

I have posted that I do not do as you do,( better yet am tempted to but wish and pray not to), and take everything carte blanche, or in big chunks (either all Catholic or all unCatholic, down the line). I have posted that I am gladly subjected to any priest or pope etc, when indeed they are in line with the Holy Ghost, and are condoning Christ like love and actions etc.

So I am sectarian in not believing in the office of the pope as presented by the CC, but universal enough to listen to him as leader of Catholic church when he speaks in spirit and in truth, of which there is plenty of universalism still left to go around the table. And hopefully wise enough to understand that not all popes are of the same spiritual cloth, and that many were indeed one with Christ, born again, etc.,and very admirable.

If you say the Catholic Church is not the Infallible Church built by Jesus on the Rock (Peter), then you are the Sectarian

Yes, agree, thank you. But universal enough to see the bishop of Rome as once a seat of honor amongst all even one of the patriarchal seats, and today shepherd of all Catholics.

So to me there is convictions division and carnal division. There is useful sectarianism and abusive sectarianism. Like there are hardliners in CC and then those that at least call separated brethren “brethren”, even graced by God (how be it thru Catholic foundational unity).

So some throw the baby out with the dirty bathwater.To some that feels better, and it’s easier. Everything neat and tidy, less wisdom or discerment needed, less self examination needed in light of others, more self assured, easier to love a “baby” that is kindred, ours. Like Lazarus sister saying about her brother, but Lord, he stinketh.( not as easy to love a seperated brother…we stinketh a bit).

So yes, the Lord said we would be divided over Him. And I am not calling for peace with each other on all things, but certainly on some, and hoping indeed that there are some brethren of mine in the CC.

Again I have been strong in calling you out on this, and I must add am not above failing or being tempted to be carnally sectarian.

 

[Glenn]

Well, again, all or nothing, and sectarian, and if these “others” not with you say see you on the other side at the Pearly Gates then what ?..such a shame, some Catholics, some Orthodox, and some Protestants together forever but here…?

No, and as I have said before, I welcome your firm stand to your church convictions, even when they differ with mine. What I find sectarian is not finding the common ground, even any common ground, like for example that we are lost to any meaning of grace or soul.

Neither of you is saying anything that is in conflict with historic, orthodox Protestantism. And if someone insinuates that your perspectives place you outside of Christ’s kingdom, or are obstinately divisive, then they are going beyond the teaching of the Catholic Church itself, which now considers orthodox Protestants (those who accept the early creeds) to be “separated” but also “brethren”. As Protestants, we understand that we don’t have to agree on all points in order to be “in Christ,” which is why we endorse the principle mentioned previously in this discussion, “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity.”

I was baptized as a Baptist. But the Catholic Church accepts my baptism as valid, because it was trinitarian. Baptists, of course, unlike Catholics, do not believe that baptism causes the one baptized to be regenerated. Instead, they view baptism in terms of obedience to the command of Christ, and as a public sign and profession of an internal reality, that being saving faith, and thus, the real presence of the Holy Spirit.

We can get off into tangential issues about when the Holy Spirit actually enters one’s life (either at moment of baptism, or prior to baptism, or even sometime after baptism), but I think both Catholics and Protestants agree that at some point, there must be the internal reality, the infusion of the Spirit of Christ, apart from which the external sacrament is void.

As Protestants, the most important aspect of our historic confession is not Scripture or the church or the sacraments, but the reality to which they all point, “which is Christ in you the hope of glory” (Colossians 1:27). We place our hope solely in him as our High Priest. We are not joined to Christ by the church; rather, we are joined to the church by Christ. If we have placed all our hope in him, not with mere assent, but with a living and vital faith, a faith that follows him no matter what the cost, we will not be ashamed when our time comes to meet him face to face.

 

[Wannano]

Wannano:

Well, again, all or nothing, and sectarian, and if these “others” not with you say see you on the other side at the Pearly Gates then what ?..such a shame, some Catholics, some Orthodox, and some Protestants together forever but here…?

No, and as I have said before, I welcome your firm stand to your church convictions, even when they differ with mine. What I find sectarian is not finding the common ground, even any common ground, like for example that we are lost to any meaning of grace or soul.

Neither of you is saying anything that is in conflict with historic, orthodox Protestantism. And if someone insinuates that your perspectives place you outside of Christ’s kingdom, or are obstinately divisive, then they are going beyond the teaching of the

I was baptized as a Baptist. But the Catholic Church accepts my baptism as valid, because it was trinitarian. Baptists, of course, unlike Catholics, do not believe that baptism causes the one baptized to be regenerated. Instead, they view baptism in terms of obedience to the command of Christ, and as a public sign and profession of an internal reality, that being saving faith, and thus, the real presence of the Holy Spirit.

We can get off into tangential issues about when the Holy Spirit actually enters one’s life (either at moment of baptism, or prior to baptism, or even sometime after baptism), but I think both Catholics and Protestants agree that at some point, there must be the internal reality, the infusion of the Spirit of Christ, apart from which the external sacrament is void.

As Protestants, the most important aspect of our historic confession is not Scripture or the church or the sacraments, but the reality to which they all point, “which is Christ in you the hope of glory” (Colossians 1:27). We place our hope solely in him as our High Priest. We are not joined to Christ by the church; rather, we are joined to the church by Christ. If we have placed all our hope in him, not with mere assent, but with a living and vital faith, a faith that follows him no matter what the cost, we will not be ashamed when our time comes to meet him face to face.

Thank you Glenn, well worded. I agree with you 100%.

I do not feel I have tried to make anybody adapt to my way of thinking at all. Knowing that the Catholic Church has made various statements regarding the acceptance of non-Catholic Christians as brothers and sisters in Christ makes one warm towards Catholicism. What gives me a cold feeling is encountering those individual Catholics who do not want to listen and abide by what their Church has declared and insist on being like the man who came to pray and looked over at another man and prayed" Father, I thank thee that I am not like this other man." What is missing is the love Jesus instructed us to have for each other.

I would grant that perhaps this discussion should not be on the Apologetics forum but probably on the non- Catholic section.