Infallibility of Church?

[mcq72]

You didn’t mean to put in the NO did you?

I believe I did to my question. I think you implied , asked, that OT saints had to be in heaven to enjoy fruits of new birth and salvation if scriptures were in the present when speaking of their joyous and fruitful plight, such as we see in psalm 91 (?), as if that is the only way it would be possible for them in that understanding. All I can ask is the same for us, that we are not in heaven yet enjoy such fruits, downpayments on our future bliss and position as sons and daughters of God.

 

[mcq72]

And you don’t think it’s a stretch to say God has (past tense) written?

How come when I try to explain something with Biblical evidence of what the word means you tell me I’m wrong “because that is exactly what the scripture says”

But when I ask for clarification on how you can read, you who know righteousness to mean God has written. I get no explanation other than the way I am reading it is wrong.

Ok, fair enough.

My understanding of the prophecy “I will wrote my laws in their heart”, is that God will do spiritual work in the heart of man, the inner man, even the new man, as they are interchangeably known. Man will treasure His Law.

Now, is the prophecy something unique to the future ? Can it also be unique in its magnitude and scope, as in over all mankind, as opposed to just thru the Jewish people ?

So now some say the OT saints, the elect as Paul calls them, did not treasure God’s Law or have it in their hearts, irregardless of how it got there, that the most they could have is the natural law and not the Mosaic Law.

I continue to say that the elect treasured the Mosaic law, as was directly given to them as the chosen people for such a thing, that it is much more than the natural law. That God writes the Mosaic law, or even the natural law or the new covenant laws on a heart , or whether He just plainly gives understanding to the heart of man, as Job states, is a matter of semantics. Either way, it is a work of God.

Again, I find it strange to suggest that the prophet of God’s chosen Law carriers would infer that His people could only have natural law in their hearts, that God’s Law could not infer the Mosaic Law.

 

[Glenn]

I have no difficulty understanding the meaning of the word objective .

Then why do you keep applying it where it doesn’t belong?

I disagree. You sound like a postmodernist, who relativizes all history as simply biased metanarrative. History is objective when it is corroborated by multiple, independent testimonies, which is exactly the case for the authentication of Scripture. Certainly, each individual testimony has a subjective component, but the corroboration between independent observers gives the events themselves their objective status.

Furthermore, Scripture is called objective by Protestants because it is in fact the Word of God, independent of our individual opinions of it, regardless of whether we recognize it as such or not.

This is what Pope Benedict said:

For it is of the very essence of biblical faith to be about real historical events. It does not tell stories symbolizing suprahistorical truths, but is based on history, history that took place here on this earth. The factum historicum (historical fact) is not an interchangeable symbolic cipher for biblical faith, but the foundation on which it stands. . . . We acknowledge God’s actual entry into real history. If we push this history aside, Christian faith as such disappears and is recast as some other religion.

Also in a court of law 1 admission of objective evidence would override the testimony of 10 witnesses.

You will have to enlighten me here, because I cannot think of a single piece of evidence that does not rely, in some respect, upon human testimony.

 

[Glenn]

In regard to Christ’s statement to Peter

I’m good with a lot of what this says, it makes a few assumptions though and a couple of points that are confusing.

Galatians 2:7-8:

“On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles)…”

Doesn’t this verse imply that Peter was entrusted with ministry to the Jews and not to the entire Church?

Catholics don’t believe the Pope is the head of the Church we believe he is the chief steward of the King(Jesus). Jesus being the Son of David He too appoints a chief steward with the keys just like David did. Sure some might us the term head of the Church on earth but that is not the same headship that belongs to Christ alone. It just means visible head, until Christ returns.

This idea of a steward for the King is interesting. The OT symbols and types for the Messianic office are manifold. But where are OT prototypes for this office of supreme Steward? I am not aware of any.

 

[MT1926]

I tried to find this verse that says

Did you read the article?

Of course you mean I throw out a what I believe to be an improper interpretation, which one, including yourself, should do ( follow one’s conviction ).

That’s fine then what’s your interpretation and why?

So did the apostles and all those baptized by John and Jesus and the apostles get rebaptized after the Crucifixion, or after the Resurection?

Don’t know the Scriptures don’t say. Once again Catholics don’t base our teachings on exceptions to the rule.

The Apostles were directly breathed on by Jesus, and received the Holy Spirit, does this mean we are doomed unless we are directly breathed on as well?

I believe I did to my question.

OK I see where you are going with this. Could you point to the verses in question. Why do you believe these verses are talking about eternal salvation (born again) and not just about God being the one to save, or being saved in general? Without knowing which verses you are talking about I can’t see the context.

My understanding of the prophecy

OK what from the Bible leads you to this understanding?

That God writes the Mosaic law,

OK no objections, why do you believe this only occurs in the “born again”?

I continue to say that the elect treasured the Mosaic law,

I don’t understand are you saying non-elect didn’t follow the law?

Quick thought do you believe when the Bible says righteous that also means elect?

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

History is objective when it is corroborated by multiple, independent testimonies, which is exactly the case for the authentication of Scripture. Certainly, each individual testimony has a subjective component, but the corroboration between independent observers gives the events themselves their objective status.

I don’t disagree with this, but you didn’t say History you said the Objective Testimony of the Holy Spirit.

Also, let’s work through this can you provide any independent testimonies? Which thank you for agreeing are subjective. All I am pointing out is the further and further we get away from the actual event, with more and more denominations popping up, the reliable corroboration of the events themselves are starting to lose their objective status. The more and more interpretations that pop up, of bible verses, church fathers, historical events, the less and less corroboration we have between these independent observers.

Furthermore, Scripture is called objective by Protestants because it is in fact the Word of God, independent of our individual opinions of it, regardless of whether we recognize it as such or not.

Yes the Bible is an objective piece of evidence, but we still have to have subjective evidence to provide it’s objectivity testimony. Which now makes the testimony subjective.

This is what Pope Benedict said:

I have no problems accepting history. Like the Pope says here Catholics start with history as well.

You will have to enlighten me here, because I cannot think of a single piece of evidence that does not rely, in some respect, upon human testimony.

I understand what you are saying and agree with this. Someone still has to present the objective evidence.

For me the Catholic Church is the one presenting the objective evidence, the Bible. Sure they might not be the independent observer that fits your criteria, but for me I think someone who was actually there, like the first cop on the scene collecting the evidence, would be more reliable than someone interpreting the words of what that cop wrote and actually meant.

That’s the way I see it anyway.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

Galatians 2:7-8:

“On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles)…”

Doesn’t this verse imply that Peter was entrusted with ministry to the Jews and not to the entire Church?

Only if we take this verse as a stand alone proof text.

If we follow this line of reasoning why did Peter Baptize Cornelius’ household and not Paul?

Also, wouldn’t this mean the same for Paul? Being that since he was entrusted to the Gentiles he wouldn’t preach to Jews? But Acts tells us over and over again that every time Paul entered a new city he would preach in the local Jewish synagogues. (Acts 13:5, 14, 14:1, 17:1, 10, 17, 18:4, 19, etc…)

This idea of a steward for the King is interesting. The OT symbols and types for the Messianic office are manifold. But where are OT prototypes for this office of supreme Steward? I am not aware of any.

Well first keep in mind that this is not just Biblical it is Historical. Even today the the Queen of England has a prime minister (supreme Steward).

Jesus establishes Peter as His royal steward for He gives to Peter “the keys of the kingdom of heaven”. This alludes to the prophecy of Isaiah that reads,

Isaiah 22:20 In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.”

In ancient times, the king would choose a Royal Steward or prime minister who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. Jesus gives Peter the authority to speak in His name and extends his authority beyond the earthly realm when he gives Peter the “keys to the kingdom of heaven.”

Here’s oneARTICLE that might help.

God Bless

 

[mcq72]

I don’t understand are you saying non-elect didn’t follow the law?

I am saying OT Jewish Saints treasured the Mosaic Law, God’s Word, even in their heart.

OK no objections, why do you believe this only occurs in the “born again”?

It is inferred in scripture. Do the spiritually dead Jews love His Law, the Mosaic Law, and the prophet’s words of the Lord?

Quick thought do you believe when the Bible says righteous that also means elect?

The elect are in the righteous group I would think, but not all Jews are righteous, of the elect, of the remnant.

 

[Glenn]

I don’t disagree with this, but you didn’t say History you said the Objective Testimony of the Holy Spirit.

What you may be referring to is this:

We’re back to the Protestant belief that the subjective testimony is the Holy Spirit in us, confirmed by the objective testimony of the same Spirit, in the Scriptures.

First, I qualified that statement with “in the Scriptures.” What I meant is “objective to us.” In this particular statement, I was distinguishing between God’s Word in us–a subjective experience and reality, and God’s Word outside of us–the objective Scriptures.

Maybe there was a better way to express this, but we must also note that we cannot apply the categories of subjective and objective to God in the same way as we do to human beings. What the Holy Spirit says is always true, not merely opinion.

Also, let’s work through this can you provide any independent testimonies?

There are extra-biblical corroborating documents, not only from the Church Fathers, but from secular and other religious sources, like Josephus, Tacitus, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, Lucian, and the Talmud.

There are numerous archeological artifacts, such as the ossuary of Caiaphas, the Pilate Stone, Temple Inscriptions, and the Shroud of Turin. The New Testament is replete with names, places, and events that are all verifiable by independent sources and artifacts. The eminent archaeologist Sir William
Ramsay thoroughly vindicated Luke as a historian “of the first rank.”

continued…

 

[Glenn]

continued…

Also, let’s work through this can you provide any independent testimonies?

But the Bible is also self-authenticating–in its internal testimonies regarding spiritual matters. After we verify that the NT witnesses are credible historians, they are understood to be men of integrity and therefore also credible in regard to the Bible’s accounts of the supernatural. For example, Paul, in defense of the resurrection, claims that there were over 500 people who saw the risen Christ. It is an internal testimony of Scripture to the 500 independent testimonies that corroborate one another. There are many other examples like this.

Secondly, the Bible can be understood as a non-biased account because it does not shy away from reporting the negative facts about its human authors and proponents. We see that Paul was once a murderous opponent of the Church. Peter denied Christ three times. The apostles, during the arrest of Jesus, were cowards who deserted their Lord and ran and hid.

Thirdly, the Bible is understood to be of supernatural origin because of the sheer magnificence and holiness of its doctrines. Examples are below:

"And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Christ is the only religious figure that pointed to himself as the means of salvation. Other religious leaders–Mohammad, Confucius, the Buddha–would not have dared to point to themselves; instead they pointed to their teachings. No other person in history compares with Jesus Christ.

The idea of the Trinity, which comes directly from Scripture, is the only explanation for love–that is, a divine being that did not need to create love because from all eternity, he is love–three persons in one essence.

The only truth about God’s nature is found in the Holy Scriptures. There are not many gods. as in paganism. The cosmos cannot be equated with God, as in Buddhism and Hinduism. We submit to him as our beloved and not in frigid obeisance to the God of the Muslims. We worship God alone and not our ancestors.

continued…

 

[Glenn]

continued…

Also, let’s work through this can you provide any independent testimonies?

The Scriptures are objectively verifiable. They contain real history. The events did not occur in a vacuum, or on some mythical island, as in Greek fables, but in the open, among great historical empires. So why do men not accept the Scriptures?

The truth of the Scriptures is clear an unambiguous, in the normal humans categories of empirical and rational truth. The Holy Spirit does not talk to mankind in riddles. He does not hide from man; man hides from him. Ultimately, we are able to accept what is obviously the Word of God, obvious even to non-Christians, not because of the testimony of fallible men, but because of the testimony of the infallible Spirit, who changes our hearts. The problem is not with our minds; it is with our hearts.

It is only because of the internal testimony of the Spirit, which is exclusive to those who have been born of the Spirit, that we turn away from our wicked denial of God, and away from our wicked denial of his clear and unambiguous Word, and learn to worship him in Spirit and Truth. Again, as Paul says in Romans 1, men suppress the truth (including God’s Word in Scripture) because of their unrighteousness.

That is why Protestants say we do not need an infallible human witness to the truth of Scripture. We reject the Scripture, and will be judged by God for doing so, because our hearts are cold. When he gives us the Spirit, he changes our entire disposition, so that we love what we once hated, and we finally acknowledge what we always knew to be the true Word of God.

This is where Catholics misunderstand Calvin. Yes, he talked about the internal (subjective) testimony of the Holy Spirit. But he is talking about our conversion, that which leads us to the external (objective) witness of the same Spirit in the Scriptures. It is the Holy Spirit, who never lies, and who testifies to himself, and to the Father and the Son, in every particle of existence.

 

[mcq72]

Did you read the article I linked?

Yes i did…not sure that the folks who disagree that the Noah verse,that Jesus preached to them in hell versus thru Noah, do so not because of the word hell, or gehena, sheol etc.

 

[MT1926]

It is inferred in scripture. Do the spiritually dead Jews love His Law, the Mosaic Law, and the prophet’s words of the Lord?

Sorry I’m not seeing it. To be honest with you it seems you are taking John 3, making the assumption that Nic should know this happened in the OT and based on that assumption you are reading it into the OT.

If Jesus thought this was so easy to see that Nic should know and understand this, teaching you think we would see actual Jewish evidence that this was taught in the synagogues.

If all the righteous dead are born again believers I think the evidence of this teaching should be plain as day.

Yes i did…not sure that the folks who disagree that the Noah verse,that Jesus preached to them in hell versus thru Noah, do so not because of the word hell, or gehena, sheol etc.

That’s OK because I didn’t ask why other folks disagree I asked for your interpretation.

God Bless

 

[Glenn]

Galatians 2:7-8:

“On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles)…”

Doesn’t this verse imply that Peter was entrusted with ministry to the Jews and not to the entire Church?

Only if we take this verse as a stand alone proof text.

I understand. I just thought I would mention it.

Jesus establishes Peter as His royal steward for He gives to Peter “the keys of the kingdom of heaven”. This alludes to the prophecy of Isaiah that reads,

Isaiah 22:20 In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.”

In ancient times, the king would choose a Royal Steward or prime minister who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. Jesus gives Peter the authority to speak in His name and extends his authority beyond the earthly realm when he gives Peter the “keys to the kingdom of heaven.”

Yes, this is quite interesting. This, I assume, is the passage in Isaiah that Scott Hahn was referring to.

This article below is fascinating–the strongest evidence I have seen for the Papacy.

Peter the Rock

 

[MT1926]

God’s Word outside of us–the objective Scriptures.

Sure I’m good with the Bible in and of itself being objective.

Maybe there was a better way to express this, but we must also note that we cannot apply the categories of subjective and objective to God in the same way as we do to human beings. What the Holy Spirit says is always true, not merely opinion.

I agree that’s why objective testimony of the same Spirit, in the Scriptures didn’t jive for me.

There are extra-biblical corroborating documents, not only from the Church Fathers, but from secular and other religious sources, like Josephus, Tacitus, Thallus, Pliny the Younger, Lucian, and the Talmud.

Yes I read about them. A lot of these secular testimonies testify to the fact that the early Church was Catholic as well and existed before the Bible canon was set. So why are they good for the Bible but not for the Catholic Authority?

For example, Paul, in defense of the resurrection, claims that there were over 500 people who saw the risen Christ. It is an internal testimony of Scripture to the 500 independent testimonies that corroborate one another.

I actually agree that these testimonies would be valid at the time they happened, because I am sure many knew the eye witnesses at the time. But how can we apply these today. For example many disagree with the eye witness testimony of the Fatima miracles in 1917 and Our Lady’s appearance to St. Juan Diego in 1531. Both of which are much closer to us in history and have actual names listed as the eyewitnesses. That’s basically why I see the evidence as subjective to us and not really objective. If that makes sense?

Secondly, the Bible can be understood as a non-biased

Agreed this attests to it’s truthful historical account.

Thirdly, the Bible is understood to be of supernatural origin

The rest of your post was very spirited and I appreciate your enthusiasm for the Bible. If it works for you great. However for me anyway I still don’t see how it gets us to the 27 books.

But he is talking about our conversion, that which leads us to the external (objective) witness of the same Spirit in the Scriptures.

I’m sure he was with his followers. However, From some of his writings it seemed Calvin believed it lead HIM to the external (objective) witness of Scripture. Not the rest of us who don’t agree with him.

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

I understand. I just thought I would mention it.

Thanks.

This article below is fascinating–the strongest evidence I have seen for the Papacy.

Yes Tim is great, converts are the best apologists. He use to be a Baptist youth minister.

Funny thing I actually flipped a coin between linking this article and the other one. I was afraid this was to much information so I went with the other.

Well I’m beat.

Good night,

God Bless

 

[Glenn]

Yes Tim is great, converts are the best apologists. He use to be a Baptist youth minister.

Funny thing I actually flipped a coin between linking this article and the other one. I was afraid this was to much information so I went with the other.

Well I’m beat.

Good night,

Hope you had a good night’s sleep. I’m sharing this article with a couple of Protestant friends. I do have to say that all of the cited passages seem to clarify one another quite nicely, and since Scripture interprets Scripture, we have to pay attention here. A solid case has been made for the fact that Jesus did have a special role in mind for Peter. And as you said, his extension of the kingdom to the Gentiles through Cornelius is evidence that his role was broader than simply to the Jews.

The logical question from this point, for me, is whether Peter’s stewardship was specifically for laying the foundation of the Church or to be extended through successors into perpetuity until Christ returns. That’s something I’ll have to think about. The pattern of the Old Testament, according to God’s promise, and implemented in the southern kingdom of Judah, was that there would continue to be a descendent of David on the throne–that is, the perpetuity of the King. Of course, this is ultimately fulfilled by Christ, who sits forever at the right hand of the Father.

But I don’t think what I have learned here about Peter necessarily contradicts the Protestant understanding of the Church being founded on the “prophets and the apostles, with Christ Jesus as the cornerstone.” I believe the prophetic ministry ended with John the Baptist, the one who Jesus said was the greatest of the prophets, but still not as great as the “least in the kingdom of God.”

I still hold the position that the apostolic ministry, as with the OT prophetic ministry, was intended specifically for the foundation of the Church, for “building” the Church, not for its continuation. The teaching of Scripture, I think, is pretty clear that Christ remains with us through the continuing presence of the Holy Spirit. Also, I’m still not convinced of the necessity of an infallible Church.

For me, at this point in my spiritual walk, I am still set on the position that I articulated regarding the warrant of Scripture’s authority through empirical-historical and rational means, the means that are naturally available to all men, but which are rejected by those who forsake the “narrow way”–not because of a lack of information or because God has not made his truth clear and readily available, but because of men’s spiritual blindness.

I appreciate all your insight and patience throughout this discussion. I think we’ve taken this issue about as far as we can. But I will continue to consider and pray about what we have discussed, through my personal study and meditations.

God bless.

 

[mcq72]

If Jesus thought this was so easy to see that Nic should know and understand this, teaching you think we would see actual Jewish evidence that this was taught in the synagogues.

Can you show me where it was taught in synagogues that you must be born of water and born of the Spirit?

Site is undergoing maintenance

Site will be available soon. Thank you for your patience!

www.hadavar.org

Actually here is article dealing with John 3 from Jewish perspective. I found it looking up regeneration in the Mishnah.