It's NOT in the Bible, okay?

[guanophore]

you are confusing many beliefs under one roof vs many beliefs under different roofs:

survey after survey show a wide diversity of beliefs among Church going Catholics on doctrine and moral issues

That’s just the thing, though. There is a unified Catholic Doctrine. Persons who depart from it are no longer “Catholic”, though some of them do not realize it. Correct Doctrine is not defined by the “majoirty” that adhere to a belief, or by “wide diversity”. It is defined by what was handed down to us from the Apostles.

 

[nuntym]

Of course he can quote Scripture… He might be hating God to the utmost, but he can still quote scripture, even though he is trying to deceive Jesus here by using it… The pharisees did the same thing and this does not discredit Scripture either.

And that is my point exactly.

Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that the Bible is the only infallible or inerrant authority for Christian faith, and that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness, correct?

And yet how does anyone know what is the correct interpretation of Scripture? There is no authority that infallibly says which interpretation of the Bible IS correct, if sola scriptura is true.

And one more thing: if Scripture is the only infallible authority, then how do we know which books are included in Scripture? Who will infallibly tell us, when there is no infallible authority aside from Scripture itself?

And remember, which books are included in Scripture IS part of our faith.

 

[Janet1983]

And that is my point exactly.

Sola Scriptura is the doctrine that the Bible is the only infallible or inerrant authority for Christian faith, and that it contains all knowledge necessary for salvation and holiness, correct?

And yet how does anyone know what is the correct interpretation of Scripture? There is no authority that infallibly says which interpretation of the Bible IS correct, if sola scriptura is true.

And one more thing: if Scripture is the only infallible authority, then how do we know which books are included in Scripture? Who will infallibly tell us, when there is no infallible authority aside from Scripture itself?

And remember, which books are included in Scripture IS part of our faith?

Quoting Scripture is not outside of Scripture… Even the claims that the devil made were legitimate… it was however not the time for Jesus to show His divine power… He lived like one of us, but without sin.

 

[SteveGC]

"RedBert:

So what.

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

Which brings one to wonder…why are you here?

“Iron sharpens iron”

My apologetic skills have improved in these exchanges…

We no longer have True churches with ALL True doctrines
We do have True Churches with some false docrines and
we have false Churches with some true docrtines.

Ok, so you’re here to hone your capacity to defend and explain the faith…

a faith which you readily admit can contain errors, false doctrines, and can originate from a false church…

so you are here to build up your skills to teach partial truths…

very…very…interesting.

And…forget about the argument which highlights the gates of Hell not prevailing…why do you say we “no longer have true churches with ALL true doctrines”? It seems you believe we did have them at some point…when was that? And when did we “no longer have” them? Does it strike you as odd that Christ’s ministry has been reduced to partial truths…truths scattered about the landscape in random places, concealed within random believers, such that no seeker can ever really know which of the competing teachings of salvation can be believed? Gives a whole new twist to “seek and ye shall find”…sounds more like “seek and maybe you’ll find, if you happen to have a chance encounter with a select few random individuals scattered across the globe before you die…good luck”

 

[nuntym]

Quoting Scripture is not outside of Scripture…

Quoting of Scripture, however, should be done correctly.

Even the claims that the devil made were legitimate… it was however not the time for Jesus to show His divine power… He lived like one of us, but without sin.

And how did Jesus say that using the Old Testament?

And how is that related to my question? How do you know, when Christian doctrine gleaned from Scripture is presented to you, that it is correct? And how do you know that the Scriptures we have today is the correct set of Scriptures?

 

[guanophore]

First off, as others have already pointed out on here, the protestant churches are not a new faith. They went back to the beginning; the Holy Scriptures, and back to the simple teachings of Jesus Christ.

I am sure that it is convenient to believe this, and it makes an interesting fanciful speculation. It has no historical evidence, however.

The roman catholic church has added to the scriptures over the centuries

I am sure this seems to be the case. However, the Catholic Church is not "Roman’. The CC did, it is true, add the entire NT to the Scriptures. The 27 books, all writen by, for, and about Catholics, were collected, preserved and eventually promulgated (canonized) by Catholics. This did happen about 4 centuries later. This occurred after Christian observance was decided to be Catholic, the definition of the trinity and the hypostatic union (maybe you disdain these ‘add ons’ as well?) about four centuries later.

In fact, it is true th that we can no longer see these teachings of God's word.

Well, you don’t see them because you are separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced the NT. You have settled for a condensed version of Christianity.

What you see instead are the rituals and traditions that have been piled up on top of God’s Word over the years.

Actually, Yankee, it is the other way around. The rituals and Traditions preceeded the making of the NT. Since you are separated from the Apostolic Succession, it seems like they were “piled on”, but on the contrary, the Scriptures grew out of the Teaching of the Apostles.

 What many on here fail to realize is that there were many christian groups since the beginning who met to worship and break bread. Some had names, others did not.They had unity in their belief in Christ as Savior and being baptized in Him. They spread the Gospel.

Oh, we realize this just fine. We realize that they were all Catholic.

The RCC has clearly forgotten about these original Jewish Christians.

I admit that my Latin brethren do seem to forget that the Latin Rite is only one of 23 Rites in communion with the bishop of Rome. However, the Egyptian (Coptic), Asian (Oriental), Syrian, Slavik, etc, etc, Christians are different only in culture and language, but not in doctrine.

Also, the Baptist did not come out of the Reformation, so they are not a Protestant faith.

This is also a handy and fanciful speculation that lacks any historical evidence. One has to wonder, why would it be important to NOT be Protestant?

They are biblical Christianity as they adhere to the teachings of Jesus and the Bible. Some of these original groups of Christians now make up the Baptist faith. They were faithful to the teachings of Jesus and the apostles such as preaching the Gospel of Christ, baptism by immersion, etc.

I am sure they adhere to “biblical Christianity” as best they can. However, the “original” Christians were not “bible based”. Jesus build the Church upon Himself as the chief cornerstone, with the Apostles and prophets as the foundation. He did not hand them a collection of scrolls and send each into their own corners to figure it out as best they could. He appointed a teaching authority to shepherd the church.

Its one thing to claim the RCC started at Pentecost. All churches make that claim. But proving that the RCC, as we know it today, with its complex hierarchy, massive wealth, power and many traditions,

Jesus was pretty clear that it would go from a mustard seed into a large tree. I am sure the Apostles would be amazed as well.

**

some of which cannot be traced back to the apostles, existed in the 1st century is quite another thing. Read books on the history of Christianity.**

I am sure you are not able to trace them, since you are separated from the Apostolic Succession. I wonder what books you are reading.

You certainly do seem to have a lot of misinformation about the history of your faith.

yankee_drifter:

 The Holy Spirit authored the NT.

Yes, and He did this using Catholics.

Paul’s epistles were passed around and read in the churches. They were considered scripture. Even Peter makes this claim. Paul said in 1 Cor. 14:37: “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.”

Yes, they were Catholic Churches, based in all that “ritual and Tradition” that you think did not exist.

What was taught orally by the apostles, including Paul, was later written down for us today in the Holy Scriptures.

Some of it was, of course. However, the Apostles commanded that the Sacred Traditions given by word of mouth were equal in value to the written. How is it that you can justify your disobedience to that command?

 

[guanophore]

I wonder how the Jews managed with their scripture before the Catholic Church ?

I think the NT gives a pretty good picture, don’t you? Jesus’ constant conflicts wtih “the Jews” who sat upon the Seat of Moses demonstrate that they did not have the gift of infallibility.

 

[guanophore]

yankee_drifter;5936526:

The RCC tries to persuade people that the Bible is too difficult to understand by oneself.

Yankee, the Catholic Church is not “Roman”.

Can you please show why you believe this statement above? Do you have any Catholic documents that support your assertion?

Interpretation is not for the common people but for the wise and intelligent leaders of the Church alone.

Please add this comment to the list of assertions that need support from a Catholic source. If you cannot provide that, it appears that you are just Catholic bashing for the sake of entertaining yourself.

"The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God...has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone...This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome" (Catechism, paragraph 85).

Catholics are encourage to read, pray, interpret, meditate and educate with Scriptures. It would be ludicrous to think that the HS would reveal an understanding of scripture to someone that contradicts what He has already depostied with the Church. The problem with departing from the Teachings of the Apostles is that people can come up wtih all kinds of bizarre ideas, like that Jesus is not God, and that the HS is not a person, etc.

With one hand the RCC gives the Bible to the people, and with the other hand, it takes it away!

No, Yankee. It appears you are suffering an authority problem. We are given parameters within which we are protected from making a shipwreck of our faith. We are called “sheep” for a reason. We need guidance, protection, and direction. Jesus appointed shepherds, and they are held accountable for our souls.

It was Protestants, men like Wycliffe, Tyndale and Luther, who first gave the Bible in the common language of the people, at the same time when the Roman authorities were busy burning every copy of the Bible they could lay their hands on. Read the books on christian history.

You may wish to consider reading some history that is not written by anti-Catholics.

“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20-21).

The verb “is” in verse 20 is the translation of the word ‘ginomai’ which according to Strong’s Lexicon means, “to cause to be, to become, come into being.” Thus the sense of this verse is this: “no prophecy of Scripture ‘came into being’ by any private interpretation.” Peter is speaking about the process by which the Scriptures came into being; their very origin, and ** not about the understanding of Scripture already given**.

I agree, however, the two should not be separated. The same inspiration that that created the Scripture is that which interprets. It is the mind of Christ, alive in the Church that preserves this perspective.

Peter gives the reason why scripture did not come into being of the prophets’ own understanding, “For prophecy never came by the will of man.” The prophets did not invent the scriptures. They were God’s instruments to write His Word: “…holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.”

Ues. and that is why it is wrong to day for men to “invent” interpetations of them. Those men that God used to write them had already the Sacred traditions from which they were produced. separating them creates problems and errors.

 

[RedBert]

I think the NT gives a pretty good picture, don’t you? Jesus’ constant conflicts wtih “the Jews” who sat upon the Seat of Moses demonstrate that they did not have the gift of infallibility.

now show me where in the Bible where infallibilty was required or bestowed on a human or institution

 

[SteveGC]

now show me where in the Bible where infallibilty was required or betowed on a human or institution

John 14 for starters.

Role of the Spirit
16"I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever;
17that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.

18"I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

19"After a little while the world will no longer see Me, but you will see Me; because I live, you will live also.

20"In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.

21"He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him."

22Judas (not Iscariot) said to Him, “Lord, what then has happened that You are going to disclose Yourself to us and not to the world?”

23Jesus answered and said to him, "If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.

24"He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine, but the Father’s who sent Me.

25"These things I have spoken to you while abiding with you.

26**"But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you. **

27"Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you Do not let your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful.

28"You heard that I said to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you ’ If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.

29"Now I have told you before it happens, so that when it happens, you may believe.

30"I will not speak much more with you, for the ruler of the world is coming, and he has nothing in Me;

31but so that the world may know that I love the Father, I do exactly as the Father commanded Me Get up, let us go from here.

Bold is my emphasis. Jesus is addressing the apostles specifically, not all believers. The apostles were not only the humans you were asking about in your question, but also the institution of “The Church”. The Spirit is promised to the Church, to be with Her forever, and to call Her to remembrance of all that Christ taught. That is infallibility in a nutshell. Verse 26 is the kicker, and yet to fully get it, you have to get the fact that the “you” and “your” in this verse does NOT apply to all believers…it applies exclusively to the Apostles, who were the leaders of the Church.

Sorry, guan, for jumping in on this before you responded…I’m sure you will point out additional scriptural evidence.

 

[ncgolf]

so did I miss where someone answered who or what was the infallible authority for the Jews when interpreting their scriptures?

Let me ask why this is so important?

Infallibility is a charism … a gift given by God for a particular purpose. The teaching authority of OT Jews was given to the leaders. Whether or not they were infalliable is speculation, and as far as I know not given, though if you read the OT closely enough one could say they were not.

How does either having or not having an infalliable teaching authority in the OT preclude either having or not having one created in the NT? Are you saying since one may have not existed in the OT then it precludes it’s existance entirely?

 

[RedBert]

Let me ask why this is so important?

Infallibility is a charism … a gift given by God for a particular purpose. The teaching authority of OT Jews was given to the leaders. Whether or not they were infalliable is speculation, and as far as I know not given, though if you read the OT closely enough one could say they were not.

How does either having or not having an infalliable teaching authority in the OT preclude either having or not having one created in the NT? Are you saying since one may have not existed in the OT then it precludes it’s existance entirely?

yes that is what i am sayng:
i am disputing the logic if the following statement:

Originally Posted by JustaServant
“It would be a very strange thing indeed for GOD to have given us an inerrant book without first giving us an for it. Who has the authority to decide the one true meaning of Holy Scripture?”

 

[nuntym]

now show me where in the Bible where infallibilty was required

So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability. (2 Peter 3:15-17)

“Twisting”, i.e. wrong interpretation, of Scripture, can result to your own “destruction.”

or bestowed on a human or institution

“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:18-19)

We are of God. Whoever knows God listens to us, and he who is not of God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. (1 John 4:6)

“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” (Luke 10:16)

“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.” (1 Timothy 3:15)

 

[Philthy]

now show me where in the Bible where infallibilty was required or bestowed on a human or institution

Ummm, did you forget the name of the thread?

Seriously though, you already believe infallibility was bestowed upon the Apostles. Is that clearly recorded in the Bible? You also believe the Gospel of Luke is inerrant - is that clearly recorded in the Bible?

 

[JustaServant]

I wonder why from your search of commentaries you forgot to consider 1 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.”

If there is no church existing today with all the Truth in it, then that means that the Church that St Paul knew, the Church that is the Pillar and Bulwark of Truth, has succumbed to the gates of Hades, doesn’t it?

EDIT: And oh, where is this small remnant?

You just banged that nail into the wood.
It comes down to a choice about Jesus’ words, there is no wiggle room. Either Jesus meant what He said about the Church and the gates of Hell, of He didn’t know what He was talking about. The ‘remnant’ theory is all they have, which is in direct violation with reality.
How can Protestants say it is okay to believe what is not in the Bible when they cannot even agree with Jesus; words IN the Bible.

 

[Philthy]

But more importantly, if you genuinely wish to know the difference between the teaching authority of the OT and the teaching authority of the NT, there are several issues to consider.
On a practical level, think about how explicit the OT is in terms of what the law requires. Think Deuteronomy. It is very explicit using affirmative language. The New Covenant and the NT are different in that the New Covenant - unlike the Old - is not a rigid set of rules to be followed and the NT - unlike the OT - is not written as a rule book. The law of the NT is the law of love and love (NT) cannot be contained or explained exhaustively by rule book the way that the law of obedience (OT) can.
Obedience does require an authority to settle disputes at times. This authority was given to the Sanhedrin (Pharisees, Saducees, etc). This authority was clearly not gifted with infallibility, but was nonetheless, gifted with authority. Christ clearly articulates this to his disciples: “do as they say for they sit in Moses’ seat, but do not do as they do”.
This OT authority figure has been abolished - in a sense - but in a more profound sense - was fulfilled in the New Covenant with the Apostles. They became the new authority under the NC. But something different happened: the sending of the Holy Spirit. When Christ breathed on them (hint hint - they were brought to “life”, just as Adam was brought to life when God breathed on him) and said, “Receive the gift of the Holy Spirit…that which you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven” They did indeed receive the gift of infallibility through that particular charism of the Holy Spirit which would lead them “into all truth” so that “whoever heard (them) heard Christ”. So that gift of infallibility can be seen in Scripture, but you might not see it, as Guanophore pointed out, if you have separated yourself from the Apostolic Tradition which produced those Scriptures. The passing on of that gift through Apostolic succession is also contained in Scripture, but again, can be missed if one places themself out of that Tradition.
What is clearly absent in the NT is the prophecy of forthcoming Scripture which is to serve as the rulebook for the new faith without any outside authority in place to guide the faithful. In addition, history clearly reveals that Scripture and the Church were inseparable in guiding the faithful. You would be wise to carefully consider Guanophore’s responses to Yankee and yourself, and to read some unbiased historical sources. The Truth, however scary or distasteful you may initially find it, will truly set you free.

Blessings!

 

[Philthy]

now show me where in the Bible where infallibilty was required or bestowed on a human or institution

But more importantly, if you genuinely wish to know the difference between the teaching authority of the OT and the teaching authority of the NT, there are several issues to consider.
On a practical level, think about how explicit the OT is in terms of what the law requires. Think Deuteronomy. It is very explicit using affirmative language. The New Covenant and the NT are different in that the New Covenant - unlike the Old - is not a rigid set of rules to be followed and the NT - unlike the OT - is not written as a rule book. The law of the NT is the law of love and love (NT) cannot be contained or explained exhaustively by rule book the way that the law of obedience (OT) can.
Obedience does require an authority to settle disputes at times. This authority was given to the Sanhedrin (Pharisees, Saducees, etc). This authority was clearly not gifted with infallibility, but was nonetheless, gifted with authority. Christ clearly articulates this to his disciples: “do as they say for they sit in Moses’ seat, but do not do as they do”.
This OT authority figure has been abolished - in a sense - but in a more profound sense - was fulfilled in the New Covenant with the Apostles. They became the new authority under the NC. But something different happened: the sending of the Holy Spirit. When Christ breathed on them (hint hint - they were brought to “life”, just as Adam was brought to life when God breathed on him) and said, “Receive the gift of the Holy Spirit…that which you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven” They did indeed receive the gift of infallibility through that particular charism of the Holy Spirit which would lead them “into all truth” so that “whoever heard (them) heard Christ”. So that gift of infallibility can be seen in Scripture, but you might not see it, as Guanophore pointed out, if you have separated yourself from the Apostolic Tradition which produced those Scriptures. The passing on of that gift through Apostolic succession is also contained in Scripture, but again, can be missed if one places themself out of that Tradition.
What is clearly absent in the NT is the prophecy of forthcoming Scripture which is to serve as the rulebook for the new faith without any outside authority in place to guide the faithful. In addition, history clearly reveals that Scripture and the Church were inseparable in guiding the faithful. You would be wise to carefully consider Guanophore’s responses to Yankee and yourself, and to read some unbiased historical sources. The Truth, however scary or distasteful you may initially find it, will truly set you free.

Blessings!

 

[ncgolf]

yes that is what i am sayng:
i am disputing the logic if the following statement:

Originally Posted by JustaServant
“It would be a very strange thing indeed for GOD to have given us an inerrant book** without first giving us an for it**. Who has the authority to decide the one true meaning of Holy Scripture?”

Maybe your cut/paste was off but I don’t understand the statement.

Authority is passed from the one who has authority to someone else. You cannot give what you do not have. So the key, IMO, is to find where authority is granted … the OT peoples did have authoratative persons but more importantly was an authority granted in the NT? Is it even reasonable that God would want authentic and true teaching preserved for all generations?

Does one true meaning of Scripture exist or are truths mixed in with untruths?

 

[JacobG]

Ummm, did you forget the name of the thread?

Seriously though, you already believe infallibility was bestowed upon the Apostles. Is that clearly recorded in the Bible? You also believe the Gospel of Luke is inerrant - is that clearly recorded in the Bible?

Where in the Bible does it say infallibly was bestowed upon the apostles? What they wrote as scripture was the work of the Holy Spirit, not their own work. Peter made so many mistakes.

The catholic church has never proven that apostleship was passed on to them today. In fact, apostleship was a one time mission and there can be no apostles today. What we have are church leaders: elders, pastors, bishops and deacons. We don’t even see any priests in the New Covenant because Jesus did away with the imperfect priesthood of men and its sacrifices and became the last Priest because He is perfect and no longer dies like the priests in the O.T. who had to be replaced.

Bishops becoming pope is an invention of the roman catholic church. Even the eastern Orthodox church does not believe in papal infallibility and they claim to be the very church Christ built.

Its so easy to lose the thread topic because everyone asks a lot of different questions which they demand answers to and it can’t help but veer in different directions.

 

[KEVIN_WILCOX]

Where in the Bible does it say infallibly was bestowed upon the apostles? What they wrote as scripture was the work of the Holy Spirit, not their own work. Peter made so many mistakes.

“And if he pays no attention to the Church, then treat him as a heathen and tax-collector” (Mat 18:17)

“Absolute authority in heaven and on earth has been conferred upon Me” (Mat 28:18)
The apostles had vicarious (commissioned) authority.
“Christ is the head of the Church” (Eph 5:23)

“Jesus said to him, 'Feed my lambs…feed my sheep” (Jn 21:15-18)
He was speaking to Peter. The authority was given to Peter, Christ’s commissioning makes Peter infallible, it’s not Peter who gifts himself.
The authority in heaven and earth belongs to Christ, it is for him to give as he chooses.

It’s clear Scripture speaks of the Power of the Holy Spirit not of Peter. Peter is the one who continually struggles, falls and by the Power of Christ walks.