Infallibility of Church?

[MT1926]

I was speaking of prepenetcost baptisms, done by John or apostles.

Weren’t we discussing Acts 2 and 1 Peter 3:21?

You know you really need to provide me a game day program.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

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.

Sure I’ll drop it now that I know what you mean. I was also, trying to explain why I believe it can muddy the waters in a dialogue.

Again, I think your objection is pretty picky.

I disagree. I don’t think you got to the 27 book finish line yet.

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.

I already agreed to this. What I am being picky about is Jesus affirmation does not directly related to the 27 books we are reading right now.

And what Jesus affirmed about the Old Testament certainly applies to the New Testament.

I agree that we can indirectly apply this to A New Testament just not directly to the one we currently have.

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?

No this isn’t what I believe. REMEMBER I said I’m a non-Christian here, I’m not trying to prove anything.

What makes the Catholic cannon any more valid than these others?

I’m non-Christian remember. At this very moment don’t know don’t care.

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.

I mean this with all love and respect Glenn. Did you notice you brought up Catholic Church authority again. I never brought it into our discussion. All I was trying to find out is what you believe about the cannon of scripture and why you believe what you believe. When I point out that your line of reasoning doesn’t get to a final conclusion, from the perspective of a non-believer, you point to how the Catholic Church is wrong.

How does proving someone else is wrong prove that you are right?

Not trying to be rude or disrespectful here just trying to get you to think through your position and does it come to a logical conclusion?

God Bless

 

[mcq72]

.

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?

Well the now refers to this dispensatory age, as opposed to Noah’s age, and not to the personal event in ones life.

However, as I have stated and partly agree with Catholic idea that being "saved " is a process, being born again is not. Hence I referred to the scripture that with the heart the man believes (is saved, born again) but with the mouth confession is made also unto salvation (Only a born again person , a new man, can speak such a confession, not a spirit dead in trespasses ans sin.). So I would not deny that “baptism” is an integral part of one’s salvation process, but not of rebirth, but evidence of it.

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.

Well. agree here to the two possibilities (good stuff). As I have answered the usage of the word "now’’, this age as opposed to Naoh’s time, I do see it as our answer to God. I mean why else do we ask the question to the baptismal participant. How can he or she answer in the affirmative without faith and the actual apprehending of assurance that comes from experiencing the new birth ?

"But the answer of a good conscience toward God - The word here rendered “answer” (ἐπερώτημα eperōtēma) means properly a question, an inquiry. It is “spoken of a question put to a convert at baptism, or rather of the whole process of question and answer; that is, by implication, examination, profession” - Robinson, Lexicon. It is designed to mark the spiritual character of the baptismal rite in contrast with a mere external purification, and evidently refers to something that occurred at baptism; some question, inquiry, or examination, that took place then; and it would seem to imply:

(1) that when baptism was performed, there was some question or inquiry in regard to the belief of the candidate;

(2) that an answer was expected, implying that there was a good conscience; that is, that the candidate had an enlightened conscience, and was sincere in his profession; and,

(3) that the real efficacy of baptism, or its power in saving, was not in the mere external rite, but in the state of the heart, indicated by the question and answer, of which that was the emblem." Barnes commentary

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/barnes/1_peter/3.htm

 

[mcq72]

Biblical evidence of this (shortcomings of circumcision) would help.

"Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?"…Peter at the council

For or circumcision is indeed profitable if you keep the law; but if you are a breaker of the law, your circumcision is counted as uncircumcision.

Therefore, if an uncircumcised man keeps the righteous requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be counted as circumcision?

And will not the physically uncircumcised, if he fulfills the law, judge you who, even with your written code and circumcision, are a transgressor of the law?

For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh;

But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God. Paul Romans 2

"One is as one does’…Gumperism ("stupid is as stupid does).

Was anyone called while circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised. Was anyone called while uncircumcised? Let him not be circumcised.

Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters. Paul 1Cor7

You have become estranged from Christ, you who attempt to be justifed by law; you have fallen from grace.

For we through the Spirit eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness by faith.

For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but faith working through love. Paul Gal 5

For we are the circumcision, who worship God in the spirit, and rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh. Phil 3

So, we all agree circumcision and baptism was ordered by God .They are similar as rites, as emblems to the inner spiritual reality, or should be, but are not always. Not sure why one would want to say one is effectual to the spiritual reality in the rite itself , given the history of her OT counterpart.

 

[Kei]

non-essentials.

As a Catholic, I must wonder why and how one determines what teachings that Christ came down to Heaven and taught us are “non-essential”. Is His teaching against divorce non-essential, for example?

 

[mcq72]

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.

Ok, though not sure how many verses have been declared as infallibly interpreted by the CC.

Further, Tradition (infallible) goes beyond textual interpretations, like the Assumption.

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

" 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." post 690 from MT1926

So are you saying if the Catholic Church is not who she claims to be (inerrant), we are not “all a bunch of groups…on sand” ?

 

[Kei]

Circumcision, that is, an identity as Jewishness, is as nothing because we are under the new law. As a sign of things to happen, it was also not as effective as true Baptism.
In Christ, we are baptized in water and Spirit. There is the “baptism of desire” of those who are unable to be baptized but strongly desired it. True baptism actually rids one of sin, brings one into the Church, etc.

 

[mcq72]

Circumcision, that is, an identity as Jewishness, is as nothing because we are under the new law.
In Christ, we are baptized in water and Spirit. There is the “baptism of desire” of those who are unable to be baptized but strongly desired it. It actually rids one of sin.

Totally agree that it is OT thing. The point being at one time it was THE testament, and twas a spiritual thing. Peter is not blind to the inefficacy of the old rite, and did not want baptism to fall in same category, that there must be in inner spiritual reality, if not baptism is nothing also. He alludes to this possibility in 1 Peter 3:21,why else would he write it if it were not a possibility of baptism being ineffective also?

True baptism actually rids one of sin,

Well, that is the question . Does it? I thought belief in the Cross and its propitiation does that, which we signify at Baptism, already having a clean conscience.

 

[mcq72]

As a Catholic, I must wonder why and how one determines what teachings that Christ came down to Heaven and taught us are “non-essential”. Is His teaching against divorce non-essential, for example?

lol…are we not both in glass houses ? Do we justify ourselves by heaving stones at others weaknesses or even errors , as if the same could not be done to us?

As an example per this article, at one time ( has been modified since) the Church decided you were going to hell if you were circumcised (as a believing gentile). Is that the Lord’s teaching ?

“Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.”

Pope Eugene IV, Bull of Union with the Copts (15th C.)

http://www.circumstitions.com/Xy.html

 

[Kei]

Of course there’s a spiritual element to baptism. My reading of the text doesn’t demonstrate a warning of it possibly being ineffective but a description of baptism. Hence he describes how Noah’s flood was a sign of baptism, which now saves you, and it is not just a bath that washes dirt off, but is a pleading (ie to God) for clear conscience. How can it be a pleading for a clear conscience if it does not remove sin?
Yes, baptism does remove sin. Our actions and signs are vehicles of grave God has blessed us with. Mere belief is like what the devils have. In baptism we are dead and arise again in Christ. In baptism and confirmation we are sealed with the Holy Ghost and are like temples of God.

Is it strictly necessary, if one, say, dies while awaiting his baptism? No. But does that mean baptism lacks efficacy? No, and indeed, the one who desires the Almighty ien Christ should seek it and its graces as soon as possible to become a part of the Church.

 

[Kei]

lol…are we not both in glass houses ? Do we justify ourselves by heaving stones at others weaknesses or even errors , as if the same could not be done to us?

I don’t mean to throw stones. I mean to say that ALL of Christ’s teachings are important to keep. To try to deny some of them as “unimportant” sounds ridiculous. He is God!

The Church is not as a glass house built on sand but is built upon the rock, and is firm.

Please refrain from definitely interpreting Catholic documents when you are not Catholic and will likely misread certain terminology.

“It firmly believes, professes and teaches that the legal prescriptions of the old Testament or the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, holy sacrifices and sacraments, because they were instituted to signify something in the future, although they were adequate for the divine cult of that age, once our lord Jesus Christ who was signified by them had come, came to an end and the sacraments of the new Testament had their beginning. Whoever, after the passion, places his hope in the legal prescriptions and submits himself to them as necessary for salvation and as if faith in Christ without them could not save, sins mortally. It does not deny that from Christ’s passion until the promulgation of the gospel they could have been retained, provided they were in no way believed to be necessary for salvation. But it asserts that after the promulgation of the gospel they cannot be observed without loss of eternal salvation. Therefore it denounces all who after that time observe circumcision, the sabbath and other legal prescriptions as strangers to the faith of Christ and unable to share in eternal salvation, unless they recoil at some time from these errors. Therefore it strictly orders all who glory in the name of Christian, not to practise circumcision either before or after baptism, since whether or not they place their hope in it, it cannot possibly be observed without loss of eternal salvation.”
What’s so weird about that? Without recoil from errors of prescribing such signs that pointed to God, after His Coming and fulfilling them, it signifies at least outwardly (and to great scandal) that you don’t believe that Christ fulfilled the Old Law, or at least that you believe He is not sufficient, and so it is of course perilous and to be done away with.

(Note that this would have been before the idea of circumcision as a procedure for “health” reasons was popularized in the 1900s or so, if I recall).

 

[mcq72]

What’s so weird about that?

Well good research. I agree with most of it, that hope in circumcision is wrong. Yet it states that circumcision, apart from any hope in it, is still wrong. Is it?

Perhaps we need more research. Why did this need to be written a millennia plus after Judaizers were first withstood ? Does it have anything to do with Inquisition, where many Jews were forced to leave or forced to become Christian / Did some of these then secretly circumcise their infants, besides baptize ? And Today there are many Messianic Jews. Are they in peril if besides baptism they circumcise their children ? Don’t know, do you?

 

[Kei]

As I said, it is at least an outward sign indicating that you don’t believe in Christ’s fulfilling and abrogating the Old Law, which is cause for scandal. If you don’t put hope in it, why would you do it back then? Do you still think in some sort of legalism, purely as a sign?

Re “Messianic Christians”, a group founded within the last 100 years I believe: I don’t claim to know the state of their souls when they die but I would say their theology is really wacky and potentially dangerous. I do not know how much in ignorance they practice such things, and ignorance is a mitigating factor. I would say that they are obviously in error in circumcizing in hopes of fulfilling (and trying to fulfill in general) the old covenant.

 

[Glenn]

Not trying to be rude or disrespectful here just trying to get you to think through your position and does it come to a logical conclusion?

I’m not sure why you can’t see the logical conclusion of what I presented. The Scriptures are reliable history. The eye-witnesses are reliable. They witness to the miracles of Christ, and to his resurrection. Thus, they prove that Jesus is divine. Therefore, what Jesus is recorded as teaching about Scripture, in a historically reliable account, is true. Thus, as Jesus taught, the Scriptures are authoritative.

Please explain WHY this does not come to a logical conclusion.

Did you notice you brought up Catholic Church authority again. I never brought it into our discussion.

You implied that Jesus’ affirmation of the Old Testament does not prove the authority of the New Testament. So how am I to respond when we both know that the Catholic Church assumes there must be an infallible Church to determine what constitutes inerrant Scripture. Your comment invited my logical response.

 

[Glenn]

As a Catholic, I must wonder why and how one determines what teachings that Christ came down to Heaven and taught us are “non-essential”. Is His teaching against divorce non-essential, for example?

Everything that Christ taught is true. But there are some matters, even within Catholicism, which it claims have not been defined infallibly. It leaves the matters open for discussion among the theologians. When I refer to essentials, I mean those things that must be accepted for salvation. The Catholic Church asserts that Protestants can be saved, even though they claim that various Protestant doctrines are in error. So even the Catholic Church has what it considers the essentials.

For Protestants, I would say that faith in Christ as Lord and Savior is essential for salvation. But the desire to obey everything he taught is the evidence that we have a true and living faith. Of course, we sin, so our obedience will never be perfect in this life. But Christ is God, and our goal must be to obey him in everything, which of course, includes his teaching on divorce.

 

[mcq72]

As I said, it is at least an outward sign indicating that you don’t believe in Christ’s fulfilling and abrogating the Old Law, which is cause for scandal. If you don’t put hope in it, why would you do it back then? Do you still think in some sort of legalism, purely as a sign?

Re “Messianic Christians”, a group founded within the last 100 years I believe: I don’t claim to know the state of their souls when they die but I would say their theology is really wacky and potentially dangerous. I do not know how much in ignorance they practice such things, and ignorance is a mitigating factor. I would say that they are obviously in error in circumcizing in hopes of fulfilling (and trying to fulfill in general) the old covenant.

Did a little research and don’t think they circumcise , but they observe some of the holidays. Don’t think they undermine anything NT, new covenant. They don’t follow Talmud, but bible yes.They themselves see all things fulfilled in Christ but for example they may do Jewish things but not under bondage but in freedom. For example like we do in learning the ten commandments, and indeed trying to keep them (live holy lives). Not sure they are wacky, as far as Protestants go lol.

feel a bit sorry for them, because for centuries it was not cool to be a Jewish Christian , anywhere. With new religious freedoms of our times , they have come forward, but getting criticism both from Jews and Christians. Nobody automatically likes anybody different, acceptance must be in the Spirit.

 

[Kei]

It is in spite of error if it is possible. In ignorance if one tries his best we don’t say it is impossible in Judgement…but all of Christ’s teachings are very important to keep.

 

[Kei]

It’s a new thing, indeed.
I don’t think we should accept error or erroneous things or otherwise things that undermine truth.
Christ fulfilled the festivals of the Jews and we have new festivals to celebrate, because the old ones are fulfilled. I believe the earlier document you brought up talked about Jewish festivals as well. Sadly, at least some of them appear ignorant as to the founding of their religion, in my experience.
They follow the laws very similar to modern Jews.

 

[Glenn]

Re “Messianic Christians”, a group founded within the last 100 years I believe: I don’t claim to know the state of their souls when they die but I would say their theology is really wacky and potentially dangerous.

They call themselves Messianic “Jews”, not Messianic “Christians”. They are simply Jews who have converted to Christianity. They continue to celebrate their heritage as Jews, not in a legalistic fashion, but from the standpoint of being fulfilled Jews. They see Jesus as their promised Messiah. Of course, Christ is simply the Greek word for Messiah in the Hebrew.

Messianic Jews understand that the OT sacrifices, holidays, and temple worship are fulfilled in Christ. They use the same OT and NT Scriptures are other Christians. But they are enthusiastic about the symbolism of the OT, about how it all points to Christ, and they bring wonderful insight to bear on this subject, insight that only someone who was actually raised as Jew can understand.

They accept the ancient creeds of the Church, such as the Apostles and Nicene creeds. I believe they are born again Christians, and they can contribute much to our understanding of the Old Testament and how it relates to the New.

The apostle Paul said this:

Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob; and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins. As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy. For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. (Romans 11:25-32).

I believe we may be in that day anticipated by the apostle Paul, the day when the Jews finally come to their Messiah.

 

[mcq72]

I don’t think we should accept error or erroneous things or otherwise things that undermine truth.
Christ fulfilled the festivals of the Jews and we have new festivals to celebrate, because the old ones are fulfilled.

Not sure our foundation can undermine the truth. Do you mind that the twelve gates of new Jerusalem are named after twelve tribes ?

As to festivals, many were two fold, like the type and prototype, like a meaning for the day and a future meaning. One can celebrate both, the actual exodus , the Passover, and communion/eucharist of the Lamb of God…both , no harm, but a lot of depth.

Is that like in heaven we will praise Him forever, but will we never celebrate the Incarnation, Calvary, the Resurrection again etc. , because all will be fulfilled finally in heaven ?

They follow the laws very similar to modern Jews.

Perhaps, not sure. Do you mean they follow some traditions, that aren’t biblically founded?