Infallibility of Church?

[MT1926]

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.

I understand what you are saying but all I am saying is your logic doesn’t add up.

You are seeing a problem with people CLAIMING they receive the Spirit after Baptism. You base this on your believe that they wouldn’t be able to say affirmative without the Spirit.

How is this any different than someone CLAIMING they have the Spirit by saying affirmative before Baptism?

That was my question how does someone saying affirmative prove they have the Spirit. The only way it would be proof would be if it was not possible to say affirmative (to lie) unless one was already born again.

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.

How is this another matter? This is the matter of the question I am asking. What is your evidence that the person is sincere or not. At the end of that day what is the evidence that the person, who has a conversion experience, is actually being sincere or if they are just emotional.

God Bless

 

[mcq72]

You are seeing a problem with people CLAIMING they receive the Spirit after Baptism

Yes but more. I see the problem of saying the Wind of the Spirit, as the Lord put it, is effectually tied to baptism. I see a problem with doctrine that says you are not born again before baptism. I see a problem that says man nature is good enough to have saving faith to desire for baptism even, without new birth, without a change already.

I know we have gone over this before, and if I recall you seemed to say God can do what He wishes , and there can be exceptions for general modus operandi (Cornelius for example). Of course we differ on what the norm is.

 

[MT1926]

I see the problem of saying the Wind of the Spirit, as the Lord put it, is effectually tied to baptism

That’s fine but what do you see it “tied to” then? You said Nicodemus should have know from the OT that one could be born again. What teachings in the OT would have shown him this?

I see a problem with doctrine that says you are not born again before baptism.

OK but where is it taught that before Baptism is the norm?

I see a problem that says man nature is good enough to have saving faith to desire for baptism even, without new birth, without a change already.

Well this isn’t Catholic teaching so not sure who you are having this problem with?

I know we have gone over this before, and if I recall you seemed to say God can do what He wishes , and there can be exceptions for general modus operandi (Cornelius for example). Of course we differ on what the norm is.

Agreed.

I’m willing to see your side of what the “norm” of being born again is, but you haven’t really shared a straight forward firm teaching on where in the OT this is taught?

God Bless

 

[Glenn]

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

I did not say anyone was wrong. You did not answer my questions, which were as follows:

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?

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?

I also did not say that the Church is without authority. Neither did Calvin nor any of the Reformers. We all agree that authority was given to the Church by Christ. The question is whether or not that authority is infallible. The Reformers said “no”. The Catholic Church says “yes”. But how do you prove that the Church is infallible, and specifically, the Catholic Church?

 

[Glenn]

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?

Here you have the problem of alternate readings, even in Catholic Bibles, based on different versions of ancient texts. If the Church has the authority to authenticate every word on the page, why give the alternative readings?

and gives it the stamp of her authority

You need to complete what Calvin said in order properly represent what he meant by this statement, which is:

When the church receives it, and gives it the stamp of her authority… she as in duty bound, shows her reverence by an unhesitating assent.

The Church does not determine Scripture. In humility and reverence, she with thanksgiving receives this gift of the Holy Spirit.

 

[mcq72]

That was my question how does someone saying affirmative prove they have the Spirit.

it is through the few scriptural texts I gave, and that can be referenced.

The only way it would be proof would be if it was not possible to say affirmative (to lie) unless one was already born again.

Well nothing can be proved than. I mean many spiritual truths can be counterfeited. That is neither here not there to the reality. Even good works may not be telling, as Jesus said.

 

[mcq72]

That’s fine but what do you see it “tied to” then? You said Nicodemus should have know from the OT that one could be born again. What teachings in the OT would have shown him this?

That is a great question thank you. It is one I am working on then.

For now I can say just as we will be better spiritually in the next phase (heaven), it does not diminish the reality of our spirititual reconciliation and union with God now in this current phase. Likewise for OT saints .Their reality is not diminished relative to our current dispensation.

OT saints knew the Father, and vice versa.

But yes will get you some verses soon.

Ps. They certainly had prophecies of our current dispensation that we call born again, just as we have prophecies of our spiritual reality in heaven yet to come

 

[MT1926]

Which one has the correct count?

You said…

Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Armenian, Coptic NT canons all have different counts–not 27

From my understanding we all have 27 books in our NT. Could you please point me to a reference that shows our NT’s differ.

Is the authority of the books based on the count?

Agree it is not based on count but I do believe the authority has to come from somewhere and I disagree that it comes from Jesus who already ascended before a single book was written.

Is the Catholic canon the only true Word of God?

Now if you are basing this on the differences in the OT between Catholics and Orthodox maybe THIS article might help.

We all agree that authority was given to the Church by Christ.

What authority do you and the others believe She was given?

Because from the quote from Calvin it seems he believes She was given the authority to stamp the Bible, however was NOT given the authority to interpret the Bible.

Which would make me ask how can you authenticate that which you do not understand?

The question is whether or not that authority is infallible.

Wouldn’t the answer to this question be based on who Christ gave the authority to interpret scripture?

The Reformers said “no”.

I agree they say this. However, they also have to admit that their NO comes from their fallible interpretation of scripture. Not saying this proves we need an infallible interpreter just saying at the end of the day they still have to admit their NO might be wrong.

The Catholic Church says “yes”.

Because she believes the only possible way to give the Bible Her stamp of authority is if she is able to FULLY understand what is written within its pages.

But how do you prove that the Church is infallible

I believe the only possible way is to first show how we got the Bible in the first place. If Calvin can’t explain, to himself, how a stamp of authority could come from a Church, who DOES NOT FULLY understands and CAN make MANY MANY errors in the interpretation of the words on the page, then Calvin will never understand infallibility.

Like I said I am just trying to get you to think through your explanation. I’m not being argumentative here but in the end if you aren’t willing to fully explain some of your statements, not to me but to yourself, then it is not possible for you to understand the need for an infallible Church.

and specifically, the Catholic Church?

Like you said in an earlier post about the Bible. We start with the historical evidence, which historians accept as fact.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

Here you have the problem of alternate readings, even in Catholic Bibles, based on different versions of ancient texts. If the Church has the authority to authenticate every word on the page, why give the alternative readings?

I’m not sure what you mean by alternate readings? Do you mean different translations?

Why do you believe this is a problem? I’m happy to answer but not following where you are going with this.

You need to complete what Calvin said in order properly represent what he meant by this statement, which is:

Glenn:

When the church receives it, and gives it the stamp of her authority… she as in duty bound, shows her reverence by an unhesitating assent.

Once again never claimed the Church causes scripture to occur.

Also, I didn’t skip that part because it doesn’t really change anything.

The word receives mean to be given or presented with. I’m not sure of what Calvin means when he used this word. The word is a verb which means to be given or presented with. He tells us what is received, the Bible, however he does not tell us in what manner it was received. So without further detail of the actions he is not mentioning in the receiving this word really has no bearing on the quote. Totally, agree we receive the Bible by inspiration of the Holy Spirit. It’s the mode in which we receive it that Calvin seems to ignore.

Now the word unhesitating means without doubt.

The word assent means the expression of approval or agreement.

So the Church uses her authority to express Her approval or agreement without a doubt.

This doesn’t answer the question… why does Calvin believe the Church can be in agreement with something She does not FULLY understand?

Like I said in my last post these are the foundation questions that need to be explained and understood. Glossing over these questions or accepting unexplained answers is the reason why many can’t understand Catholic doctrine.

It has to start with a firm foundation. Jesus understood this and taught this to us.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

Well nothing can be proved than. I mean many spiritual truths can be counterfeited. That is neither here not there to the reality. Even good works may not be telling, as Jesus said.

Totally agree. The our fallen human nature does a pretty good job of fooling us into believing our actions are worthy when in all actuality they are counterfeited.

Which is why it makes more sense to me to believe that God set it up based on His promises not on our words or actions.

Jesus promises Baptize(born of water and spirit) someone in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and they will be born again. Based on Jesus promise not because we did, said or believed why we thought we are suppose to do so that He will owes us.

Jesus promises whose sins you forgive are forgiven whose sins you retain are retained. Based on Jesus promise not on the worthiness of the Priest.

We even believe a sinful good for nothing Priest is still capable of consecrating the Eucharist during mass. Because it’s not based on the worthiness of the Priest it’s based on Jesus promise. I’m sure you would agree if anything was based on our worthiness we would all be done for.

That is a great question thank you. It is one I am working on then.

But yes will get you some verses soon

Looking forward to it.

Thanks,

God Bless

 

[Glenn]

From my understanding we all have 27 books in our NT. Could you please point me to a reference that shows our NT’s differ.

Refer to section: New Testamen Canon Ourside the Church

You first said that Jesus’ affirmation of Scripture did not include the New Testament because he could not have determined the 27 books. Now you say that it is because he ascended before the books were written. Then you ask me to think through my explanation–to myself–while you are raising objections that you have apparently not thought through. Simply because you do not understand what I have said does not mean that I do not understand it.

So I will ask again, and this time will be more specific. Is the Catholic NEW TESTAMENT canon the only authoritative New Testament canon?

What authority do you and the others believe She was given?

Because from the quote from Calvin it seems he believes She was given the authority to stamp the Bible, however was NOT given the authority to interpret the Bible.

Which would make me ask how can you authenticate that which you do not understand?

Silly question… and a logical fallacy. An affirmation of one thing is not a denial of another. The matter at hand was in regard to the objective authority of the Scripture itself, not its interpretation. Did Calvin deny the fact that the Church has the authority to interpret Scripture? Of course not. He believed in the priesthood of believers, that all believers have the authority, through the Holy Spirit, to interpret Scripture.

You are doing what you accuse me of doing. I asked you how you prove the Catholic Church is infallible, and you respond by saying that Calvin was wrong. How does saying he is wrong prove you are right? I asked you, not Calvin, to prove that the Catholic Church has infallible authority. Calvin believed that the Church has authority, not infallible authority. He did not believe that it was necessary for the Church to be infallible in order for it to recognize and receive God’s Word.

I explained to you how we know that Scripture is God’s Word, and thus far, you have offered no rational objection to what I have stated. Jesus’ affirmation of Scripture was clearly universal. Obviously, he did not exclude that which was yet to written.

In regard to interpretation, the author of Scripture is the Holy Spirit. Men were moved by God to write what the Holy Spirit wanted them to write. As believers, we have the Holy Spirit. Because of this, our spirits are united with him, we recognize what he has authored, and we understand it.

 

[Glenn]

This doesn’t answer the question… why does Calvin believe the Church can be in agreement with something She does not FULLY understand?

What can I say? Can any mortal human FULLY understand God’s Word? Augustine said of God, “If you understand, it is not God.” These are holy mysteries. Only in heaven, as the apostle Paul said, “we will know as we are known.”

I see no logical reason to insist that we must understand God’s Word infallibly in order to recognize that it is God’s Word. I believe it is the Holy Spirit who leads individual believers into all truth–gradually, through their sanctification; ultimately, in heaven; not complete in every detail, but by God’s grace, perfect for salvation.

Like I said in my last post these are the foundation questions that need to be explained and understood. Glossing over these questions or accepting unexplained answers is the reason why many can’t understand Catholic doctrine.

I think you are glossing over the answers I have presented. Rather than accepting what Calvin said at face value, or at least trying to understand what he actually intended, you redefine everything in your own terms – receive means this… what manner?.. what mode?.. unhesitating means that… assent means something else…

I understand Catholic doctrine. I just don’t agree with it. It seems that you cannot appreciate Protestant doctrine, because you keep introducing irrelevant rabbit trails that I could spend my life trying to answer. Its seems like a tactical use of the Socratic method rather than a serious attempt to understand my explanations.

 

[MT1926]

You first said that Jesus’ …

Sorry didn’t mean to offend. What do you believe I haven’t thought through when you say “Now you say”? For me His ascension into heaven, before they were written, is the reason he didn’t affirm them. Nowhere in scripture do we see Jesus command the Apostles to write down what He taught. If there is something else I am ignoring let me know, I’m open to discussing what you see me ignoring.

Is the Catholic NEW TESTAMENT canon the only authoritative New Testament canon?

Thanks for the link. It was a little long so to be honest I just kind of scanned it. Could you point to a particular section that would help me better understand what you are saying I’m not thinking through?

To best answer your question I would say I agree with the article you posted …

by its very nature inspiration eludes human observation and is not self-evident, being essentially superphysical and supernatural. Its sole absolute criterion, therefore, is the Holy inspiring Spirit, witnessing decisively to Itself, not in the subjective experience of individual souls, as Calvin maintained, neither in the doctrinal and spiritual tenor of Holy Writ itself, according to Luther, but through the constituted organ and custodian of Its revelations, the Church. All other evidences fall short of the certainty and finality necessary to compel the absolute assent of faith.

From my historical understanding the Church spoken of at this particular point of time in history, is the Catholic Church.

Silly question… and a logical fallacy. An affirmation of one thing is not a denial of another.

Why is it a silly question to ask what authority She was given.

The matter at hand was in regard to the objective authority of the Scripture itself, not its interpretation.

Why do you believe this is the matter at hand?

The statement I was responding to was “We all agree that authority was given to the Church by Christ.”

Which is why I asked you to define what authority you believe She was given. I tried to define how I would define what this means and you called it a logical fallacy. That’s fine you can do that but I would appreciate a definition of authority that you believe would not be a logical fallacy.

Did Calvin deny the fact that the Church has the authority to interpret Scripture?

No it seems he believed she was given the authority to authenticate something she did not understand. Which I stated doesn’t make sense to me. How can someone who doesn’t understand calculus authoritatively authenticate a calculus text book?

continued…

 

[MT1926]

You are doing what you accuse me of doing. I asked you how you prove the Catholic Church is infallible, and you respond by saying that Calvin was wrong.

Well to be honest the first time I typed that I had you in there and not Calvin. But I was afraid you would take it personally so I rewrote it using Calvin’s name instead.

My point, that got lost in translation is I that is what I am doing when I say we can’t discuss infallibility until we finish discussing the Bible. We need to define what visible authority Jesus left us first, what this means and how this authority applies to the interpretation of scripture before we can even begin to discus infallibility.

Calvin believed that the Church has authority, not infallible authority.

Which doesn’t make sense to me. Thus the reason I asked what he meant by authority. Without his definition of what he means by this I can only conclude he is wrong based on the definition of what I was taught this word means.

He did not believe that it was necessary for the Church to be infallible in order for it to recognize and receive God’s Word.

My question is why? If he doesn’t give a reason in his writings this is just his assertion, which I pointed out doesn’t seem to add up.

I explained to you how we know that Scripture is God’s Word, and thus far, you have offered no rational objection to what I have stated. Jesus’ affirmation of Scripture was clearly universal. Obviously, he did not exclude that which was yet to written.

I gave an explanation could you please point out what part of my explanation is not rational. Also. please explain why someone should believe Jesus not excluding something he never commanded the Apostles to write, even though he gave them many other commands, should be taken rationally?

As believers, we have the Holy Spirit. Because of this, our spirits are united with him, we recognize what he has authored, and we understand it.

Then why did you just use an article as your defense that says the exact opposite?

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

Can any mortal human FULLY understand God’s Word?

Then Calvin might not have understood as well.

“If you understand, it is not God.” - “we will know as we are known.”

They are talking about knowledge of God, the vision of God, not God’s Word. Not seeing why we would apply either of these statements, about God, to the Bible.

I see no logical reason

Yes that is what Calvin says. I tend to agree with the article you posted instead.

I am also convinced with what Cardinal Newman says…

In an essay on inspiration first published in 1884: “Surely then, if the revelations and lessons in Scripture are addressed to us personally and practically, the presence among us of a formal judge and standing expositor of its words is imperative. It is antecedently unreasonable to suppose that a book so complex, so unsystematic, in parts so obscure, the outcome of so many minds, times, and places, should be given us from above without the safeguard of some authority; as if it could possibly from the nature of the case, interpret itself. Its inspiration does but guarantee its truth, not its interpretation. How are private readers satisfactorily to distinguish what is didactic and what is historical, what is fact and what is vision, what is allegorical and what is literal, what is [idiomatic] and what is grammatical, what is enunciated formally and what occurs, what is only of temporary and what is of lasting obligations. Such is our natural anticipation, and it is only too exactly justified in the events of the last three centuries, in the many countries where private judgment on the text of Scripture has prevailed. The gift of inspiration requires as its complement the gift of infallibility.”

I think you are glossing over the answers I have presented.

This is unkind and uncalled for. I was upfront with you, said Calvin didn’t define what he meant. Asked for a definition of authority. Asked is there more to the quote? Asked is meant by evidently true. Why accuse me of redefining everything, which I don’t I use a dictionary, when you refuse to supply the definitions?

cannot appreciate Protestant doctrine

May I ask why it is an irrelevant rabbit hole?

You said…

Jesus is recorded as teaching about Scripture, in a historically reliable account, is true. Thus, as Jesus taught, the Scriptures are authoritative.
I replied…
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.

What part of those questions are an irrelevant rabbit hole in Protestant doctrine?

God Bless

 

[Glenn]

I’m not sure what you mean by alternate readings? Do you mean different translations?

Why do you believe this is a problem? I’m happy to answer but not following where you are going with this.

I am not referring to different English translations. I am referring to actual variations in the ancient Greek and Latin manuscripts. Often in Bibles, including Catholic Bibles, the text from these alternate manuscripts in the margins. So the Church has accepted one version of the text in the body of a given passage, but because scholars are not positive that this is the best version, they include the variations from the Greek manuscripts.

This is an example of where the Church has received a particular text, given it the stamp of her authority, but recognizes that a variant version could perhaps be closest to the original autograph (that is, the actual document composed by its original author). Thus, the text is not infallible.

 

[MT1926]

I am not referring to different English translations. I am referring to actual variations in the ancient Greek and Latin manuscripts. Often in Bibles, including Catholic Bibles, the text from these alternate manuscripts in the margins. So the Church has accepted one version of the text in the body of a given passage, but because scholars are not positive that this is the best version, they include the variations from the Greek manuscripts.

OK I understand what you mean here. Not sure where you are going with this though. Yes I have heard this before. From my understanding this is because of errors or additions from human transcription.

This is an example of where the Church has received a particular text, given it the stamp of her authority , but recognizes that a variant version could perhaps be closest to the original autograph (that is, the actual document composed by its original author). Thus, the text is not infallible.

Couldn’t this actually be an example that someone would say is evidence that the scriptures we read today aren’t the original infallible scripture that were penned?

Also couldn’t we also use this as evidence of the Churches ongoing authority.

Finally, wouldn’t the fact that they recognized that these variant versions did not change the meaning of the text, actually be evidence that She knew the intended meaning from the very beginning?

God Bless.

 

[Glenn]

Nowhere in scripture do we see Jesus command the Apostles to write down what He taught.

Holy Scripture is Holy Scripture, in its complete form, or as it evolved over time. As I said, there is no reason to think that Jesus would exclude future additions to Scripture from his affirmation of its authority, at present or in the future.

Thanks for the link. It was a little long so to be honest I just kind of scanned it. Could you point to a particular section that would help me better understand what you are saying I’m not thinking through?

Refer to the section: New Testament Canon Outside of the Church

Its sole absolute criterion, therefore, is the Holy inspiring Spirit, witnessing decisively to Itself, not in the subjective experience of individual souls, as Calvin maintained, neither in the doctrinal and spiritual tenor of Holy Writ itself, according to Luther, but through the constituted organ and custodian of Its revelations, the Church . All other evidences fall short of the certainty and finality necessary to compel the absolute assent of faith.

This is a total mischaracterization of Calvin. He believed in the objective authority of Scripture, in the Holy Spirit decisively witnessing to its authority, authority recognized not just by the Church, but by all who possess the Holy Spirit.

From my historical understanding the Church spoken of at this particular point of time in history, is the Catholic Church.

The Church at this particular point in time was simply an undivided Church. The term “Catholic” referred to the fact that she was a universal Church, not simply available to the biological descendants of Abraham, but to both Jews and Gentiles. As Jesus said, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations.”

Which is why I asked you to define what authority you believe She was given

Jesus gave us, the body of Christ, the authority to make disciples, to baptize them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and to teach them to observe all things that he commanded. And he promised that he would be with us always, even to the end of the age. Jesus said, “Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” But we do not administer the sacraments in the privacy of our homes. We submit to the authority of the Church. But this by no means insinuates that the Church must be an infallible authority. It has authority because it was commissioned by Christ, not because it is infallible. We still sin, and thus we often miss the mark.

 

[Glenn]

No it seems he believed she was given the authority to authenticate something she did not understand. Which I stated doesn’t make sense to me. How can someone who doesn’t understand calculus authoritatively authenticate a calculus text book?

Why would you assume that Calvin believed that the Church did not understand the Scriptures? I don’t see how you come to that conclusion simply because Calvin did not insist upon an infallible Church. The Scripture was inspired by the Holy Spirit. All believers have been given the Holy Spirit, who leads us into all truth. We recognize God’s Word because it was authored by the same Spirit that lives within us. “The Spirit knows the mind of the Spirit.” For us to recognize God’s Word, to receive it, and to understand what he intends us to understand, does not require infallibility on our part.

God is infallible. He does not require infallibility on our part in order to be saved. Read Romans 1. Paul says that all men who reject him “are without excuse.” That is because the revelation of himself in nature (referred to historically as natural revelation) is clear. If self-God’s revelation in nature is clear, why would his self-revelation in Scripture be unclear?

The problem of mankind is not epistemological (having to do with our finite knowledge). God has not hidden himself from us; we have hidden ourselves from him. The problem is moral. It is because of sin that men reject the gospel, reject God’s revelation of himself in nature, and reject his revelation of himself in Scripture. The Scripture is clear about our sin and about what God requires of us to be forgiven.

What God has given to us as individual believers, he has also given to his Church, namely, the ability to distinguish between his true word and the words of false prophets. Jesus said, “My sheep hear my voice.” The Scripture is authoritative because it is God’s Word, not because we receive it as his Word or because we give it our stamp of approval.

 

[Glenn]

Couldn’t this actually be an example that someone would say is evidence that the scriptures we read today aren’t the original infallible scripture that were penned?

Also couldn’t we also use this as evidence of the Churches ongoing authority.

Finally, wouldn’t the fact that they recognized that these variant versions did not change the meaning of the text, actually be evidence that She knew the intended meaning from the very beginning?

I think the only thing we really disagree on is the need for an infallible Church. You believe that an infallible Church is necessary to recognize true Scripture. I don’t believe that infallibility is necessary. I know that God is infallible, and that is all that I see is necessary. God has equipped us all to know the truth. The reason we don’t know the truth is because we have rebelled from the one who IS TRUTH.

When men stand before God, no one will be able to say, “God, it is your fault that I rejected you. You hid yourself from me. If you had only given me more information, given me convincing evidence that you were real, I would have been your most ardent servant.” God will reply, “I gave you a conscience, and you seared it. I gave you my Word, and your ignored it. I gave you my Son, and you killed him.”

For the Church to recognize what is true Scripture and what is not, she simply needs to open her eyes, but more importantly, her heart. The only reason we, or the Church, receive anything that God gives us of his truth, including what he has given us as his true Holy Word, is because he has changed our moral character, not because he has given us intellectual infallibility.