Agreed. However, this is not what I am saying doesn’t add up. All I am saying is you jump from Jesus to the 27 books. Which logically lead to the question why 27? How did we get there?
Thanks didn’t notice that’s what you were pointing me to.
First it was your article not mine.
No argument here. Does this undivided Church in the 1st through 4th century still exist?
his isn’t really a definition of authority.
Do you mean “THE” Church and which Church would that be? or Do you mean “A” church and anyone will do?
Yes I will always agree with everything that comes from Christ.
Personal sin has nothing to do with the definition of infallibility.
This is actually on of the reasons I believe in infallibility. Jesus said who hears you hears me. Why would He give someone the authority to speak for him and let that person make fallible mistakes when they speak for Him.
AMEN
I think this is an easy thing to say after someone already pointed you to scripture.
We make mistakes all the time. The Church (even the Catholic Church) frequently makes mistakes and misrepresents our Lord. It will continue to do so until he returns. And yet we still compose his body. He has chosen to work through fallible people. The Catholic Church may say that its conciliar documents are infallible. At best, that only means that it is infallible on paper, but it is a de facto fallible institution, because in practice, its members, from the lowest to the highest, still sin.
“Circumcise yourselves to the LORD, and take away the foreskins of your heart, ye men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem:”…Jer. 4:4Looking forward to it.(regeneration in OT)
www.desiringgod.org
Well, scripture is not so clear on that. Not any clearer than what I posit.
Correct. Yet to be “born again” is a command, as is “believe”, and “repent”, as is to be baptized, to be filled with the Spirit. But yes, ask and ye shall receive, and yes , He even graces the will to even ask.
Same old same old.
Why would he give someone authority and let him sin? We all know that the Church still sins. In effect, what you are really saying is this:
I might be wrong and am open to being proven wrong but I don’t know of any case in which the Catholic Church misrepresented our Lord.
Infallible and impeccable are not synonyms.
I’m going to have to do some research on this but how do you get around all of these verses saying Your or Yourself?
And then he takes what he thinks and reads that back into his interpreations…
Like I said I will do a bit more research on this. But I’m not seeing why Nicodemus would read Christ into these verses when the Prophets clearly stated YOU.
If this is same old same old I would think by now you would have a better refutation.
Maybe because Jesus agreed that those in it taught with the authority given them by God.
Exactly. This is why we shouldn’t think infallibility and impeccability are not the same thing or rely on one another to be true. Notice Jesus actually shows us here that the moral life of the leader has no bearing on what is being taught. If it did Jesus wouldn’t have told them to obey them.
Totally, agree. Jesus here is telling us about fallible men (Pharisees and Sadducees) who, through their hidden influence, prevent others from entering the kingdom (Mt 12:24, 22:23, 23:13)
He also tells us we will no longer have to worry about leaven because…
He won’t let His Church contain leaven.
Cool, I saw the same thing…kind of like the Law…but it should make one say Lord help me I cant…David does call on the Lord to do it however, “create in me a clean heart Lord”…and come to think of it Jesus kind of commands of us to repent, believe, be borm again…however He says elsewhere ask and you will receive, buy from me etc, which I think is also in OT.
Yes, infallibility and impeccability are different. I am familiar with Hahn’s teaching, and I have also read books on Papal Infallibility. But what you are saying is that Jesus has the power to overcome our sin but not the power to overcome our fallibility. My point in a previous post, which you did not answer, is that sin is a much more serious obstacle to God’s revealed truth than our fallibility, our cognitive mistakes. So how can you say that our sins have no power over Jesus but our fallibility does?
Again, being correct on paper, official documents, does not mean that the Church is correct in practice. And this is what counts. The Church is not the paper or its creeds; it is a living body. It must exhibit what it teaches, or it is apostate. The Church does not represent God based on an external performance of its rituals or upon its documentary archives, but upon whether or not it lives out, “in Spirit and in Truth” what Christ has commanded.
Agree…indeed they had authority, to make the Law normative.
Well, that is a bit contrived to fit later succession views . The Pharisees were not from the beginning of the Law. But agree that the chair of Moses, the Law and it’s application was handed down. What I like about your statement is the conditionality of listening and teaching, when they teach from the Law correctly, as Moses would have.
Yes but how do they prevent them, but by bad doctrine. The most righteous man can still prevent that, with bad doctrine. Jesus implied fallible men with explicitly stated bad doctrine, the leaven its representative. The chair of Moses is is not unconditionally, infallible administered, but is dependent on right judication of the Law. And we are to beware…it is in our paygrade to be able to discern, lay people and leaders and teachers.
Sure I can agree with this. But this just shows us that Nicodemus would have known that we could ask God for a clean heart. I don’t see how Nic would have been able to conclude when and how that clean heart would happen.
How do you come to this conclusion? I’m sure you would agree the Apostles had authority and even wrote infallibly. Yet their writings show us that they still sinned. Jesus sent out the 12 (which includes Judas) in Mark 6 and gave them authority.
No we all know the members of the Church still sin.
Actually, I thought I made it clear that Christ CAN give someone authority regardless of the type of person they are, moral or cognitive. Heck if he can make a donkey speak I’m sure he can do a whole lot more with crazy old me, if he chose to.
He gave David authority over many. Do you believe King David’s moral life is one we should imitate?
Agreed, which is one of the reasons why infallibility has nothing to do with ones moral life.
AMEN
AMEN
I totally agree with this? If God can do this for you and me how come he can’t do this for the Pope? After all that is what infallibility is, it’s God accomplishing His purpose of “Who hears you hears Me”.
Hopefully the last post cleared this up. I believe He has the power to overcome both our sins and our fallibility. Why He doesn’t give us all the grace to overcome both is a mystery that I don’t have the answer to. But just because I don’t have the answer doesn’t mean He can’t make someone infallible.
I agree with this.
I don’t think I ever said this. If I did I didn’t mean to. Could you please post what I said and I will try to correct it.
Where am I saying this? I’m not even close to believing this. Can you please point where I said something even close to this because I’m guessing I must not have been clear in what I said.
Not according to what infallibility actually means.
The Bible is part of the Church’s paper. And since every church most likely has sinners within wouldn’t that mean every Christian on the face of the earth is apostate?
And since you judge the Catholic Church based on Her individual members you must also judge all other churches the same way. And therefore believe you own church, which I’m sure has some sinners within her walls, doesn’t live out “in Spirit and in Truth” what Christ has commanded.
And yet I thought you stated thay you dont know the how or when God did this to OT saints such as David, just that it must have been after Christ. So how did David get born again to get to heaven? Was Davids plea really answered as in “not yet”… no peace ,joy, forgiveness, new heart saving faith…not yet not in his earthly lifetime…was David delusional in his psalms for uttering experiences in such blessings? Was looking forward in faith to Christ ineffectual but looking backward is ?
OK. I will grant you this. The Pope sins, but God still works through him. The Pope is fallible, but God still works through him. He does not make the Pope infallible. God just delivers his infallible message through a fallible Pope. I assume that is what you are saying. I don’t know what to think about this, but I do see the logic.
I’m not saying that the Catholic Church is apostate. I apply the same criterion to all communions. Whenever a Christian body, either a local church, or an entire communion, ceases to preach the truth, it is no longer the Church. I understand that we all sin. I’m simply saying that what constitutes the church is adhering to “the Spirit and Truth,” not what is contained in its documents.