Infallible list of infallible teachings

[guanophore]

On my own I wouldn’t mind, but in a forum like this? We’d get nowhere. I’ve seen it happen before: One side quotes a church father that allegedly supports his view, and then the other side fires back a contradictory quote and/or claims that the particular church father is being taken out of context, etc. So saying merely that I “don’t want to refer to the fathers” is oversimplifying, misrepresentative, and ignoring this explanation of mine, which I have already given in another post.

The same thing happens with scripture.

You are right that we might get “nowhere”, but that is not because of ambiguity in the FAthers, but because the Fathers were Catholic! It is impossible to set aside their clearly Catholic theology. Well, I guess I can’t say that either, because the Reformers did do this to create new theologies, and a new gospel to suit their own perceptions. It is amazing how much of Augustine Calvanists can ignore so they can pick and choose to support the errant doctrines like SS that emanate from the Reformation.

Besides, you should shy away from such a challenge here because you are surrounded by a vibrant flock of well catechized Catholics who know their Scripture, and their Fathers.

Well, first of all, SS does not speak against STC, at least not in one sense. SS does not militate against tradition or the church. Anyone who uses SS to justify abandonment of church and tradition either doesn’t understand it or is distorting it.

SS was invented precisely for the purpose of mitigating agains the Tradition and the Church (authority). But I do agree with you, many in our day have abandoned the Reformers’ notions of SS and replaced it with their own ideas, just as the Reformers abandoned the Apostolic view of Scripture and replaced it with their own ideas.

SS says that tradition and the church are not infallible, and that the only infallible rule is Scripture, which means that both the Church and tradition are subject to Scripture. So it does acknowledge all three (STC), but not the T and C in the way that the RCC defines them.

A preposterous idea, since Scripture, not being a person, cannot be fallible or infallible. Scripture does not have a will, discernment, and ability to take responsibilitly for actions. These are qualities of persons, not writings, however Holy. In attempting to push the authority Christ gave to persons away from the persons, it was forced into Holy Scripture, where it does not belong. What has resulted is exactly what you have demonstrated here. Everyone reads and interprets according to their own perceptions, and believes that their conclusions come from “infallible Scripture”. The result is the complete fragmentation of the Body.

I prefer to go straight to the source: Scripture itself. Regarding the sufficiency of Scripture, 2 Tim. 3:16-17 makes this all too clear. Since Scripture makes the man of God complete and thoroughly equipped for every good work, nothing else is needed in terms of revelation. That is clearly the concept of sufficiency. If something else were needed, then the phrase thoroughly equipped for every good work is not true.

This is also a fallacy, and a misunderstanding of what this verse actually says. It does not say what you are trying to make it say. On the contrary, it says the opposite!

Nowhere that I know of did Christ or the apostles speak of either tradition or the church as having authority equal to the word of God, such that new revelation, in addition to Scripture and considered to be infallible, could proceed from them.

It appears that you still need some more bible study!

What do you think the Church did for 30 years before there was no NT?

What SS did they use at the Council of Jerusalem?!

The idea that one should submit unconditionally to church teaching, without testing it in any way, is actually contrary to Scripture. As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, Paul expected his Galatian audience to test any preaching that purported to be the gospel and reject it, even if it came from him or an angel.

He did, and what was the basis of the test? It was the Apostolic teaching! What did not come from the Apostles was not authentic. There was no NT at the time!

The gospel itself, then, was expected to be the rule by which other preaching was to be tested. Paul was not speaking hyperbolically here. He wasn’t exaggerating. He took the gospel very, very seriously. This was the man who wrote elsewhere, Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel. He indicated in another place that the gospel was entrusted to him by God, and he valued the stewardship of the gospel that had been given him to such a degree that he even wrote that his reward was simply preaching the gospel free of charge.

Exactly, and that Gospel is what has been infallibly preserved in the Church. It is not extracted from the pages of Scripture 1500 years after the fact, in contradiction to what Jesus already revealed to the Apostles.

In addition, the Bereans were commended for testing what the apostles taught using Scripture. If it was wrong for them to do this, then the text would not refer to this act as noble.

What made the Bereans more noble is that they received the Apostolic preaching with eagerness. This is exactly what most modern Protestants reject. Instead of opening themselves to what Jesus gave to the Church, instead they reject it out of hand, and turn their back to the Apostolic preaching, attempting to extract their faith from the pages of Scripture. This is not “noble”.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

I don’t need to. The existence of various interpretations does not prove that the text cannot be clearly grasped. People can see a text clearly for what it says but then reject it because it differs from their pet theory or beliefs.

Yes, but it proves that there is no way to identify the correct interpretation.

Let’s apply this to the RCC. Do all Catholics agree about the number of infallible teachings of the RCC?

That’s a straw man. There is NO TEACHING regarding the number of infallible teachings, so there is NO LIST of infallible teachings. Anyway, it has NO bearing on the problem of SS, which is inherently non-Scriptural, and circular. You are avoiding to answer the question: How can you identify a correct interpretation of SS when everyone is ENTITLED to their own interpretation by virtue of the Protestant DOCTRINE of Private Judgement?

 

[Koineman]

Ok maybe I was a little too vague. If you wanted to read a history book, you certainly don’t need to make sure you understood what it is saying. It will also be VERY MUCH EASIER for you to understand because it deals with things you always encounter in real life.

But STILL, if you had to then go and teach the subject to others, no one will allow you to do that before making sure that you did indeed understand things correctly.

But we’re not talking about teaching it to others. We’re talking about being able to read the text, understand it, and use that to discern the truth of what someone else teaches.

Now this becomes even more important in fields that do not deal with things that we encounter in real life, whether it be a abstract subject like Theoretical physics or Transcendent claims (Religion). So the need for testing to see if you understood it properly is greater.

While it’s always good to have your understanding of a biblical text checked by others in the church, that’s a far cry from saying that I cannot interpret that text, understand it, and use it to discern whether someone else is preaching the truth.

What you expect me to do is throw away discernment. You want me to stop thinking that I can discern whether a particular teaching is biblical or not and instead run my understanding by someone else for approval. There are two problems with this:

1. It’s dangerous to throw away discernment when it comes to matters that pertain to the soul.
2. Even if I were to do what you suggest, I’d be relying on someone else’s private interpretation of the text, whether it be that of a priest, bishop, or some other church leader, so it wouldn’t solve the problem as you see it.

The problem with your counterargument is that it is not grounded in reason. It requires me to assent to the existence of a Holy Spirit before even knowing which religion is true.

It’s perfectly reasonable. We both agree that Scripture is inspired, so that is a reasonable starting point for both of us. It’s also reasonable because you have already accepted, through your preferred method of natural reason, the authority of the RCC. That authority, which you have determined to be genuine, affirms the Holy Spirit.

By the way, this thread is not about determining which religion is true.

Well this would be great and profound work of Theology if we knew it were true. But as it stands, all we have is your interpretation of what Christ says and empirical evidence that this certainly does not seem to be the case.

Well, then, if we can’t look at a text and determine what it means because it’s just our interpretation, then this whole thread with you is pointless because it applies to everything you write here, too, not to mention your interpretation of historical claims that you read about (which you have used in your natural reason argument to show the authority of the RCC).

Obviously you and I are wasting our time.

 

[Koineman]

Originally Posted by Koineman
I don’t need to. The existence of various interpretations does not prove that the text cannot be clearly grasped. People can see a text clearly for what it says but then reject it because it differs from their pet theory or beliefs.

This applies also to disagreements among Catholics about RCC teaching. Also, it doesn’t prove that the correct interpretation cannot be identified. Just because people disagree does not mean we can’t read a text to determine what it means. As before, your conclusion doesn’t follow.

Let’s apply this to the RCC. Do all Catholics agree about the number of infallible teachings of the RCC?

That’s a straw man. There is NO TEACHING regarding the number of infallible teachings, so there is NO LIST of infallible teachings.

It’s not a straw man. There is indeed no list of infallible teachings, but the RCC claims to have the authority to teach infallibly. Those infallible teachings must be recognized by individual Catholics. But do all Catholics agree on which teachings are infallible and which are not? If they did, they would agree on the exact number of those teachings. Do they?

 

[Eufrosnia]

But we’re not talking about teaching it to others. We’re talking about being able to read the text, understand it, and use that to discern the truth of what someone else teaches.

I said “teaching it to others” because then it is more critical that you understood it. But if you were just going to inform yourself of history, its not a big deal to you or anyone else that you might have some misunderstanding.

In the case of faith, it is indeed a big deal. Your soul is on the line and your entire life is on the line. So it is just as critical (or even more) that you make sure you understood correctly.

While it’s always good to have your understanding of a biblical text checked by others in the church, that’s a far cry from saying that I cannot interpret that text, understand it, and use it to discern whether someone else is preaching the truth.

What you expect me to do is throw away discernment. You want me to stop thinking that I can discern whether a particular teaching is biblical or not and instead run my understanding by someone else for approval. There are two problems with this:

1. It’s dangerous to throw away discernment when it comes to matters that pertain to the soul.
2. Even if I were to do what you suggest, I’d be relying on someone else’s private interpretation of the text, whether it be that of a priest, bishop, or some other church leader, so it wouldn’t solve the problem as you see it.

Well, this is why you need to make sure who has authority. You cannot just rely on your own “discernment” just as much as you cannot rely on some other random person. Both are bad and both are dangerous.

I am also glad that you are very much concerned with checking things when it comes to spiritual things. But as I said before, regardless of how debunked Catholics are, you too have assented to a very bold claim i.e. Scripture is the Word of God, without any reason to think it true. Do you not think of that as being very dangerous as well?

It’s perfectly reasonable. We both agree that Scripture is inspired, so that is a reasonable starting point for both of us. It’s also reasonable because you have already accepted, through your preferred method of natural reason, the authority of the RCC. That authority, which you have determined to be genuine, affirms the Holy Spirit.

Well, it would be bad because both of us might be wrong. If I have no reason to believe that the Church has authority, then I am wrong. Since you also have no reason to believe in any authority apart from the Church, you too would be wrong. So we would both be wasting our time with Christianity.

By the way, this thread is not about determining which religion is true.

In a sense, all threads on CAF where a Catholic position is questioned by a non-Catholics, are about determining the true religion. Who wants to waste time on fairy tales after all?

Well, then, if we can’t look at a text and determine what it means because it’s just our interpretation, then this whole thread with you is pointless because it applies to everything you write here, too, not to mention your interpretation of historical claims that you read about (which you have used in your natural reason argument to show the authority of the RCC).

No, I think you misunderstand what I am saying. Just because we can read and interpret a text as a whole, it does not mean that there is only one singular interpretation. That is your mistake.

Considering that you are interpreting 66 distinct books where the majority of the claims are not empirically intuitive truths but transcendent truths, you can have more than one singular interpretation.

One of the best examples that I can give you is probably John 6. I can have multiple interpretations of John 6 without contradicting myself on how I interpret the rest of the Bible. So consistency with the text as a whole is not really proof that the interpretation is true or not. There are possibly infinite distinct interpretations possible of a text that describes Transcendent truths, the main reason being that the Transcendent cannot be verified or grasped through our empirical experiences.

Did you know this problem and have a work around? Because otherwise you still have not explained on how we can know which interpretation is true.

P.S. Reading the Bible is not the same as reading a history book when we are speaking of Transcendent truths. We can all agree that Jesus, prophet, apostles said x,y,z. What we cannot agree on is what he meant when he said x,y,z. Why? Because the things he says describe Transcendent truths. Since they are not within our empirical experience, we cannot say “obviously, that is what he was referring to”.

 

[Koineman]

P.S. Reading the Bible is not the same as reading a history book when we are speaking of Transcendent truths. We can all agree that Jesus, prophet, apostles said x,y,z. What we cannot agree on is what he meant when he said x,y,z. Why? Because the things he says describe Transcendent truths. Since they are not within our empirical experience, we cannot say “obviously, that is what he was referring to”.

Yes, I know, you’ve been saying this all along, but I am not convinced that this is the correct approach. According to you, I am not able to make sense of any spiritual, transcendent claim because it cannot be empirically verified, but as I’ve pointed out to you more than once, you are overlooking the spiritual component involved in making sense of a biblical text. That is why I think your approach is flawed.

Also, does the RCC itself affirm this approach?

 

[Koineman]

The same thing happens with scripture.

You are right that we might get “nowhere”, but that is not because of ambiguity in the FAthers, but because the Fathers were Catholic!

Sorry, experience has taught me otherwise regarding both these claims.

It is impossible to set aside their clearly Catholic theology.

Only if you have first decided that their theology is clearly Catholic.

Well, I guess I can’t say that either, because the Reformers did do this to create new theologies, and a new gospel to suit their own perceptions.

Nope, they stuck to the real gospel, not the false one that Trent locked the RCC into. Trent describes a “gospel” that shifts the burden of salvation from Christ to the believer. It’s just a somewhat easier Old Covenant, rather than a New Covenant, in Trent’s formulation. I refuse to follow any such distortion of the true gospel.

SS was invented precisely for the purpose of mitigating agains the Tradition and the Church (authority).

This shows me for sure that you don’t understand why Sola Scriptura came about.

But I do agree with you, many in our day have abandoned the Reformers’ notions of SS and replaced it with their own ideas, just as the Reformers abandoned the Apostolic view of Scripture and replaced it with their own ideas.

Is that what this thread has come to–heckling? LOL

A preposterous idea, since Scripture, not being a person, cannot be fallible or infallible.

Since it is God-breathed–the voice of God–it is indeed infallible. You err greatly.

 

[Eufrosnia]

Yes, I know, you’ve been saying this all along, but I am not convinced that this is the correct approach. According to you, I am not able to make sense of any spiritual, transcendent claim because it cannot be empirically verified, but as I’ve pointed out to you more than once, you are overlooking the spiritual component involved in making sense of a biblical text. That is why I think your approach is flawed.

Also, does the RCC itself affirm this approach?

Well, let us say the RCC is a debunk institution. You still have to answer with a mechanism.

But I think what you are perhaps saying is that you have gone further and also postulated the existence of another Transcendent claim, that is

a*) The Holy Spirit will guide me to the true interpretation of the Bible

The only issue here is that the above is a Transcendent claim too. So where does that claim come from? Because the Church does not teach such protection for individuals in general.

Also, we have empirical evidence to think that this claim is flawed. Ever since the start of the reformation, we have various different denominations that disagree and claim a different interpretation from the other. Surely, it would seem that the Holy Spirit is leading people away on divergent trails then. The reformers are more divided than they were 500 years ago. So it seems less likely that the Holy Spirit is guiding every individual to the truth as well, no?

 

[Tomster]

Well, let us say the RCC is a debunk institution. You still have to answer with a mechanism.

But I think what you are perhaps saying is that you have gone further and also postulated the existence of another Transcendent claim, that is

a*) The Holy Spirit will guide me to the true interpretation of the Bible

The only issue here is that the above is a Transcendent claim too. So where does that claim come from? Because the Church does not teach such protection for individuals in general.

Also, we have empirical evidence to think that this claim is flawed. Ever since the start of the reformation, we have various different denominations that disagree and claim a different interpretation from the other. Surely, it would seem that the Holy Spirit is leading people away on divergent trails then. The reformers are more divided than they were 500 years ago. So it seems less likely that the Holy Spirit is guiding every individual to the truth as well, no?

 

[Koineman]

Well, let us say the RCC is a debunk institution. You still have to answer with a mechanism.

No, I don’t. It suffices for me to discuss this with the authority we both accept. You have repeatedly tried to turn this into a “how do we know which religion is true?” thread when that is not what this is about. If you wish to start that kind of topic, feel free to start another thread.

Also, we have empirical evidence to think that this claim is flawed.

Your explanation below shows that you rely on more than alleged empirical evidence. You have to interpret that evidence, too. Here is what you said:

Ever since the start of the reformation, we have various different denominations that disagree and claim a different interpretation from the other. Surely, it would seem that the Holy Spirit is leading people away on divergent trails then. The reformers are more divided than they were 500 years ago. So it seems less likely that the Holy Spirit is guiding every individual to the truth as well, no?

Wrong. Catholics adore this argument, but the reasoning is flawed, and greatly so. I pointed out the reason why in another post in this thread earlier today. Just because people disagree does not HAVE to mean that the source is flawed or unclear in some way. That conclusion does not follow. People can see something clearly, know what it says beyond doubt, but still stubbornly reject it due to bias, discomfort with what it says, and so on.

It’s very ironic that your very argument to show that empirical evidence demonstrates the flaw in SS, itself relies on your own interpretation of the “evidence.”

 

[devoutchristian]

Anything that is dogmatic or moral is infallible.

Well there are moral teachings that are not infallible.

 

[Eufrosnia]

No, I don’t. It suffices for me to discuss this with the authority we both accept. You have repeatedly tried to turn this into a “how do we know which religion is true?” thread when that is not what this is about. If you wish to start that kind of topic, feel free to start another thread.

I am not asking for a mechanism to prove “Scripture is the Word of God”. I am asking for the mechanism you use to justify which interpretation of the entire Bible you choose.

Your explanation below shows that you rely on more than alleged empirical evidence. You have to interpret that evidence, too. Here is what you said:

Wrong. Catholics adore this argument, but the reasoning is flawed, and greatly so. I pointed out the reason why in another post in this thread earlier today. Just because people disagree does not HAVE to mean that the source is flawed or unclear in some way. That conclusion does not follow. People can see something clearly, know what it says beyond doubt, but still stubbornly reject it due to bias, discomfort with what it says, and so on.

So are you sure that you actually disagree with Catholic teaching too? Because the Catholic teaching you claim to have strayed from Apostolic teachings might just be unclear to you but truly is consistent, yes?

Also, do you think it is correct to speculate that whoever disagrees with you is just doing so out of difficulty to believe what they KNOW is truth? The Jehovah’s Witness or Seventh Day Adventists seem very keen on the “truth” and some have died for the truth, which would seem pretty difficult to do, yes?

So is it not more probable that they do indeed feel lead by the Spirit and therefore this “lead by the Spirit to the truth” is the actual culprit for this splintering? In other words, such a truth has been debunked (or less probable to be true) considering the empirical evidence?

It’s very ironic that your very argument to show that empirical evidence demonstrates the flaw in SS, itself relies on your own interpretation of the “evidence.”

Well, on this issue, what is wrong with interpreting evidence? Do you think it is not a valid process? If so, what makes you think that you are good at coming up with doctrine from interpreted Biblical evidence?

Seems to me like there are some self contradictions in your own thinking, yes?

Also, as I said, Catholics do not believe in the Proposition (3*) I listed about the guidance of the Holy Spirit. So here we seem to depart from common ground. I therefore ask again, how do you know this Transcendent claim to be true?

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Wrong. Catholics adore this argument, but the reasoning is flawed, and greatly so. I pointed out the reason why in another post in this thread earlier today. Just because people disagree does not HAVE to mean that the source is flawed or unclear in some way. That conclusion does not follow. People can see something clearly, know what it says beyond doubt, but still stubbornly reject it due to bias, discomfort with what it says, and so on.

It’s very ironic that your very argument to show that empirical evidence demonstrates the flaw in SS, itself relies on your own interpretation of the “evidence.”

No. The empirical evidence does NOT require a single interpretation to be right. All the empirical evidence shows with CERTAINTY, is that Scripture can be and IS interpreted in many contradictory ways.

What you have failed to explain is how you can know which interpretation is correct.

 

[Tomster]

No. The empirical evidence does NOT require a single interpretation to be right. All the empirical evidence shows with CERTAINTY, is that Scripture can be and IS interpreted in many contradictory ways.

What you have failed to explain is how you can know which interpretation is correct.

So true.

 

[Koineman]

No. The empirical evidence does NOT require a single interpretation to be right. All the empirical evidence shows with CERTAINTY, is that Scripture can be and IS interpreted in many contradictory ways.

What you have failed to explain is how you can know which interpretation is correct.

I haven’t failed because i haven’t tried, because that is not what this thread is about. The point in this latest development is that the treasured Catholic argument that multiple interpretations = inability to identify the correct interpretation is fallacious.

And Catholics are in no position to criticize Protestants for multiple conflicting interpretations, because they disagree on things as well. Until the Catholic Church is 100% free of all disagreement and varying interpretations, then, and only then, will you have the right to criticize Protestants for their disagreements. Until then, it’s the pot calling the kettle black and, therefore, unworthy of a response.

 

[Tomster]

The same thing happens with scripture.

You are right that we might get “nowhere”, but that is not because of ambiguity in the FAthers, but because the Fathers were Catholic! It is impossible to set aside their clearly Catholic theology. Well, I guess I can’t say that either, because the Reformers did do this to create new theologies, and a new gospel to suit their own perceptions. It is amazing how much of Augustine Calvanists can ignore so they can pick and choose to support the errant doctrines like SS that emanate from the Reformation.

Besides, you should shy away from such a challenge here because you are surrounded by a vibrant flock of well catechized Catholics who know their Scripture, and their Fathers.

SS was invented precisely for the purpose of mitigating agains the Tradition and the Church (authority). But I do agree with you, many in our day have abandoned the Reformers’ notions of SS and replaced it with their own ideas, just as the Reformers abandoned the Apostolic view of Scripture and replaced it with their own ideas.

A preposterous idea, since Scripture, not being a person, cannot be fallible or infallible. Scripture does not have a will, discernment, and ability to take responsibilitly for actions. These are qualities of persons, not writings, however Holy. In attempting to push the authority Christ gave to persons away from the persons, it was forced into Holy Scripture, where it does not belong. What has resulted is exactly what you have demonstrated here. Everyone reads and interprets according to their own perceptions, and believes that their conclusions come from “infallible Scripture”. The result is the complete fragmentation of the Body.

This is also a fallacy, and a misunderstanding of what this verse actually says. It does not say what you are trying to make it say. On the contrary, it says the opposite!

It appears that you still need some more bible study!

What do you think the Church did for 30 years before there was no NT?

What SS did they use at the Council of Jerusalem?!

He did, and what was the basis of the test? It was the Apostolic teaching! What did not come from the Apostles was not authentic. There was no NT at the time!

Exactly, and that Gospel is what has been infallibly preserved in the Church. It is not extracted from the pages of Scripture 1500 years after the fact, in contradiction to what Jesus already revealed to the Apostles.

What made the Bereans more noble is that they received the Apostolic preaching with eagerness. This is exactly what most modern Protestants reject. Instead of opening themselves to what Jesus gave to the Church, instead they reject it out of hand, and turn their back to the Apostolic preaching, attempting to extract their faith from the pages of Scripture. This is not “noble”.

BINGO GUANOPHORE !

If our esteemed debater is truly a Berean, that is, one who is strictly following the example of the Bereans mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles (and at this point I have no reason to think otherwise judging by the link at the bottom of all his posts) then, in all honesty, he must immediately cease making any references to the New Testament. The only biblical references he can honestly refer to are the Old Testament writings. The New Testament did not exist as we know it today back then. The ancient Bereans depended on oral, Apostolic preaching to interpret what was going on at that point in history at their particular Pauline Church - PERIOD!

If, again, our esteemed debater, is truly a Berean as I outlined above, he has tied one of arms behind his back. He has no idea of how the New Testament came about based on his own limited criteria. And because of that, he has no concept of who and what the True Church Jesus established in the New Testament really is.

All he is left with is the Old Testament and his own individual fallible theories.

 

[Koineman]

Getting back to the OP, I ask again: How many infallible teachings in the RCC are there? One person in this thread has said there is only one he knows of. Any other takers? It’s a valid question. If infallible dogmas are important to Catholics–and I’m sure you’ll agree they are–then it must be also important to know which teachings are infallible. From that it follows that Catholics should be able to identify those infallible teachings without disagreement, which also means there should be an agreed-upon number of said teachings as well as agreement on what they are.

 

[Tomster]

Getting back to the OP, I ask again: How many infallible teachings in the RCC are there? One person in this thread has said there is only one he knows of. Any other takers? It’s a valid question. If infallible dogmas are important to Catholics–and I’m sure you’ll agree they are–then it must be also important to know which teachings are infallible. From that it follows that Catholics should be able to identify those infallible teachings without disagreement, which also means there should be an agreed-upon number of said teachings as well as agreement on what they are.

Since dogmatic definitions of an ecumenical council are infallible, they are irreformable, but its disciplinary measures are subject to modification by one superior to the council itself, i.e. the Roman Pontiff.

Now, how many infallible teachings are there in the Berean sect you belong to? :compcoff:

 

[Koineman]

BINGO GUANOPHORE !

If our esteemed debater is truly a Berean, that is, one who is strictly following the example of the Bereans mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles (and at this point I have no reason to think otherwise judging by the link at the bottom of all his posts)

You have either misunderstood my point in bringing up the example of the Bereans or have not read what I was responding to. My point in mentioning the Bereans was that the idea of testing the teaching of another using Scripture is validated in the Bible. It has nothing to do with the extent of that Scripture.

then, in all honesty, he must immediately cease making any references to the New Testament. The only biblical references he can honestly refer to are the Old Testament writings. The New Testament did not exist as we know it today back then. The ancient Bereans depended on oral, Apostolic preaching to interpret what was going on at that point in history at their particular Pauline Church - PERIOD!

You really have to ignore the plain meaning of the text to come to that conclusion. Let’s look at it:

“Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.”

What you’ve done is reversed the meaning. It doesn’t say that they used the apostolic preaching to interpret anything. Nothing even hinting that is mentioned. What it does say, however, is that they used the Scriptures to see if what was orally spoken was true.

This is a perfect example of what I mentioned earlier about multiple interpretations not proving that a text is insufficient. Here we have the meaning of the text as plain as day, and yet, nevertheless, its meaning is twisted to mean the exact opposite of what was intended.

 

[Tomster]

You have either misunderstood my point in bringing up the example of the Bereans or have not read what I was responding to. My point in mentioning the Bereans was that the idea of testing the teaching of another using Scripture is validated in the Bible. It has nothing to do with the extent of that Scripture.

You really have to ignore the plain meaning of the text to come to that conclusion. Let’s look at it:

“Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.”

What you’ve done is reversed the meaning. It doesn’t say that they used the apostolic preaching to interpret anything. Nothing even hinting that is mentioned. What it does say, however, is that they used the Scriptures to see if what was orally spoken was true.

This is a perfect example of what I mentioned earlier about multiple interpretations not proving that a text is insufficient. Here we have the meaning of the text as plain as day, and yet, nevertheless, its meaning is twisted to mean the exact opposite of what was intended.

I have looked at it, ad nauseam. They depended on Apostolic oral teaching. That’s what the Bible is, Apostolic oral teaching which came first, and then the written word followed. It’s called Sacred Tradition.

geesh!