Infallibility of Church?

[mcq72]

I have absolutely no problem agreeing that the repentance comes first. I would agree one would have to repent, turn away from sin, in order to even desire to be Baptized. But this doesn’t change anything in Catholic theology because that person would still be repenting at the moment of their Baptism. So it fits perfectly into the Acts text when Peter tells us to Repent AND be Baptized.

Ok. Thank for admitting that repentance comes first, howbeit with qualifications that it continues, so as to fit the the one action, though doing two things (repent, baptize)

Yes we always continue to repent, but I dare say as there is only one time action of baptism, so to Peter was talking of a one time repentance, of changing ones mind, even belief, that is from unbelief to belief in Jesus as Christ.

We just disagree when one is born again. You say at the connected baptism and not before. I say at the repentance, connected and leading to baptism. You are saying one can call Jesus Lord and Messiah, as one does at baptism, without new birth.

We go in circles. We both see our version of things as fitting scripture.

 

[mcq72]

Some of the evidence is textual, and some of it is archeological

I was reading a book on the cathedral at Notre Dame. Apparently the church is built upon earlier “versions”. If I recall correctly, the first churches had two sections, one for catechumens, so they could exit quietly before eucharist celebration. The other section for the baptized. Some cities had separate churches to that effect, that is one for baptized and one for catechumen. The book goes on to say that when infant baptism became popular or widespread, new church architecture changed, no longer having separate area for catechumen, but as we are accustomed to seeing now.

In your readings, I was wondering if you came across another interesting tidbit dealing with Pope Stephen. Read it in a book about popes, all of them, written by a former Jesuit, Michael Walsh. Apparently the pope thought baptism did not convey the Spirit, but was for forgiveness of sins only and hence accepted baptisms from schismatic churches.

 

[Glenn]

The book goes on to say that when infant baptism became popular or widespread, new church architecture changed, no longer having separate area for catechumen, but as we are accustomed to seeing now.

In your readings, I was wondering if you came across another interesting tidbit dealing with Pope Stephen. Read it in a book about popes, all of them, written by a former Jesuit, Michael Walsh. Apparently the pope thought baptism did not convey the Spirit, but was for forgiveness of sins only and hence accepted baptisms from schismatic churches.

I have not read about Pope Stephen. The article below is in regard to the extensive archeological evidence for the early Church’s practice of baptism by immersion, and its gradual transition over time to pouring and sprinkling as infant baptism became more popular.

Baptism in the Early Church

Below are some textual references to IMMERSION as the original baptismal mode of the Church.

Lutheran
Martin Luther - “I could wish that the baptized should be totally IMMERSED according to the meaning of the word.”

Philip Schaff - “IMMERSION and not sprinkling was unquestionably the original normal form of baptism. This is shown by the meaning of the Greek word and the analogy of the baptism of John which was performed in Jordan.” (History of the Apostolic Church, p.568).

Roman Catholic
Cardinal Gibbons - "For several centuries after the establishment of Christianity baptism was usually conferred by IMMERSION; but since the 12th century the practice of baptism by infusion has prevailed in the Catholic church, as this manner is attained with less inconvenience than by IMMERSION (Faith of our Fathers p. 317)

Methodist
John Wesley -commenting on [Rom 6:4] - "We are buried with Him- alluding to the ancient manner of baptism by IMMERSION (Explanatory notes Upon the New Testament, p. 376)

George Whitefield -commenting on [Rom 6:4] - “It is certain that the words of our text is an allusion to the manner of baptism by IMMERSION.”

Episcopalians
Conybeare and Howson -commenting on [Rom 6:4]- “This passage cannot be undersood unless it is understood that the primitive baptism was by IMMERSION.”

 

[MT1926]

who is baptized believes, has changed, has been born again.

Yes the only difference between us is when this actually occurs.

admitting that repentance comes first

I’ve always admitted repentance comes first in an adult. Don’t read to much into this statement in regards to infant Baptisms. Like I pointed out in earlier the Church Fathers wrote that the parents could speak on behalf of the infant. Their promise to raise the repentant child would come before Baptism.

howbeit with qualifications that it continues

The qualification is the word AND.

so to Peter was talking of a one time repentance

Agreed. AND that one time repentance was at the time of Baptism. Thus the reason Peter tied the word repent to the word Baptized, using the word AND, as a function word, to join one finite verb (Repent) to another (Baptized) so that together they are logically equivalent to an infinitive of purpose (Being Born Again).

not before.

This is the normative way given to us by Jesus Christ. Not making the claim that it is not possible before.

at the repentance, leading to baptism

It can be just saying it’s not the normative way. I see this as an exception and don’t agree that exceptions make the rules in our lives.

Jesus Lord and Messiah, without new birth.

Nope never said this. You assume this can be the only possible outcome because you ignore the meaning of the word AND.

Peter says repent and be baptized. That’s it nothing else. He doesn’t say

Repent to be born again, then call Jesus Lord and Messiah, then you will be baptized.

Saying Jesus Lord and Messiah, from our point of view in this lifetime, is just lip service. Anyone can say it therefor it is not proof of being born again, not even to yourself. Only God can judge the heart. Which is why I believe when Paul says…

Philippians 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

He is referencing back to what he says in…

Romans 14:10 Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God; 11 for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall give praise 12 So each of us shall give account of himself to God.

Paul is already speaking to baptized believers here. So in my opinion he is speaking of us on the day of our judgement when God judges our hearts. He’s not giving us a secret password telling us we can know anyone who utters that phrase must be a member of the club.

both see our version of things as fitting scripture.

The only difference being you don’t post many scripture verses or interpretations.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

agreement between orthodox Protestants.

I was just speaking about Baptism here. Not saying Protestants disagree on everything.

We do not despair

I don’t mean to belittle this comment but in my mind if salvation is everything wouldn’t we want to know the Truth and despair when we don’t? It’s human nature to despair. We despair over every aspect of our lives at times, yet don’t worry when it comes to the interpretations regarding our salvation?

I think this is one of the things I have trouble understanding, I can’t see how someone can get so bent out of shape over trivial things in this life yet be able to say oh I’m sure I got close enough on my understanding of what God wants. Not saying you do this just saying I’ve seen it over and over again from some.

we don’t get everything right

I agree we won’t understand everything until we see God, but I think Jesus intending for His Church to infallible understand and continue to understand a lot more than they did back then and do right now. For He told us “ALL TRUTH”. Not some but all.

John 16:12 “I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth

consider to be the essentials.

I’ve heard this said over and over again, but honestly it sure seems to be that Luther and Calvin argued over what the essentials actually are.

I have heard all of the arguments on both sides, God has to work on my heart.

I totally accept what you say here. If anyone changes their perspective because of something I said, it was not my fingers at the keyboard, but the Holy Spirit in their heart that made the change.

My interest in this particular debate

Which I appreciate. I am here for the same reason, I read a lot of misconceptions on what Catholics believe and I want everyone to know what we TRULY teach. I also enjoy hearing the other side because it forces me to read scripture and dig deeper into my understanding of what is said.

Because for me anyway it is an issue of which side is as you say here…

which side is most reasonable or has the best empirical evidence.

It’s just the type of person God created me to be. He has placed me in leadership positions though out my entire lifetime. It’s actually happened so often in my life that I am incapable of being involved in something unless I am either leading or have the “empirical evidence” to know exactly which direction we are traveling.

Although I could be wrong be wrong on this, maybe it’s actually a psychological issue.

God Bless

 

[mcq72]

Agreed. AND that one time repentance was at the time of Baptism

Yes, and the unique situation also lends to that. Think about it, the wave of God, the talk of the town ( of the synagogue), the buzz was this John the baptist, and then Jesus and the apostles. They both had a message, a Word from God. At the end of preaching or during there was a way offered to give a personal amen so to speak, which was baptism. This was a public rite, to say, “I am with them”, to borrow from a recent political phrase. Many were baptized. Many sat on the sidelines, even criticized, and were not baptized…

So they had to repent, not of just not believing in their Word ( John’s and Jesus), but also as signified by the baptism. Now, at Pentecost, both those “things” as you say, could be done. Quit a reversal of mind and heart and temperment (they were happy to do it, be baptized)…again we differ but I say because also of a revived, born again inner spirit.

 

[Glenn]

I think this is one of the things I have trouble understanding, I can’t see how someone can get so bent out of shape over trivial things in this life yet be able to say oh I’m sure I got close enough on my understanding of what God wants. Not saying you do this just saying I’ve seen it over and over again from some.

Anyone who approaches Christ in such a casual fashion is not a true believer. We are “to work out our salvation with fear and trembling” – therein is the struggle, the battle with sin, the flesh, and the devil. But why the fear and trembling? The passage continues: because it is God, the Almighty, all-wise, holy, and infallible God “who works within us both to will and to do according to his good purposes” – and therein is the rest and assurance. “If God be for us,” as Paul said, “who can be against us?”

We have the infallible Word of God. But the Catholic response is that we don’t have an infallible interpreter. To which I respond, even the doctors of Catholic Church disagree on various points. But then we might say, they agree on the essentials–but this is exactly what Protestants contend. So what are the essentials? According to the Catholic Church, it is what is written in Holy Scripture and the documents of the ecumenical councils. So we’re right back to written pronouncements.

But Protestants maintain that the only infallible written pronouncements are entirely within Scripture, and that the Catholic Church has exceeded its authority by adding fallible tradition (the very same thing of which Jesus accused the Jews of doing) to God’s infallible Word.

In practice, and this is what really counts–not what is written “on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts” (2 Cor. 3:3), a living faith and practice–the Catholic Church has been no less subject to error that Protestant denominations. The idea that the Catholic Church stands alone, that its disagreement with other denominations is only because it has the correct interpretation, rather than being cast in the same lot with all the other disputants, is an arbitrary claim.

The fact that there was a Church in the first century, and that someone used the word “Catholic” to describe it, was due to an appreciation that the kingdom of God was no longer restricted to the Jews, but was now open to all people and nations. When that term was first used, the Church was not divided. Today it is divided, so we have to deal with that fact. But simply because we identify certain practices in the early Church that are mirrored in today’s Catholic Church does mean that the two are to be exclusively equated.

Again, in practice, its seems to me that the Catholic Church must deal with the very same kinds of issues that Protestant churches deal with. It can’t simply wipe them away by claiming exclusivity

 

[MT1926]

This was a public rite, to say, “I am with them”, to borrow from a recent political phrase.

Yes I understand what you say here. However, Jesus did this quite often. He took something that was simple and made it greater.

1 Peter 3:21 And baptism, which this prefigured, now saves you—not as a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Jesus took Baptism, which was a cleansing ritual it removed dirt from the body and transformed it into something greater. He transformed it into an appeal to God.

An appeal means to ask a higher court for a reversal of a previous decision. When you are Baptized you are condemned because you inherited original sin. Original sin is the previous decision made by God. You are asking him to reverse His previous decision and make you born again.

Think about it if you are born again before Baptism what previous decision, that God placed on you, are you appealing that God reverses?

Quit a reversal of mind and heart and temperment (they were happy to do it, be baptized)…again we differ but I say because also of a revived, born again inner spirit.

I understand what you are saying here because this is the same defense used when people point out that circumcision was the sign of the old covenant and every Jew alive back then would have easily understood how Baptism was the sign of the new covenant.

In the end my opinion would be Jesus changed quite a bit in the way people thought during His three year ministry. If we believe this simple change would have really been that confusing to them we don’t give them much credit. People back them understood Baptism to be a ritual that signified something. Is it really that hard to believe that they would also be able to grasp the concept that Jesus took this ritual and made it something greater?

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

We have the infallible Word of God. But the Catholic response is that we don’t have an infallible interpreter.

Actually, I think the Catholic response is we have the inerrant word of God. The definition of infallible is being incapable of making mistakes. Words can’t be infallible however they are inerrant which means free from error. The infallible interpreter is needed in order to understand the error free interpretation. I think the point is, which makes sense to me, how can we even know the documents we believe makes up the Bible are inerrant documents without an infallible interpreter? To say the Bible is inerrant because the Bible says so is circular reasoning. To say the Bible is inerrant because the early Christians say so falls apart if they were fallible.

To which I respond, even the doctors of Catholic Church disagree on various points.

I would agree. No one ever claimed their interpretations were infallible. I think the point of looking at the fathers is to see what the early Church thought and taught. Quite a few of them even disagreed with the Church from time to time. Which goes right back to the point I made above about knowing which books belong in the Bible.

So what are the essentials? According to the Catholic Church, it is what is written in Holy Scripture and the documents of the ecumenical councils. So we’re right back to written pronouncements.

I think the Catholic Church would say the essentials would be the unchangeable doctrines handed down from the Apostles. In my opinion these would be based on what the Apostles actually taught (the oral tradition of interpretations) more so than what was actually written, which can be interpreted differently by different people based on their opinions.

The idea that the Catholic Church stands alone, that its disagreement with other denominations is only because it has the correct interpretation, rather than being cast in the same lot with all the other disputants, is an arbitrary claim.

I disagree with this statement. Not because I believe you are wrong about the Catholic Church but because if Christianity is just a bunch of groups cast into lots with other disputants then we have no firm ground to stand. We haven’t built our religion on a rock but on the sand.

But simply because we identify certain practices in the early Church that are mirrored in today’s Catholic Church does mean that the two are to be exclusively equated.

This one confused me? I thought the reformers were trying to get back to the practices of the early Church?

Again, in practice, its seems to me that the Catholic Church must deal with the very same kinds of issues that Protestant churches deal with. It can’t simply wipe them away by claiming exclusivity

Not sure what you mean here. What issues are you referring to?

God Bless

 

[Glenn]

To say the Bible is inerrant because the Bible says so is circular reasoning.

First, inerrancy and infallibility can be understood as linguistically identical. One means “cannot fail” in its teaching, and the other “without error.” The effect is the same. But the more important issue is your assumption that the Protestant position on scriptural “authority” (the word I actually like best) is circular–which is not the case at all.

The classical Protestant position is to begin with the Bible as reliable, verifiable history. This premise does not assume divine inspiration at the outset. It treats the Bible as any other historical document. And as such, the Bible has stood the test of time. It has been attacked throughout the ages by skeptics, and it has always been the skeptics that have been proven wrong in regard to biblical historicity.

Secondly, the Protestant position is to demonstrate that the eye-witnesses to the history, proven to be accurate, are also eye-witnesses to miracles, especially the miracles of Christ, and most specifically, his resurrection.

Thirdly, because the Bible affirms the divine nature of Christ, attested by his miracles and by the reliable testimony of eye-witnesses accounts (the apostles, who all, save John, were killed for maintaining the truth of their testimony), we can believe what he said, as recorded in Scripture. And what he said, among other things, is that not a jot or tittle will disappear from the law until everything is fulfilled. Christ, who has been proven to be divine, affirms the inerrancy of Scripture, so we accept what he says. No circular reasoning here.

But simply because we identify certain practices in the early Church that are mirrored in today’s Catholic Church does mean that the two are to be exclusively equated.

This is one of the arguments used by Catholics to prove that the early church was the Catholic Church–namely, because the same structure and practices of the modern-day Catholic Church are assumed to have been in place in the early Church, or because the Church Fathers are assumed to have taught the same things that the Catholic Church teaches today.

My point was that the early Church was not exclusively Catholic in either its practice or doctrine. The Reformers were, in fact, trying to recover what they believed to be the pure and uncorrupted gospel. They were also aquatinted with the teachings and practices of the early Church. But they considered Scripture alone to be inerrant.

 

[Glenn]

I think the Catholic Church would say the essentials would be the unchangeable doctrines handed down from the Apostles. In my opinion these would be based on what the Apostles actually taught (the oral tradition of interpretations) more so than what was actually written, which can be interpreted differently by different people based on their opinions.

Protestants also base what they believe on what the Apostles taught. But their teaching is resolved ultimately in what has been written down–for the Protestant in Scripture; but for the Catholic in Scripture, ex cathedra pronouncements, cannon law, and the “irreformable” teachings of the magisterium. Yes, the Catholic Church believes in the absolute authority of its sacred tradition, but it is the tradition as interpreted in written documents.

So the Protestants have a written authority, and the Catholics have a written authority. But Protestants believe that the Catholic Church has, in effect, added writings that go beyond what should be considered inerrant. Protestants believe that the Apostles were infallible. They do not believe, however, in Apostolic Succession, which is why they do not hold that every pronouncement of the Catholic magisterium is equal in authority with Scripture.

if Christianity is just a bunch of groups cast into lots with other disputants then we have no firm ground to stand.

It is God himself, through the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, who leads us into all truth. This is the plain teaching of Scripture (John 16:13). Every believer has the Holy Spirit, so this verse cannot be applied just to the Apostles and their successors.

How can one say that if God himself is leading us, our religion is built upon the sand? But why is there so much disagreement? It is because we are still sinners–all of us. And even though Christ prayed that we will all be one, this prayer will be answered only to degree that we are perfected in him. It will be fully answered only in the consummation of his eternal kingdom.

The carnal organizational unity of the Catholic Church does not bring about the actual spiritual unity for which Christ prayed. On a practical level, there is just as much spiritual division within the Catholic Church as there is between Protestants. Again, the Catholic church must contend with the very same issues as Protestants–i.e., renegade nuns and priests, liberal theology, abortion, homosexuality, ongoing heresy within its ranks…

That is why you cannot say that the Catholic Church is infallible. The only place it can claim infallibility is in its magisterial documents. That is just like Protestant churches that claim infallibility of their Apostolic documents, the Scripture. In practice, in the practical interpretation of those authoritative documents, both Catholics and Protestants fall short.

 

[mcq72]

Jesus took Baptism, which was a cleansing ritual it removed dirt from the body and transformed it into something greater. He transformed it into an appeal to God.

just brainstorming but I thought baptism was an appeal from God for us to change, to prepare ourselves, for His presence, as John ministered in that fashion(John"s baptism). Not sure it was an appeal from our part, but a surrender to His washing, on His say so (to do).

"we see that the use of water to symbolize cleansing and consecration is very much a Jewish concept, repent of sin and be symbolically cleansed in the Jordan River. "

Baptism: Pagan or Jewish? - Jews for Jesus

BINST GEVOREN A GOY! “You’ve become a Gentile!” We Jewish believers in Yeshua often encounter this accusation after we’ve been baptized.

jewsforjesus.org

An appeal means to ask a higher court for a reversal of a previous decision. When you are Baptized you are condemned because you inherited original sin. Original sin is the previous decision made by God. You are asking him to reverse His previous decision and make you born again.

Think about it if you are born again before Baptism what previous decision, that God placed on you, are you appealing that God reverses?

But I see you speak of the apostles baptizing after Pentecost.

As to the word appeal, many translations have other wording , such as “answer”, response, pledge, examination.

For sure at some point salvation is an appeal, and at some point it is a confession, an answer.

“Who so cries out to the Lord shall be saved”

“And with the mouth confession (of His salvation) is made unto salvation”.

You are right back to the age old dilemma, of baptismal regeneration, or a believers baptism.

So as to your question, for me the baptism is signifying the appeal one has already made in their heart for salvation, and the answer received, the assured gifting of a clear conscience, and not because of my baptism, but because of what Christ did , dying and resurecting, having pleased the Father, as I do now placing my faith and confession of, in Christ.

The clear conscience is due to His resurection, not my baptism, though it signifies my union with Christ in His death

If you use your word “appeal”, as in a question to God, where is the answer? This would lead to think that Peter leaves the door open to one already knowing the answer, before baptism, even allowing the baptism to signify what has already happened…a clean conscience.

So then how does baptism save as Peter alludes? I would think by the obedience to confess with the mouth the Lord in the waters of baptism, of what already has happened in the spirit.

 

[mcq72]

I understand what you are saying here because this is the same defense used when people point out that circumcision was the sign of the old covenant and every Jew alive back then would have easily understood how Baptism was the sign of the new covenant.

Well from the article I posted from a Jewish perspective at the time, not sure it was quite the same as circumcision. That is a believing Jew might still have his children circumcised, and baptized.

And actually, not sure a believing Jew, like the apostles, would want to make any ritual greater than it needs to be , seeing the shortcomings of such with circumcision. They were very aware of the importance of the inward reality, and that being revealed with more clarity in Jesus Christ at Calvary and with resurrection .

Again, yes give them credit that they understood the ritual to signify “something”, and yes something greater, but a ritual none the less. It signified something greater (identifying with the Messiah Jesus), but not greater because it was the means to such faith.

 

[mcq72]

In my opinion these would be based on what the Apostles actually taught (the oral tradition of interpretations) more so than what was actually written

This in my opinion is not a pure Catholic reality, but more of a reactionary reality to the Reformation.

That is the Church has many of its traditions founded on biblical principles. If there had never been any Reformation there would have been less need to rely on, justify positions from a traditional point of view.

So sometimes we are more Protestant in our statements than we need to be, so as not to be sound so Catholic. And sometimes Catholic statements are more Catholic than need to be so as not to sound so Protestant.

The Catholic Church does not rely more on oral traedition than on holy scriptures, nor does she teach that. At best they have equal authority, and that interlaced. The Catholic Church strives to be " biblical", just like P’s. If not, she also has another standard, lower in my opinion, that tradition must not be “unbiblical”, but still a biblical normative form. Unfortunately she has both standards on equal, infallible footing, both as authoritstive. The P’s consider the latter standard not " biblical", and quite fallible.

if Christianity is just a bunch of groups cast into lots with other disputants then we have no firm ground to stand. We haven’t built our religion on a rock but on the sand.

Well for sure, anything not built on the Rock is sinking sand.

Your statement is an “either or” type. Either the Church is supremely infallible in its teachings, or she is a bunch of groups flocking together around commonly held teachings on no foundation (sand).

Again, the Catholic Church does not teach this “either or” view. She claims credit but does admit that other churches are on much of the"rock" ( Peter/Rome magisterium), even graced on the Rock ( Christ and His graces).

On an individual level, a Christian’s works , even life, will be judged. What is built on sand (wood, hay and stubble) will perish, be lost. What is built on Christ will last, survive the storm, the fire of judgement. We are told some will survive by the skin of their teeth, but still survive, as a persevered saint. It is definitely not an either or situation, of being on the Rock 100% or not for those written in the book of life.

So to it is with these " bunch of groups". They are either Christian or not. If they are, they shall be and are being judged accordingly by their Shepherd but still graced, some by the skin of their teeth. May a church not be prideful or tactical to claim separation from the “bunch” due to its own perceived superiority. Some do, but that is sandy sentiment, maybe even straining the skin of their teeth.

 

[MT1926]

can be understood as linguistically identical

Sorry we will have to agree to disagree. I prefer to use the Historical definition of the word. I honestly believe the only reason infallibility started to be used with the Bible was to create tension with the Catholic Church’s historical meaning of the word. It’s the same thing when people ignore that pray means to ask, venerate and worship aren’t synonyms or Hell in scripture can only mean the Hell of the damned.

The classical Protestant position is to begin with the Bible as reliable, verifiable history.

Agreed so do Catholics

Secondly, the Protestant position is to demonstrate that the eye-witnesses to the history,

Agreed so do Catholics

Thirdly, because the Bible affirms the divine nature of Christ, attested by his miracles

Agreed so do Catholics, except we still consider this to part of the “Secondly”.

And what he said, among other things, is that not a jot or tittle will disappear from the law until everything is fulfilled. Christ, who has been proven to be divine, affirms the inerrancy of Scripture, so we accept what he says. No circular reasoning here.

This one I don’t follow. Jesus was talking about the Old Testament here not the New. How does this statement, proven historically to have been said years before the New Testament was written, prove the inerrancy of the New Testament?

I can follow your reasoning up until this point, but the history you just showed me tells us that Jesus wasn’t around when the Bible was penned. Sure I could even agree that the authors were inspired, however that still doesn’t affirm the inerrancy of Scripture, because the Bible we read today was not compiled before Jesus ascended or the last Apostle died.

I agree no circular reasoning here, but that’s just because you haven’t gotten to the finish line yet, you stopped with Jesus, at the beginning of His ministry, not after the NT was actually written.

Pretend I’m a non-Christian, even if I believe everything you said to this point here, how do you prove to me that the 27 books of the NT are the correct ones?

My point was that the early Church was not exclusively Catholic in either its practice or doctrine. …They were also aquatinted with the teachings and practices of the early Church. But they considered Scripture alone to be inerrant.

Still not following this one. Did they have actual evidence of this or did they base it on what they believed the inerrant interpretation of the Scriptures should be?

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

written down–for the Protestant in Scripture

Don’t you mean base it on THEIR interpretation of what they believe the Apostles taught.

tradition as interpreted in written documents.

Not following the comparison. The Catholic Church writes and interprets THEIR own documents. How is this on the same level as Protestants interpreting documents that someone else wrote?

added writings that go beyond what should be considered inerrant.

How is this any different than a Protestant pastor’s homily? Anything he says from the pulpit is going beyond what is inerrantly written. Read the Catechism, in it’s most basic sense that is all it is, a bunch of homilies on what we believe scripture teaches. The same thing a pastor does every week.

do not believe, however, in Apostolic Succession

For me this is where everything would fall apart. The Apostles did not list the 27 books of the NT before they died. Even if we want to believe this is what the early Church used we still can’t get past the fact that fallible men acknowledged the NT canon. Fallible men cannot compile an “infallible/inerrant” cannon.

This is the plain teaching of Scripture (John 16:13)

Why not? In context Jesus is speaking to the Apostles and not a crowd. Wouldn’t you agree that there are different gifts/levels of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and that every believer does not have the same “type” of indwelling. How do you know Jesus wasn’t telling them they would have the highest level of indwelling? Which would mean only those who have this level of indwelling will be lead to ALL truth?

How can one say that if God himself is leading us, our religion is built upon the sand?

I would say because people are unwilling to accept the reality that ALL religions are lead by man’s interpretation of God’s will. We can make the claim that we are being lead by God but at the end of the day we are being lead by either ours or someone else’s interpretation of God’s Word.

So either Christ gave us men to speak on His behalf, so we could know we are standing on firm ground regarding how he wants us to follow him or we are all on sand by following fallible men’s interpretations.

Again, the Catholic church must contend with the very same issues as Protestants–i.e., renegade nuns and priests, liberal theology, abortion, homosexuality, ongoing heresy within its ranks…

That is why you cannot say that the Catholic Church is infallible.

This is an illogical comparison. The conclusion you make tells me you don’t understand the meaning of the word infallibility. A renegade priest teaching heresy isn’t evidence that what he should have been teaching isn’t infallible inspired. It’s just evidence that he isn’t teaching what he was taught.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

I thought baptism was an appeal from God for us to change, to prepare ourselves, for His presence,

But I thought you said we are born again before Baptism? Wouldn’t that mean the preparation has already occurred?

As to the word appeal, many translations have other wording , such as “answer”, response, pledge, examination.

I’m not sure how those really change the order of things. According to bible hub the Greek word eperótéma means inquiry, request, appeal, demand; a profession, pledge. No matter how you want to spin it the order of things doesn’t change. Peter is telling us that in Baptism you are asking for something. He is not saying it is a response to what has already been completed.

Even the word answer can be read in two ways. You are reading it as Baptism is your answer to God that you are now saved. However, in the context of Baptism doth now save us it makes more sense to see this as Baptism is the answer FROM God to us. Which to me makes more sense taking into account all of the other possible translations of the Greek word eperótéma.

If you use your word “appeal”, as in a question to God, where is the answer?

I’d have to know what question YOU are asking? The appeal I mentioned was the reversal of original sin are you saying we can know, on our own, that we can have absolute certainty of the exact moment Jesus washed away our original sin?

So then how does baptism save as Peter alludes? I would think by the obedience to confess with the mouth the Lord in the waters of baptism, of what already has happened in the spirit.

Sorry this is your allusion. Once again you ignore basic grammar. What part of baptism NOW saves you leads you to believe it was something that already happened?

Now

1. at the present time or moment.
   synonyms: at the moment, at present, just now, right now, at the present time, at the present moment, at this time, at this moment in time, currently, here and now; More
2. used, especially in conversation, to draw attention to a particular statement or point in a narrative.
3. as a consequence of the fact.

Now is present tense.

God Bless

 

[mcq72]

But I thought you said we are born again before Baptism? Wouldn’t that mean the preparation has already occurred?

We were speaking of prepenetcost baptisms, done by John or apostles. Later comments dealt with post pentecost

 

[Glenn]

I prefer to use the Historical definition of the word. I honestly believe the only reason infallibility started to be used with the Bible was to create tension with the Catholic Church’s historical meaning of the word.

I’m not sure why you want to press this point. It has little bearing on the debate. I think you know what I mean when I use the word infallible. And it not because I want to disguise the pure and unadulterated meaning of inerrancy.

I agree no circular reasoning here, but that’s just because you haven’t gotten to the finish line yet, you stopped with Jesus, at the beginning of His ministry, not after the NT was actually written.

Pretend I’m a non-Christian, even if I believe everything you said to this point here, how do you prove to me that the 27 books of the NT are the correct ones?

Again, I think your objection is pretty picky. Jesus affirmed Holy Scripture (the Old Testament) in many ways. He frequently quoted it. He said he fulfilled it. He referred to the authors, the characters, and the events recorded in the Old Testament as factually historical. He considered it to be God’s authoritative Word.

Agreed. The only Scripture in place at the time was the Old Testament, but it was also the Scripture of the early Church. And what Jesus affirmed about the Old Testament certainly applies to the New Testament.

So you want to prove that the New Testament books are also authoritative? I assume your answer is that the Catholic Church decided which books are canonical? But its canonical selection (considering the OT and NT together) disagrees with the Orthodox, Jewish, and Protestant selection. What makes the Catholic cannon any more valid than these others?

You can say that we must have a single authority, but that does nothing to vindicate the Catholic Church as that authority. Pointing to the Catholic Church as the sole authority is ultimately an arbitrary choice. Here is what Calvin said:

“Nothing, therefore, can be more absurd than the fiction, that the power of judging Scripture is in the church, and than on her nod its certainty depends. When the church receives it, and gives it the stamp of her authority, she does not make that authentic which was otherwise doubtful or controverted, but acknowledging it as the truth of God, she as in duty bound, shows her reverence by an unhesitating assent. As to the question, How shall we be persuaded that it came from God without recurring to a decree of the Church? It is just the same as if we were asked, How shall we learn to distinguish light from darkness, white from black, sweet from bitter? Scripture bears upon the face of it as clear evidence of its truth, as white and black do of their color, sweet and bitter of their taste.”

 

[MT1926]

And actually, not sure a believing Jew, like the apostles, would want to make any ritual greater than it needs to be , seeing the shortcomings of such with circumcision.

Biblical evidence of this would help.

They were very aware of the importance of the inward reality, and that being revealed with more clarity in Jesus Christ at Calvary and with resurrection .

Biblical evidence that this is the only thing they believed to be important would help.

If there had never been any Reformation there would have been less need to rely on, justify positions from a traditional point of view.

I agree. This is actually the reasoning behind the majority of Catholic doctrines. That’s why so often you don’t see something written down for 100’s of years. It’s not because the Church came along one day and said hey wouldn’t it be great if we called Mary the Mother of God. It’s because Nestorian came along and denied the incarnation saying Scripture proves Mary only gave birth to Jesus’ human nature. Thus making Jesus one divine being and one human being, instead of fully God and fully Man.

So sometimes we are more Protestant in our statements than we need to be, so as not to be sound so Catholic. And sometimes Catholic statements are more Catholic than need to be so as not to sound so Protestant.

Agreed

Unfortunately she has both standards on equal, infallible footing, both as authoritstive. The P’s consider the latter standard not " biblical", and quite fallible.

I understand what you are saying here. But from my point of view, the interpretation of scripture falls within these standards and if isn’t authoritative then that interpretation is not reliable. Because all interpretations would also be not “biblical” and quite fallible.

Your statement is an “either or” type.

I wasn’t the one who claimed the bunch of groups. Your responding to the wrong person here.

God Bless