It's NOT in the Bible, okay?

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

The Protestant Church repudiates all claim to infallibility in interpretation of Scripture. The ultimate decision on every interpretation is left to the individual.

The Catholic Church is infallible in teaching and interpreting Scripture:

If you believe the Church can “get it wrong”, it follows

• that God has bound men to believe what is wrong (‘He who does not believe will be condemned’, Jn 14:12)
• there is no certainty as to what is true and
• that the teaching ministy of Christ was limited to a few individuals at a moment in history.

 

[Lampo]

The Protestant Church repudiates all claim to infallibility in interpretation of Scripture. The ultimate decision on every interpretation is left to the individual.

The Catholic Church is infallible in teaching and interpreting Scripture:

If you believe the Church can “get it wrong”, it follows

• that God has bound men to believe what is wrong (‘He who does not believe will be condemned’, Jn 14:12)
• there is no certainty as to what is true and
• that the teaching ministy of Christ was limited to a few individuals at a moment in history.

Very, very true and well said.

 

[joe370]

Yankee and redbert,how do you respond to the following post by Kevin?

**The Protestant Church repudiates all claim to infallibility in interpretation of Scripture. The ultimate decision on every interpretation is left to the individual.

The Catholic Church is infallible in teaching and interpreting Scripture:

If you believe the Church can “get it wrong”, it follows

* that God has bound men to believe what is wrong ('He who does not believe will be condemned', Jn 14:12)
* there is no certainty as to what is true and
* that the teaching ministy of Christ was limited to a few individuals at a moment in history.

**

 

[CoachSTL]

You say you have showed me church teaching. Maybe I missed it, but I have never seen any official Vatican statement saying 2 Peter 1:20-21 means one cannot approach the scriptures and interpret them.

If there is, then there is a problem, because I have seen some catholic apologetics say the same thing I have.

You show my “replay”, but for the sake of the arguement, read 2 Peter 1 again, St.Peter’s issue is not warning about interpreting the scriptures. And to be exact, he was referring to the “prophecies of scriptures”. Prophecies fulfilled and that will be fulfilled by Jesus.

Lev23,

Just because you say you have never seen them, does not mean that it does not exist. Read the Catholic Catechism on interpreting the scriptures. What other Church Teaching is there?

LEV23 says: You show my “replay”, but for the sake of the arguement, read 2 Peter 1 again, St.Peter’s issue is not warning about interpreting the scriptures. And to be exact, he was referring to the “prophecies of scriptures”. Prophecies fulfilled and that will be fulfilled by Jesus.

Still your Lev23! Can you show me any other reason, other than your personal interpretation that this is what was taught in the Church?

 

[raqrodriguez]

I would much appreciate it if someone one, (especially you who are n-Cs) would display and clarify for me just precisely where it is in the Word of God that it specifically states that everything that Christians believe and practice must be found within its pages.

This also is for some of you Catholics that come in here and all but demand to know where some Catholic teaching or practice is found in the Bible.

The reason I am posting this is because I have read the Bible (all 73 books of it!) many times and have yet to find anything that supports this idea. I have concluded that the Catholic Church is correct in teaching that the Bible does not say this and therefore it is error.

I want all of us Catholics to understand that this is a fundamental doctrinal error of some communities of n-C Christianity and so there is no reason to get distressed when someone comes at you with this stuff, because the fact of the matter is …it’s NOT in the Bible itself.

AMEN!!! It is so frustrating to try and make people understand that.

 

[raqrodriguez]

I remember many years ago when I was a Baptist I got into a discussion with a fundamentalist preacher on the subject of inter-racial dating/marriage. He of course was dead set against it and provided a few scripture verses to ‘prove’ it. I pointed out the verses were taken out of context and showed him why. I continued to insist that he find anywhere in the Bible that spoke against inter-racial relationships. He became rather frustrated and said:
“Does everything have to be in Bible for it to be true”?
Eye opening statement.

LOL… Love that one!

 

[RedBert]

Yankee and redbert,how do you respond to the following post by Kevin?

**The Protestant Church repudiates all claim to infallibility in interpretation of Scripture. The ultimate decision on every interpretation is left to the individual.

The Catholic Church is infallible in teaching and interpreting Scripture:

If you believe the Church can “get it wrong”, it follows

* that God has bound men to believe what is wrong ('He who does not believe will be condemned', Jn 14:12)
* there is no certainty as to what is true and
* that the teaching ministy of Christ was limited to a few individuals at a moment in history.

**

Well first off, the Churches do get it wrong,

In the book of Revelation , Jesus rebukes 6 Churches for their errors.
In Paul’s letters, he rebukes Churches for their errors.

Do you agree with that?

Yes and some of these Churches were founded by an Apostle.

Catholics state that the Catholic Church started at Pentecost, so what Church was Paul and Jesus correcting?

Did God bind those Christians to believe what was wrong?
Paul and Jesus (thru John) used the written Word to correct the churches.

In the Gospel of John , THE (not a) teacher of Israel, Nicodemus, gets it wrong.

in Matthew 23, the 7 Woes to the Scribes and the Pharisees,(who sit in Moses’ seat.) THE earthly authorities of Hebrew Scripture , get it wrong.

• takea moment and read Matt 23*

Did God bind the Jews to believe what was wrong?

So Churches, (the keepers of the infallible interpretations)do get it wrong

so did any of these points apply?
** that God has bound men to believe what is wrong (‘He who does not believe will be condemned’, Jn 14:12)

• there is no certainty as to what is true and
• that the teaching ministy of Christ was limited to a few individuals at a moment in history*
  .
  No, it is the teachers that will be judged

James 3 “because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.”

The reality I see is that unquestionable authority has let to unimaginable abuse of power.

 

[CoachSTL]

Can you show me where in the Bible it calls tradition God breathed? Additionally, if tradition is God breathed then why can it chan, err I mean evolve?

Drawmack,

No one can show you, because it is not written like that in Scripture. Can you show me anywhere in the Bible where Jesus says that “The Bible” is the authoritive teacher?

 

[JacobG]

Acts 8:31
When the Ethiopian said, “How can I understand (the prophet Isaiah), unless someone guides me?” St Philip did not say (as a good Protestant may have), “The Holy Spirit will enlighten you, keep reading” he instructed him (according to tradition).

Development of doctrine is not evolution (which is the heresy of Modernism)

No Protestant would have told the Ethiopian eunuch that the Holy Spirit would enlighten him because this man had not yet been born-again. He was still unregenerate. It was only after Philip preached Christ to him and he confessed Jesus as Lord and was baptized, that this man was born from above, or “born-again”.

This further proves that God’s Word, the Holy Scriptures cannot be understood by the world. (unregenerate man).

 

[Dancelittleewok]

Well first off, the Churches do get it wrong,

In the book of Revelation , Jesus rebukes 6 Churches for their errors.
In Paul’s letters, he rebukes Churches for their errors.

Do you agree with that?

Yes and some of these Churches were founded by an Apostle.

Catholics state that the Catholic Church started at Pentecost, so what Church was Paul and Jesus correcting?

Did God bind those Christians to believe what was wrong?
Paul and Jesus (thru John) used the written Word to correct the churches.

In the Gospel of John , THE (not a) teacher of Israel, Nicodemus, gets it wrong.

in Matthew 23, the 7 Woes to the Scribes and the Pharisees,(who sit in Moses’ seat.) THE earthly authorities of Hebrew Scripture , get it wrong.

• takea moment and read Matt 23*

Did God bind the Jews to believe what was wrong?

So Churches, (the keepers of the infallible interpretations)do get it wrong

so did any of these points apply?
** that God has bound men to believe what is wrong (‘He who does not believe will be condemned’, Jn 14:12)

• there is no certainty as to what is true and
• that the teaching ministy of Christ was limited to a few individuals at a moment in history*
  .
  No, it is the teachers that will be judged

James 3 “because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.”

The reality I see is that unquestionable authority has let to unimaginable abuse of power.

Bert, your interpretation begs the question if you can in fact be wrong on how you interpret scripture.

To me, it seems on one hand you are saying (and correct me if I’ve misunderstood your post) that :Churches and their teachers get it wrong but will be judged by God–why would God judge His members’ teaching if there’s no guarantee about it being it right? How can be the teachers be judged against a standard if there are multiple interpretations and theology of that truth?

The only possible scenario I can see for that if its members are judged by degree of understanding–and even then, if there’s no standard for truth than what is taught must be judged as well.

Also, the Pharisees aren’t the Church–at least how the Catholic sees it. Generally, the Pharisees aren’t a great example of Jewish behavior or truth-telling not a good example of a religious leader. If anything Matthew 23 is an example of how to follow doctrine and not put faith in the leaders themselves…

As for the churches in Revelation, Jesus rebukes them through John but not through the Bible since it is not then been fully canonized. Yes, these parishes were founded by Apostles but what he rebukes is works, not poor teaching. (See Rev 3:16-17, church of Ladicoea: thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth. 17 Because thou sayest: I am rich, and made wealthy, and have need of nothing: and knowest not, that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked., Douay-Rheims translation). Frequently, Jesus says “I know thy works.”

Might I interest you on how Catholics view Scripture via the Catechism:?

 

[Dancelittleewok]

No Protestant would have told the Ethiopian eunuch that the Holy Spirit would enlighten him because this man had not yet been born-again. He was still unregenerate. It was only after Philip preached Christ to him and he confessed Jesus as Lord and was baptized, that this man was born from above, or “born-again”.

This further proves that God’s Word, the Holy Scriptures cannot be understood by the world. (unregenerate man).

If that is indeed the case, then it serves as an example on we need more than a Bible since it cannot by itself make one “born-again.” Church leaders are needed.

 

[yankee_drifter]

Yankee and redbert,how do you respond to the following post by Kevin?

**The Protestant Church repudiates all claim to infallibility in interpretation of Scripture. The ultimate decision on every interpretation is left to the individual.

The Catholic Church is infallible in teaching and interpreting Scripture:

If you believe the Church can “get it wrong”, it follows

* that God has bound men to believe what is wrong ('He who does not believe will be condemned', Jn 14:12)
* there is no certainty as to what is true and
* that the teaching ministy of Christ was limited to a few individuals at a moment in history.

**

Jesus expected the people of His day to interpret the Scriptures.He never once said go to the synagogue and have the rabbi interpret. He used such terms as “search the Scriptures” (John 5:39), “have you not read?” (Matt. 12:3; 12:5; 19:4; 21:16,42; 22:31), “is it not written in your law?” (John 10:34; Luke 10:26). This shows that the people were obligated to read and interpret the Scriptures. Furthermore, He quoted the Scriptures as the final source of authority (Matt. 22:29-32; Mark 7:9-13) and He always showed the consequences of failing to do so, e.g., “You err, not knowing the Scriptures…” (Matt. 22:29), “…Thus making void the word of God through your tradition” (Mark 7:13). When asked: What is Truth, Jesus said: Thy Word is Truth.

After the church was established, the apostles required that people make a private interpretation of Scripture (Acts 9:22; 18:28) and that’s exactly what they did. (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 3:15). When churches began to be established as a result of the preaching of God’s Word and when the New Testament Scriptures began to be written, never in one instance did the apostles and prophets declare that private interpretation must now cease because the church was not the official interpreter of the Scriptures. They did not direct the people to an infallible interpreter of the Word, but to the Word itself.
Christ never promised infallibility to any church. The infant churches already had false teachers/doctrines creeping in.

Joe, let me ask you this: Why does the roman catholic church have unanimous interpretation on only a handful of Scripture passages?

“As far as I have been able to document, only seven passages of Scripture have had their senses partially (not fully) defined by the extraordinary magisterium. These definitions were made by the Council of Trent” (church of John Neumann)

There isn’t even unanimous consent among the church fathers.

 

[guanophore]

apply the exact same standard to the biblical proof of the Assumption of Mary to Sola Scriptura

Does the Bible Teach Sola Scriptura?

Two points must be made concerning whether the Bible teaches sola Scriptura. First, as Catholic scholars themselves recognize, it is not necessary that the Bible explicitly and formally teach sola Scriptura in order for this doctrine to be true. Many Christian teachings are a necessary logical deduction of what is clearly taught in the Bible (e.g., the Trinity). Likewise, it is possible that sola Scriptura could be a necessary logical deduction from what is taught in Scripture.

It is possible, but since Scripture itself states contradictory information, and it is not among the Teachings handed down to us from the Apostles, it already starts in the hole.

 Second, the Bible does teach implicitly and logically, if not formally and explicitly, that the Bible alone is the only infallible basis for faith and practice.

Maybe you can help me understand this. To be “infallible” one must be capable of fallibility (action that errs). Action requires qualities that Scripture does not posess, such as will, discernment, and the potential for accountability. The Scripture does not make decisions, or do any of the activities in scripture ascribed to leaders.

This it does in a number of ways. One, the fact that Scripture, without tradition, is said to be "God-breathed" (theopnuestos)

Why and when does scripture have to be separated from Sacred Tradtition? On the contrary, I think this is impossible. Scripture itself is a product of Sacred Tradition. It has never been separated from it (until the Reformation).

and thus by it believers are "competent, equipped for every good work" (2 Tim. 3:16-17, emphasis added) supports the doctrine of sola Scriptura.

I realize this passage is often used to support SS, but it is also taken out of context, and the verse is twisted as it appears above. The text DOES NOT SAY that scripture equips for every good work. The text says that Scripture is "profitable’ in the task of equipping the saints. The task, however, is given to teachers - persons.

This flies in the face of the Catholic claim that the Bible is formally insufficient without the aid of tradition. St. Paul declares that the God-breathed writings are sufficient.

They have sufficiency, but if God did not have other plans, He would not have founded a Church, and given the teaching authority to persons.

And contrary to some Catholic apologists, limiting this to only the Old Testament will not help the Catholic cause for two reasons: first, the New Testament is also called “Scripture” (2 Pet. 3:15-16; 1 Tim. 5:18; cf. Luke 10:7); second, it is inconsistent to argue that God-breathed writings in the Old Testament are sufficient, but the inspired writings of the New Testament are not.

We are in agreeement on this point.

Further, Jesus and the apostles constantly appealed to the Bible as the final court of appeal.

No. This never happened. They appeal to Scripture as testimony to the Truth. Jesus did not need any such “court of appeal” as He IS the court. The Apostles always used Scripture to substantiate what Jesus taught them. You are making the same mistake here. Scripture cannot be a 'court" because scripture cannot hear, discern, and decide. People who believe Scripture does these activities are really doing them on their own, but don’t realize it. Scripture, holy as it is, is not a Person.

This they often did by the introductory phrase, "It is written," which is repeated some 90 times in the New Testament. Jesus used this phrase three times when appealing to Scripture as the final authority in His dispute with Satan (Matt. 4:4, 7, 10).

Scripture is incapable of wielding authority. this is a quality of persons, not writings. Jesus is His own authority. Scripture is a testimony to all He is and does.

Of course, Jesus (Matt. 5:22, 28, 31; 28:18) and the apostles (1 Cor. 5:3; 7:12) sometimes referred to their own God-given authority. It begs the question, however, for Roman Catholics to claim that this supports their belief that the church of Rome still has infallible authority outside the Bible today.

Do you think the need for authority vanished?

For even they admit that no new revelation is being given today, as it was in apostolic times. In other words, the only reason Jesus and the apostles could appeal to an authority outside the Bible was that God was still giving normative (i.e., standard-setting) revelation for the faith and morals of believers.

This statement if false for two reasons. One is that this is not the only reason for authority. The second is that the sheperding of souls in faith and morals continues despite the fact that public revelation is closed. The application of that revelation continues to require activity of persons - discernment, decisions, care of souls, etc.

 

[guanophore]

This revelation was often first communicated orally before it was finally committed to writing (e.g., 2 Thess. 2:5). Therefore, it is not legitimate to appeal to any oral revelation in New Testament times as proof that nonbiblical infallible authority is in existence today.

This statement does not even make sense. Revelation was first oral…therefore it is no legitimate…



Do you imagine that the Revelation of God to the Church somehow popped like a balloon when some of it was written down?

How do you imagine that the Church operated for 400 years prior to the composition of the Bible?

What is more, Jesus made it clear that the Bible was in a class of its own, exalted above all tradition.

Maybe you can show me this.

He rebuked the Pharisees for not accepting sola Scriptura and negating the final authority of the Word of God by their religious traditions, saying, "And why do you break the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?...You have nullified the word of God, for the sake of your tradition" (Matt. 15:3, 6).

You seem to be confusing the traditions of men with Sacred Tradition.

It is important to note that Jesus did not limit His statement to mere human traditions but applied it specifically to the traditions of the religious authorities who used their tradition to misinterpret the Scriptures.

Yes. One of the best arguements against SS.

There is a direct parallel with the religious traditions of Judaism that grew up around (and obscured, even negated) the Scriptures and the Christian traditions that have grown up around (and obscured, even negated) the Scriptures since the first century.

I agree. Both are separated from the authority of God.

Indeed, since Catholic scholars make a comparison between the Old Testament high priesthood and the Roman Catholic papacy, this would seem to be a very good analogy.

I think you have misunderstood something you read. Jesus is the High Priest. There is only one.

Finally, to borrow a phrase from St. Paul, the Bible constantly warns us "not to go beyond what is written" (1 Cor. 4:6).11

This is a passage taken completely out of context, and written prior to the majority of the NT to which it is misapplied. Paul is referring to his example in the previous passage.

Indeed, John closed the last words of the Bible with the same exhortation, declaring: "I warn everyone who hears the prophetic words in this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words in this prophetic book, God will take away his share in the tree of life..." (Rev. 22:18-19).

This is a preposterous notion, especially given that Revelation had a difficult time even making it into the canon.

Sola Scriptura could hardly be stated more emphatically.

I guess one reads what they expect to find.

Since both Catholics and Protestants agree that there is no new revelation beyond the first century, it would follow that these texts do support the Protestant principle of sola Scriptura.

Another false conclusion based upon a faulty premise.

For if there is no normative revelation after the time of the apostles and even the prophets themselves were not to add to the revelations God gave them in the Scriptures, then the Scriptures alone are the only infallible source of divine revelation.

Well, I understand how you reasoned your way here.

It does sound like a plausible arguement, if you are able to ignore a lot of other information.

 

[RedBert]

the entire ducument is here:
equip.org/articles/a-defense-of-sola-scriptura

 

[RedBert]

so here is a massive debate here at

bringyou.to/apologetics/a60.htm

AND another featuring your own Gerald Matatics,“currently a full time staff apologist for Catholic Answers”

reformed.org/webfiles/antithesis/index.html?mainframe=/webfiles/antithesis/v1n5/ant_v1n5_issue.html

These four different debaters can argue either side better than most of us can,
and I would guess that all of us has the the ability to copy and paste point and counter- point until the the Second Coming.

So what.

Your aren’t going to change my mind and I am not going to change yours.​

RE: the OP.

After close to a million words (between the two debates) defending the Sola Scripture if find it somewhat disingenuous to state “I have read the Bible (all 73 books of it!) many times and have ** yet to find anything that supports this idea”**

and here are another 50 million words
monergism.com/directory/link_category/Five-Solas/Sola-Scriptura/

**I have read (and studied) the Bible also , and I can see how others can reach a conclusion different than mine on many doctrins.

But it would be one thing to say I don’t agree with someone’s view and I quite another to say " I have …yet to find anything that supports this idea" …And that is what the OP claimed**

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Well first off, the Churches do get it wrong,

In the book of Revelation , Jesus rebukes 6 Churches for their errors.
In Paul’s letters, he rebukes Churches for their errors.

Do you agree with that?

Yes and some of these Churches were founded by an Apostle.

Catholics state that the Catholic Church started at Pentecost, so what Church was Paul and Jesus correcting?

Did God bind those Christians to believe what was wrong?
Paul and Jesus (thru John) used the written Word to correct the churches.

In the Gospel of John , THE (not a) teacher of Israel, Nicodemus, gets it wrong.

in Matthew 23, the 7 Woes to the Scribes and the Pharisees,(who sit in Moses’ seat.) THE earthly authorities of Hebrew Scripture , get it wrong.

• takea moment and read Matt 23*

Did God bind the Jews to believe what was wrong?

So Churches, (the keepers of the infallible interpretations)do get it wrong

so did any of these points apply?
** that God has bound men to believe what is wrong (‘He who does not believe will be condemned’, Jn 14:12)

• there is no certainty as to what is true and
• that the teaching ministy of Christ was limited to a few individuals at a moment in history*
  .
  No, it is the teachers that will be judged

James 3 “because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.”

The reality I see is that unquestionable authority has let to unimaginable abuse of power.

To live out sola Scriptura one must hold the view that the written word is clear and understandable. If this were the case why are there so many denominations? Shouldn’t there be just one.

Sometimes a man of God finds interpretation difficult (1 Sam 3:1-9; 1 Kgs 13:1-32)
The Word of God is not ‘perspicuous’.

Act 8:29-39; Heb 5:12) We need an authority outside of Scripture to help us understand God’s Word.

‘There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their destruction, as they do the other scriptures’ (1 Pet 3:16)

The Catholic Church has always taught that we are to interpret the Scriptures in the literal and obvious sense, unless reason makes the interpretation unreasonable.

How can a person pledging allegiance to sola Scriptura claim a Catholic has defected from the truth if it fails to define absolute truth. In sola Scriptura where are the answers on bioethical issues, stem-cell research or invitro-fertilization?
Sola Scriptura reduces truth to personal interpretation, religious relativism and indifferentism.

All Catholics should know that the Church exalts Scripture to its rightful place as the living Word of God.

Any reasonable Catholic would agree with your premise"Unquestionable authority has led to unimaginable abuse of power"

‘Sin is an offense against reason’ (Catechism of the Catholic Church, imprimi potest Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger)

‘…so that the submission of our faith might…be in accordance with reason, God willed that external proofs of His Revelation should be joined to the internal helps of the Holy Spirit’ (2 Vatican Council, Dei Filius)

Faith is ‘by no means a blind impulse of the mind’ (2 Vatican, Dei Filius)

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Jesus expected the people of His day to interpret the Scriptures.He never once said go to the synagogue and have the rabbi interpret. He used such terms as “search the Scriptures” (John 5:39), “have you not read?” (Matt. 12:3; 12:5; 19:4; 21:16,42; 22:31), “is it not written in your law?” (John 10:34; Luke 10:26). This shows that the people were obligated to read and interpret the Scriptures. Furthermore, He quoted the Scriptures as the final source of authority (Matt. 22:29-32; Mark 7:9-13) and He always showed the consequences of failing to do so, e.g., “You err, not knowing the Scriptures…” (Matt. 22:29), “…Thus making void the word of God through your tradition” (Mark 7:13). When asked: What is Truth, Jesus said: Thy Word is Truth.

After the church was established, the apostles required that people make a private interpretation of Scripture (Acts 9:22; 18:28) and that’s exactly what they did. (Acts 17:11; 2 Tim. 3:15). When churches began to be established as a result of the preaching of God’s Word and when the New Testament Scriptures began to be written, never in one instance did the apostles and prophets declare that private interpretation must now cease because the church was not the official interpreter of the Scriptures. They did not direct the people to an infallible interpreter of the Word, but to the Word itself.
Christ never promised infallibility to any church. The infant churches already had false teachers/doctrines creeping in.

Joe, let me ask you this: Why does the roman catholic church have unanimous interpretation on only a handful of Scripture passages?

“As far as I have been able to document, only seven passages of Scripture have had their senses partially (not fully) defined by the extraordinary magisterium. These definitions were made by the Council of Trent” (church of John Neumann)

There isn’t even unanimous consent among the church fathers.

‘And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting font of spiritual life’ (2 Vatican Council, Dei Verbum)

Hence ‘access to Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful’ (2 Vatican Council, Dei Verbum)

"The Church ‘forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful…to learn ‘the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ,’ by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. ‘Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ’’ (2 Vatican Council, Dei Verbum)

 

[joe370]

**RedBert, you said:
**
Well first off, the Churches do get it wrong,

In the book of Revelation , Jesus rebukes 6 Churches for their errors.
In Paul’s letters, he rebukes Churches for their errors.

Do you agree with that?

**No! They were rebuked for their misdeeds, and praised for their good deeds, e.g. - I know your deeds, your love and faith, your service and perseverance, and that you are now doing more than you did at first. Jesus was referring to certain individuals who were leading some astray, not the church as a whole, e.g. - "You have people there who hold to the teaching of Balaam…You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. The deposit of faith was never compromised.
**

Catholics state that the Catholic Church started at Pentecost, so what Church was Paul and Jesus correcting?

**The church built by Christ, which, by the turn of the 1st century adopted the name Catholic, with good reason. Protestants state that one of the protestant churches started at Pentecost…so which protestant church was Paul and Jesus correcting? **

Paul and Jesus (thru John) used the written Word to correct the churches.

**Yup, but only the OT. The 27 books of the NT did not exist.

**

In the Gospel of John , THE (not a) teacher of Israel, Nicodemus, gets it wrong.

in Matthew 23, the 7 Woes to the Scribes and the Pharisees,(who sit in Moses’ seat.) THE earthly authorities of Hebrew Scripture , get it wrong.

• takea moment and read Matt 23*

**I did. Big difference though. Jesus built the church and promised that the holy spirit would be with his church forever. So, you believe that the earthly authorities sent out by Jesus to teach, aided by the guidance of the holy spirit, got it wrong too? ** OK, which church got it right?

So Churches, (the keepers of the infallible interpretations)do get it wrong

**If these fallible men charged with the duty to teach, by Jesus Christ, got it wrong, then the infallible holy spirit got it wrong, for he is the guide and protector of the deposit of faith. If this is the case, then what’s the point of even being a Christian? **

The reality I see is that unquestionable authority has let to unimaginable abuse of power.

**Has there been abuses in Jesus’ one church - yup, at times, but the deposit of faith has remained in tact! The reality I see is that unquestionable authority of the bible alone via individual interpretation, has led to unimaginable abuse of power, effacement of the deposit of faith, and an irreparable fracture of Jesus’ Body, the church. Very sad. **

 

[nuntym]

Hello again RedBert.

Well first off, the Churches do get it wrong,

Hmm, let us see.

Now, when we say, as joe37 says, that the Church cannot “get it wrong,” he means that the Church Magisterium, that is, the Catholic Church’s teaching authority, cannot get wrong the definition and interpretation of doctrine. There will always be Christians who will fail in the practice of Church doctrine, and even deny them. When that happens, it is the duty of the Catholic Church’s Magisterium in the form of the bishops of the Church in union with the Pope.

In the book of Revelation , Jesus rebukes 6 Churches for their errors.

Let us look at these errors.

To the church in Ephesus, Christ rebuked them because they “abandoned the love [they] had at first.” (Rev 2:4)

To the church in Pergamum, Christ rebuked them for adopting some of the teachings of pagans so that “they might eat food sacrificed to idols and practice immorality.” (Rev 2:14)

To the church in Thyatira, Christ rebuked them that they tolerate a false prophetess who “is teaching and beguiling my servants to practice immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols.” (Rev 2:20)

To the church in Sardis, Christ rebuked them for “I have not found your works perfect in the sight of my God.” (Rev 3:2)

To the church in Laodicea, Christ rebuked them for being lukewarm. (Rev 3:16)

To the churches of Philadelphia and Smyrna, Jesus actually praised them for their steadfastness.

So as you see, none of these Churches had doctrinal definition problems, each had doctrinal practice problems.

In Paul’s letters, he rebukes Churches for their errors.

I do not see anything wrong with that: St. Paul is a bishop! It is his role as part of the Church’s Magisterium to correct those under his care!

Do you agree with that?

Yes and some of these Churches were founded by an Apostle.

And so? As I said, it is St Paul’s responsibility as bishop to teach those under his care.

Catholics state that the Catholic Church started at Pentecost, so what Church was Paul and Jesus correcting?

Now wait, you said earlier Churches…now Church, which is which?

Did God bind those Christians to believe what was wrong?
Paul and Jesus (thru John) used the written Word to correct the churches.

Good for you to note that! As I said, it is the role of the apostles as bishops to shepherd their flock

In the Gospel of John , THE (not a) teacher of Israel, Nicodemus, gets it wrong.

in Matthew 23, the 7 Woes to the Scribes and the Pharisees,(who sit in Moses’ seat.) THE earthly authorities of Hebrew Scripture , get it wrong.

• takea moment and read Matt 23*

Did God bind the Jews to believe what was wrong?

No, but God did not reveal all of revelation to the Jews, only to Christians.

So Churches, (the keepers of the infallible interpretations)do get it wrong

The keepers of the whole Gospel, written and unwritten, were the apostles, who then entrusted it to the Catholic Church; the power to infallibly interpret this Gospel, the Magisterium, was then passed by the apostles to their successors, the bishops in communion with the Pope.

so did any of these points apply?
** that God has bound men to believe what is wrong (‘He who does not believe will be condemned’, Jn 14:12)

• there is no certainty as to what is true and
• that the teaching ministy of Christ was limited to a few individuals at a moment in history*
  .
  No, it is the teachers that will be judged

James 3 “because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.”

The reality I see is that unquestionable authority has let to unimaginable abuse of power.

Remember RedBert what your profession is…be careful what you teach.

EDIT: oops, joe370 beat me…