It's NOT in the Bible, okay?

[mlchance]

The definition I use is qualified by “only infallible” (or ‘guaranteed to be perfectly reliable’) rule of faith and conduct. So this definition allows for other rules of faith and conduct. But none are guaranteed to be perfectly reliable.

You continue to ignore the elephant in the room. Even a “guaranteed to be perfectly reliable” is subject to misinterpretation. The text cannot interpret itself; therefore, if its “guaranteed to be perfectly reliable” is to be maintained, it requires an infallible interpreter.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Church_Militant]

Sure.

This one (with maybe a few technical nits on wordig) works for me.

The reason why I like this one that it occurred to me one day that I do not feel that I have to logically prove this is true in some debate format in order for me to believe this is true.

Maybe some other folks are up to this, but I think I will pass myself…Certainly your prerogative, however, it is not a matter of feelings, which can mislead us, but of facts. Facts as to what given passages of scripture actually say, or do not say in order to ascertain objective truth. If it is untrue that the Bible lays claim to the infallible authority that your definition ascribes to it, then, even by the errant standard of Sola Scripture (as you have defined it) one would have to reject that interpretation.

It occurred to me that it is a fact that today I do not hold to any other infallible rule of faith and conduct So logically unless I am convinced that there is another infallible rule of faith and conduct out there (be it -]the Book of Mormon/-], your pope speaking on faith and morals, -]or David Koresh/-]), the Bible is

my only infallible rule of faith and conduct.Just because you are convinced does not make it correct. One can be sincerely in error and this is one reason I suspect some people ascribe to this belief.

To me it’s fairly simply. If you want me to believe that everything that we believe and practice must be found in the Word of God, then you need to show me precisely where the Bible says that. So far I haven’t seen anything like that, but have seen a lot of verses and then interpretations of men telling me they mean something other than what they actually say.

Now of course convincing me that there is another infallible rule of faith and conduct is a very difficult sell. Per 1 Thess 5:21 I am to examine everything carefully and hold fast to that which is good. So I don’t know how one can convince me that there is another infallible rule of faith and conduct except through the rule of faith and conduct that I know is

infallible. **And I have not seen anything in the Bible that gives me the license to elevate any other rule of faith to the status of infallible.**Yet I have not seen anything that gives anyone the license to elevate the Bible to that status while I do see the simple statement from St. Paul as to what the pillar and ground of the truth is.

1st Timothy 3:15 “if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the** pillar** and bulwark of the truth”

And the best Catholic apologists (Dave Armstrong for example) have been unconvincing in this regard, so I doubt that anybody here will be any more so.

I would say the same about the n-C apologists…both statements prove nothing at all other than neither of us were convinced.

 

[distracted]

I know that one! Vacation Bible School

i must need new glasses… i thought you wrote Vatican Bible School…

now i don’t have to ask What is that??

 

[AmateurPianist]

You continue to ignore the elephant in the room. Even a “guaranteed to be perfectly reliable” is subject to misinterpretation. The text cannot interpret itself; therefore, if its “guaranteed to be perfectly reliable” is to be maintained, it requires an infallible interpreter.

– Mark L. Chance.

“Guaranteed to be perfectly reliable” is not a guarantee that one can not err in its interpretation. However, when we err, the fault is with us, not with the Bible.

 

[mlchance]

“Guaranteed to be perfectly reliable” is not a guarantee that one can not err in its interpretation. However, when we err, the fault is with us, not with the Bible.

Yes, I realize that. You didn’t address the elephant. Without an infallible interpreter, a “guaranteed to be perfectly reliable” text is no more useful than a text that is not “guaranteed to be perfectly reliable”.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[AmateurPianist]

If it is untrue that the Bible lays claim to the infallible authority that your definition ascribes to it, then, even by the errant standard of Sola Scripture (as you have defined it) one would have to reject that interpretation.Just because you are convinced does not make it correct. One can be sincerely in error and this is one reason I suspect some people ascribe to this belief.

I am not sure you are understanding what I am saying. That is ok. I have difficulty in wording my thoughts in a way that I think expresses them with perfect clarity.

So let’s backtrack.

Let us assume for the moment that the Bible does not claim for itself the stature of “only infallible rule of faith and conduct” (with the word ‘only’ being the key word here).

It does not necessarily follow from this that there are in fact other rules of faith and conduct that are infallible.

To me it’s fairly simply. If you want me to believe that everything that we believe and practice must be found in the Word of God, then you need to show me precisely where the Bible says that.

I am not here to prove to you what I believe is correct.

I think these rules of faith arguments are ultimately unprovable on both sides.

I will say that if anybody wants me to believe that their proposed rule of faith is also infallible, I have to first ascertain that is in fact true (1 Thess. 5:21). The only way I have to ascertain this is through the rule of faith that I know is infallible, that being the Bible.

As far as 1st Timothy 3:15 goes, I for one do not see the thought “incapable of being incorrect” expressed in that Scripture.

 

[Church_Militant]

I appraoch this based on the presumption that the Word of God, the Bible is indeed God’s Word. Your line of questioning does not appear to accept the presumption, therefore no matter how I would answer, it would not make any difference to you. What your view of the Bible is will be the determining factor of how one receives the Word of God. When you cite the church as being the pillar and support of the truth; it simply means that God has chosen to work through His elect to maintain the purity of His word and all that is contained.

Presumption does not work. It comes to a conclusion even before it has looked at the facts. Would anyone want to be the subject of any case where presumption was the basis for conclusion? Very risky.

Where does 1st Timothy 3:15 even infer such a belief as you assert? I’ll have to disagree with your interpretation and go with what the Word of God actually says right there.

There is no place in the Bible that explicitly states that all Christian teachings MUST BE in the Bible, but a logical and rational thought will lead you to that conclusion

; simply put, where else will you find it?You express a gross fallacy because that may be your own opinion, but even if one accepts the authority ascribed to the Bible by Sola Scriptura, one would have to reject that.

As to your last question…you already answered that when you touched on 1st Timothy 3:15 above. What does that verse literally tell us is the pillar and bulwark of the truth?

 

[DerekD]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Wow! We sure think it does. We felt when Jesus told Peter feed my sheep, And handed him over the keys to the kingdom it was real important.

And the part that I thought was really important is when he told Peter in Luke to STRENGHTEN YOUR BRETHERN. Now you are saying that there is no scriptural basis. If that isnt scripture what is?

How about in Matt when he called the 12 Apostles and gave them authority over unclean spirits and to cast them out and heal every disease. You don’t consider that scripture. What do call those words in your church?

Feed my sheep is the role of every pastor; in fact the primary role. Peter and the rest were the first oradained of God to preach the gospel. Is your religion built off of John 6 and Matthew 16? If so wouldn’t that be very"cult-like"? Why or why not?

All you are showing me here is two things, you do not have a high view of scipture in light of your church and second you have a sad understanding of scripture, which is not a good thing for you because it speaks volumes to those that do know the Word of God and place it as the highest authority.

 

[Church_Militant]

You have two premises that must be true for what you said above to be true and is a source of major doctrinal error within your church.** First you must put your church above the authority of scripture to make the claim that your church interprets the bible.**

Which is the only option supported by the New Testament.

Second you presume that “scared tradition” were taught by Jesus adn passed down to the apostles and are outside of Scripture. How can you derive this and prove it is of divine authority unless you just make the claim that your church says it is that way; therefore it is.

Not so t all. I examined the evidence in the New Testament and wrote the following article on my blog based upon what I found.Take a look. Infallibility & How The Apostles Taught the Study of Sacred Tradition.

The logic make no sense and I don’t believe it to be possible to show Jesus taught anythng that is not in the written pages of Scripture. Jesus himself said that Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God; where do all Christians go to find what proceeded out of the mouth of God? the Bible?

So then teachings that the apostles offer in their New Testament writings, (and there are a great many) that Our Lord never spoke about are invalid? Surely you didn’t mean that! Yet that is the only logical conclusion to arrive at based upon what you have just said.

 

[AmateurPianist]

Yes, I realize that. You didn’t address the elephant. Without an infallible interpreter, a “guaranteed to be perfectly reliable” text is no more useful than a text that is not “guaranteed to be perfectly reliable”.

– Mark L. Chance.

I respectfully disagree with your premise. I can cite an example that I hope clarifies it.

If I am assembling a bicycle. I would hope that my instructions are “guaranteed to be perfectly reliable”. I remain, however a fallible interpreter of these instructions.

Nevertheless, these instructions are very useful in assembling my bicycle. If I interpret them correctly and follow them precisely, I will have as a result a properly assembled bicycle. If my bicycle is not correctly assmembled, I know the that the fault lies with either my understanding or execution of the instructions. So I can go back and fix it.

However, if the instructions themselves are defective, I have absolutely no hope of assembling my bicycle correctly.

So I hope this example shows how an infallible document without a infallible interpreter is not the same as a defective document without an infallible interpreter.

 

[DerekD]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Okay then if you feel it is wrong to call the Blessed Mother the queen of heaven, who do you feel deserves that roll?

The role doesn’t exist except in the false pagan religions which the bible clearly speaks of when it come to the title that you refer to Jesus’s mother Mary. It is disrepectful and distastful to her and thank God she knows nothing of it and woe to those whom God sees exhaulting her to such an unmerited status.

 

[Church_Militant]

I cannot force a reasonable and logical deduction on any person; you either get it and see it or you don’t. Jesus said the Man shall not live on bread alone but by every word the proceeds from the mouth of God; where does a Christian go to find what proceeds from the mouth of God? The Bible?

Was the New Testament written at that point when Our Lord said that? Isn’t He quoting an Old Testament proverb? (Deuteronomy 8:3 to be exact) In all 3 places recorded, there is no New Testament scriptures…as a result you cannot correctly use that to support a premise that involves the New Testament Christian faith.

The antithesis of you question is where does it not say we are to use the Bible for all teaching of moral principle and practices? Where does it say we are to obey “traditions” not written and contradict the teaching God has given

. traditions are okay if they don’t contradict, but when they do then they need to be done away with otherwise god’s word becomes perverted and another gospel will emerge…right?There are no such contradictory Sacred Traditions, and the link to the article on my blog will refute that idea.

How do you believe the Bible defines “church” and what Scipture do you reference and how does this compare to your church, it structure?

Irrelevant to this discussion and off topic. I won’t address that.

 

[mlchance]

I respectfully disagree with your premise. I can cite an example that I hope clarifies it.

Your example didn’t clarify, but only expounded on what we’ve already both admitted: That any incorrect interpretation of the Bible results from the reader’s errors, not from errors within the Bible.

The Bible is not an instruction manual. It is a complex collection of numerous types of writing by a wide variety of authors who often employ idioms and operate under assumptions that are now alien to most readers. By not providing us with an infallible interpreter (as you assert without evidence), then we are ultimately set up for failure, as the scandalous and un-Biblical divisions within Christianity amply demonstrate.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Church_Militant]

Scripture speaks of the Church with a hierarchal and apostolic government, in one Lord, one faith one baptism, in the unity of the faith, that it is the pillar and ground of truth, that the gates of hell will not prevail against it, that it is built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets and upon St. Peter…but that the holy Catholic Church is the true continuation of that early Church is a matter of historical record. We don’t derive our authority simply from interpreting Scripture alone, but rather look to how Church History bears out that it has continued up to this day. Just as the Resurrection is a historical fact and not just a theological idea - for the claims of Christ to be true, it has to be actual historical fact.

Well said my friend.

 

[DerekD]

This is the crux … Catholics have Sacred Tradition and Scripture as sources for the complete Deposit of Faith … without this it is obvious why your theological understanding of Mary is less than what has been passed down from the Apostles.

While Bible alone sounds good … it is not complete for it lacks Tradition and the Magesterium which is entrusted to protect the Deposit of Faith and to teach it’s content.

All of you keep repeating the same fatal fatal flaw. You are putting the authority of your church above that of scripture; the only devine revelation of Mary are written in the pages of scripture. I’m sure if i were to study the catolic history of mary; i would find an evolving account of mary to the point where she sits equal with christ. these things do not happen overnight and is a definite sign of somethimg amiss. which means there probably other things added or outside of scripture. i hope to get involved into the topic of salvation, as catholics see it because my gut tells me this is also based on the church as opposed to scripture, which i hope i am wrong, but will look for this topic in another thread if the lord allows.

You have already hinted because you said that the bible in not complete and that a deposit of faith and a magesterium are extra biblce teachings of your church; another sign of control and worrisome to the christian who loves all people.

 

[Church_Militant]

Okay then if you feel it is wrong to call the Blessed Mother the queen of heaven, who do you feel deserves that roll?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

That’s off topic. Please don’t go there. I think there are other threads that deal with that already.

 

[mlchance]

I’m sure if i were to study the catolic history of mary; i would find an evolving account of mary to the point where she sits equal with christ.

No, you couldn’t find any such thing, because the Church does not teach that the Blessed Virgin “sits equal with christ sic].”

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Church_Militant]

This is the crux … Catholics have Sacred Tradition and Scripture as sources for the complete Deposit of Faith … without this it is obvious why your theological understanding of Mary is less than what has been passed down from the Apostles.

While Bible alone sounds good … it is not complete for it lacks Tradition and the Magisterium which is entrusted to protect the Deposit of Faith and to teach it’s content.

Which falls under the pillar and bulwark of truth passage, right?

 

[Church_Militant]

“Guaranteed to be perfectly reliable” is not a guarantee that one can not err in its interpretation. However, when we err, the fault is with us, not with the Bible.

Which helps absolutely no one with anything, as all that does is facilitate about 90 gajillion different denominations each purporting themselves to be the correct Bible preachers.

 

[DerekD]

"derkd:

But He answered and said, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God. - Matthew 4:4

Where is the mouth of God spoken? Only one place other than creation, the Bible through inspired men and without error.

Catholics agree the Bible is inerrant and materially sufficient.

We do not agree that the Bible is perspicuous.

The debates about the verses presented in this thread alone should be sufficient enough evidence to show this to be the truth.

And now we are back to the question at hand.

You declare the Bible the one true authority without having to “prove it” from the Bible and then demand proof from the bible for the existence of any authority.

This is an interesting interpretation.

Given the logic of this interpretation, we would have to conclude that nothing Christ, who left us no written words, said to His Apostles over a period of several years before He was put to death was the word of God.

Somehow it didn’t become the word of God until somebody chose to write it down 30-70 years later?

What did all of those who found faith prior to the writing of any of the new testament hear from the Apostles and their followers?

Chuck

You first mistake is also fatal; believing the church was before the word, this contradicts God and common sense. Especially in light of the OT wich spoke and pointed to the person of christ, then the words which christ spoke were said before the day of pentecost, but were not written down until sometime later. to say the church was before the words of God is plain foolishness and means the holders of this belief are also foolish.

“in the beginnig was the word and the word was with god and the word was god.” I’m sure you must have some bizarre interpretation of this to justify your erroneous belief and low expectations of scripture; perhaps i am wrong and you will show that.

rather than putting down the interpretation of matthew 4 above perhaps you can give your own interpretation, i noticed you offered none.