Infallibility of Church?

[mcq72]

good post. Thank you…you may want to edit the post however and place “Kei” as the author (been there ,done that lol)

 

[Kei]

These things you mention (resurrection, etc) are not things like the old covenant. They are parts of the New, and the fulfillment of all things will not abrogate the New but bring it to its fullness.

The Jewish festivals pointed to Our Savior. We have Our Savior. Celebrating these Jewish festivals is like saying you are awaiting the Messiah, a tacit rejection, at least outwardly to the man who knows Christian doctrine.

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

It probably depends on the person how “Jewish” they are in this sense. I meant in the sense that they act like the Jews who try to keep Torah act, even though many of the laws are now impossible due to the lack of their physical temple. After the destruction of the temple, Judaism took a rabbinical turn, as opposed to the priestly focus before on the sacrifices and what not. That’s what I meant when I said they act like modern Jews.

 

[mcq72]

The Jewish festivals pointed to Our Savior. We have Our Savior. Celebrating these Jewish festivals is like saying you are awaiting the Messiah, a tacit rejection, at least outwardly to the man who knows Christian doctrine.

Yes and no. Do you deny the two fold meaning behind Jewish things? Do you think they were only a future foretelling, as if they never had the plagues in Egypt, and never crossed the waters?

Is it an affront to the fulfilled , completed years of one’s life you celebrate on your birthday for your parents to tell you of the particulars of your actual birthday?

Is it an affront to the Resurrection of our Lord to put His sculpted body on a small cross and call it a crucifix?

Pretty sure these Jews for Jesus do not tacitly deny any fulfilled reality in Christ.

 

[MT1926]

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

How do you get to this conclusion? I don’t see how that would change anything. The words “save you” would still point to the word Baptism. Which would still be an event that occurs in the dispensation age.

How can he or she answer in the affirmative without faith and the actual apprehending of assurance that comes from experiencing the new birth ?

You lose me on this one. How hard is it to say yes or no? Even if the person answers yes only God knows if it was a heart felt yes.

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:

Sorry can’t agree. This sounds to me like this guy knows something is suppose to happen but when he reads this verse already has his mind made up. He is saying I can plainly see what the verse says but I know what I know therefore it can’t mean what it says. He can plainly see “that something occurred at Baptism”. But I know it can’t be born again because I know what I know. Therefor let’s say the appeal is to questions we ask them, yeah that works.

Seriously? He just took God’s gift to us and minimized it to answer some questions, something we do. Like I said more stuff.

God Bless

 

[mcq72]

How do you get to this conclusion? I don’t see how that would change anything. The words “save you” would still point to the word Baptism. Which would still be an event that occurs in the dispensation age.

Yes it points to baptism, to water as a type. I addressed that. Salvation is a process of which baptism plays apart, just like water played a part for Noah ( do you really think it was just the water that saved Noah and his family, and not his faith, not the ark itself also ?). Process as you say. I mean being obedient saves you. Persevering to the end saves you. Faith saves you, being born again saves you. Do they all happen at our water baptism? In my experience and opinion no, but they certainly are all represented.

The water, the baptism, is representative, an emblem as the article states, of an inward reality and it’s first public utterings.

 

[mcq72]

You lose me on this one. How hard is it to say yes or no? Even if the person answers yes only God knows if it was a heart felt yes.

Do you agree that questions are asked of the participant just before the immersion, as to their faith and to renouncing Satan etc.? They usually answer in the affirmative, and I say with the confidence that comes from an inner new birth. I have never heard anyone say, "No, but I will believe and renounce Satan after I come out of the waters, after I am born again and “see the Light” ".

 

[mcq72]

Sorry can’t agree. This sounds to me like this guy knows something is suppose to happen but when he reads this verse already has his mind made up. He is saying I can plainly see what the verse says but I know what I know therefore it can’t mean what it says. He can plainly see “that something occurred at Baptism”. But I know it can’t be born again because I know what I know. Therefor let’s say the appeal is to questions we ask them, yeah that works.

I kind of answered this already in two previous posts.

Something does happen at baptism. We an answer in the affirmative to our faith in Christ publicly for the first time. What happens is part of the salvation process ( new birth, faith, profession, perseverance). Baptism is the representative of the four parts of salvation I just listed, and in actuality the profession part. So Paul states with the heart we believe ( unto salvation, before baptism), but with the mouth salvation is made ( made manifest, at baptism).

Again we believe before baptismal immersion. And you haven’t shown me where one can believe with out being born of the Spirit first, without being born again first.

 

[MT1926]

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

Thank you for taking the time to site some bible verses but I wasn’t asking for evidence of the shortcomings of circumcision. I agree the Apostles taught these shortcomings you point out here.

I was asking for the Biblical evidence that…

not sure a believing Jew, like the apostles, would want to make any ritual greater than it needs to be

Sorry about the misunderstanding. Since we are discussing Baptism I assumed you understood what I was asking. guess I shouldn’t have quoted the entire statement?

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.

Well my reasoning would be that I believe Jesus is capable of taking an OT ritual and making it something greater. The way I see it if the Apostles or Jesus wouldn’t make a ritual greater than its OT counterpart then, no exceptions allowed, then their beliefs would have applied this to OT sacrifices as well. Which would mean they wouldn’t see Jesus sacrifice on the Cross as being effectual to the spiritual reality of the rite itself (Jesus Sacrife), given the history that OT sacrifices were not.

I obviously don’t believe this. I believe Jesus took OT sacrifices and perfected it with His sacrifice on the cross. Just like I believe Jesus took OT Baptism and perfected it when He entered the Baptismal waters and the Spirit descended.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

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

This is a straw man argument. Authoritative interpretation does not have to mean full infallible interpretation of every verse of the BiBle.

The Apostles were told the Holy Spirit would LEAD them to all truth. Jesus didn’t say He would upload it directly into your brains. To lead someone is to take them on a journey over time.

To me the fact they haven’t interpreted every verse of scripture actually proves to me the guidance of the Church in the way Jesus intended. Have you ever heard a non Christian make the argument why didn’t Jesus foretell the use of computers or cars or traveling to the stars. For me the answer is because Jesus says He has many things to tell the Apostles but they aren’t ready. So instead He gives them guiding principles to follow. Same goes with the Church. She gives us guiding principles to follow because I believe in Her wisdom, guided by the Holy Spirit, She knew we would be arguing the verses regardless of the “infallible interpretion”.

Think about it you disagree with the 8 to 10 verses she infallible defines would 1000 make any difference in your mind?

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

Actually it is based on Scripture you just disagree with Her interpretations of the verses. So in all honesty it only goes against your interpretations.

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” ?

Once again you are responding to the wrong person. My response was to Glen to try to further understand his statement. The way he said it made it sound like that. He did not respond to my question and ended the conversation. I was not making a claim I was trying to further understand what he claimed, because the way he said it made it sound that way.

How about we stick to our discussions. I can’t back track through my conversation with Glenn to try to explain to you how him and I got to that point of the discussion.

God Bless

 

[Kei]

The thing is…those things they celebrate also point to Christ. We have the Christian way of celebrating the religious festivals.

As a matter of fact, they (Messianic Jews) either deny or don’t understand what it means that the old covenant was abrogated and think they should follow the laws of the old covenant.

 

[Glenn]

Thank you…you may want to edit the post however and place “Kei” as the author (been there ,done that lol)

Sorry, my bad. Not sure how to edit that post at this point.

 

[Glenn]

My response was to Glen to try to further understand his statement. The way he said it made it sound like that. He did not respond to my question and ended the conversation. I was not making a claim I was trying to further understand what he claimed, because the way he said it made it sound that way.

I don’t follow. I’m not sure what conversation you are referring to. I thought I responded to your questions.

 

[MT1926]

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.

Because I’m not seeing how this gets us to the 27 book canon. Why is it 27? Why not 22 or 32? There were many books written claiming to be what Jesus taught, some even used by early Christians, why not those? Also, the 27 books we do read never once show Jesus telling any of the Apostles to write anything down. He tells them to go teach.

You implied that Jesus’ affirmation of the Old Testament does not prove the authority of the New Testament.

No I said it doesn’t prove which books are authoritative.

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.

Just curious why do you think this is an assumption? Is it possible for fallible people to set an infallible canon? Not being smart. Honestly asking, because I would assume the answer is no. However, I’m willing to see why my assumption would be wrong.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

( do you really think it was just the water that saved Noah and his family, and not his faith, not the ark itself also ?).

This post really confuses me??

What did I say earlier that would lead you to believe I think the water alone saves us?

I mean being obedient saves you.

Sorry your going to have to explain this because when you say this along with this…

Faith saves you,

That sure sounds like a Catholic theology and not faith alone.

Also why wouldn’t Baptism fall under the obedience that saves you?

Do they all happen at our water baptism?

Never said they did. Actually you gave a like to an earlier post of mine where I pointed out they didn’t. So not sure of your line of reasoning here.

The water, the baptism, is representative

Baptism sure seems to fit better under the obedience that saves us.

God Bless

 

[mcq72]

Baptism sure seems to fit better under the obedience that saves us.

Correct and faith and new birth saves us, before water baptism saves us.

 

[mcq72]

Never said they did. Actually you gave a like to an earlier post of mine where I pointed out they didn’t. So not sure of your line of reasoning here.

The line of reasoning is that saving faith precedes baptism, and saving faith comes with new birth.

 

[MT1926]

Correct and faith and new birth saves us, before water baptism saves us.

Well at least we finally agree Baptism saves us.

In my opinion I don’t think we can set an order to it. I believe the scriptures show it’s Gods choice not ours.

And you haven’t shown me where one can believe with out being born of the Spirit first, without being born again first.

I don’t think This will be possible because we have different understandings of being born again. You believe this is an OT teaching that Nicodemus should have known. I believe Jesus did not teach us this until John 3. Therefor I can’t show you what you want to see because I don’t know the OT teachings you use that defines what it means to be born again and how one is born again.

Do you agree that questions are asked of the participant just before the immersion, as to their faith and to renouncing Satan etc.? They usually answer in the affirmative, and I say with the confidence that comes from an inner new birth. I have never heard anyone say, "No, but I will believe and renounce Satan after I come out of the waters, after I am born again and “see the Light” ".

You’re last sentence is why you lost me. I agree never heard anyone say No. Which was my point it seem like you are saying it’s not possible to say yes unless you are already born again. You even said it again here when you say with the confidence that comes with new birth. Wouldn’t that mean someone not yet born again would not have confidence and thus say No?

God Bless

 

[Glenn]

Because I’m not seeing how this gets us to the 27 book canon. Why is it 27? Why not 22 or 32? There were many books written claiming to be what Jesus taught, some even used by early Christians, why not those? Also, the 27 books we do read never once show Jesus telling any of the Apostles to write anything down. He tells them to go teach.

Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Armenian, Coptic NT canons all have different counts–not 27. Which one has the correct count? Is the authority of the books based on the count? Is the Catholic canon the only true Word of God?

When you partake of the bread without the blood, you are still partaking of the whole Christ. In the same manner, one Gospel is sufficient to save. A man can come to Christ by simply reading the Gospel of John (without the other Gospels), and he receives the whole Christ.

The Church did not have a formally accepted NT canon for roughly four centuries. Did it not have the Word of God? Yet there were new writings, before the official NT canon, that were generally acknowledged as having scriptural status. Peter, in his second epistle, acknowledged that the writings of Paul were Scripture.

The question is whether the Church determines the Word of God, or receives the Word of God. There is more that can be said here, but for now, I return to the quote from Calvin:

“Nothing, therefore, can be more absurd than the fiction, that the power of judging Scripture is in the church, and that 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.”

 

[mcq72]

Which was my point it seem like you are saying it’s not possible to say yes unless you are already born again.

I am just saying when a candidate says the affirmative to baptismal questions, it is by the power of the Spirit, by the Holy Ghost we call him Lord says the scripture. Yet many claim by doctrine that they receive this power, even the Spirit, after baptism. But I have never heard a participant say, “wait till after I come up out of the waters to answer in the affirmative.”

So I believe one has the Spirit, even been born by him, before the waters.

Wouldn’t that mean someone not yet born again would not have confidence and thus say No?

Correct, and they would not be baptized, even more, they woud not be a candidate for baptism.

If you are inferring that one can be insincere when calling Jesus as their Lord, and by the power of their flesh, unregenerate in spirit, ? Of corse but that is another matter. The scripture I cited insinuates only by the Spirit can one do it sincerely.

 

[MT1926]

NT canons all have different counts–not 27.

I thought everyone had 27 books in their NT. I thought the variation was in the OT canon?

Also, not following your reasoning here? How does pointing that someone else is wrong evidence that you are right?

In the same manner, one Gospel is sufficient to save.

I don’t know if I would agree with this. Seems to minimize the importance of what Christ did for us to say all we need is one Gospel to be saved. Not saying it is not possible just saying this sounds like one of those exceptions makes the rules mcq was talking about.

Did it not have the Word of God?

Yes it did in the manner Jesus intended the Oral teachings.

Peter, in his second epistle, acknowledged that the writings of Paul were Scripture.

Agree but notice he doesn’t say which ones, which is my point.

The question is whether the Church

I guess it depends on how you interpret what Calvin writes here. Notice he says…

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

Agree. She acknowledges the truth of God. And how does she acknowledge this truth, by giving it her stamp of authority. I think the overlooked fact is that she DOES NOT authenticate that which is doubtful and controverted.

Well my question would be how can she give it a stamp of authority unless she was given that authority by Christ? And if Christ gave her the authority to authenticate/not authenticate the actual words on the page wouldn’t it also make sense that she would have been given the authority to authenticate the actual interpretations of the words? After all how would she know which was authentic and which wasn’t?

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.”

Is there more? How shall we learn to distinguish light from darkness? What’s so evidently true of the color of black and white and sweet and bitter? Do you have kids? Do you believe these are evidently true to them or do you believe they can only understand the meaning of these concepts based on what they were taught by an authority who can teach them the distinctions?

Calvin is doing his best to skirt the reality of truth but in the end he says all that needs to be said when he stated

and gives it the stamp of her authority

God Bless