Just found article on Dr. Frances Beckwith's conversion from Protestant to Catholic

[TriuneUnity]

Now answer my question. Why would God give us infallible scriptures without an infallible interpreter?

So are you claiming that the Old Testament Temple hierarchy was infallible? A simple yes or no would be fine.

Because inerrant interpretation does not necessitate infallible interpretation.

 

[kepha1]

Originally Posted by kepha1 file:///C:/DOCUME~1/Owner/LOCALS~1/Temp/msoclip1/01/clip_image001.gif
Isa. 35:8, 54:13-17 - this prophecy refers to the Church as the Holy Way where sons will be taught by God and they will not err. The Church has been given the gift of infallibility when teaching about faith and morals, where her sons are taught directly by God and will not err. This gift of infallibility means that the Church is prevented from teaching error by the power of the Holy Spirit (it does not mean that Church leaders do not sin!)

Yes, I understand that Rome does not teach impeccability. Can you please demonstrate where anyone has ever interpreted these passages in Isaiah to be referring to the Magisterium’s infallibility?

I have never seen anyone else’s interpretation of Isa. 35:8, 54:13-17, that made any sense and if it is not in reference to the Magisterium, then what is it in reference to? Individual bible readers?

I agree that it is a prophecy of a coming time wherein the righteous will be loyal to God, unlike ancient Israel. In that regard, it is a prophecy of the new covenant. I do not see any mention here of an infallible Church hierarchy, however.

What is hidden in the Old Testament is revealed in the New. The literary forms used here are not intended to spell everything out in precise detail, and the doctrine of infallibility does not hinge on one or two or 10 verses, but the Bible as a whole, together with Tradition.

Acts 9:2; 22:4; 24:14,22 - the early Church is identified as the “Way” prophesied in Isaiah 35:8 where fools will not err therein.

And how does this in any way establish an infallible Magisterium of bishops, versus a description for those who follow Christ, who is the way?

It doesn’t “establish”, it is a prophecy.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus promises the gates of Hades would never prevail against the Church. This requires that the Church teach infallibly. If the Church did not have the gift of infallibility, the gates of Hades and error would prevail. Also, since the Catholic Church was the only Church that existed up until the Reformation, those who follow the Protestant reformers call Christ a liar by saying that Hades did prevail.

This is because you are operating under the presupposition that Rome is infallible.

No, I am operating under the fact that the Holy Spirit superintends the Church when she teaches on faith and morals, and Jesus is not a liar. Rome is a city in Italy.

To say that Rome is infallible, and Rome has infallibly interpreted Matthew 16:18 to refer to the Church’s infallibility is a circular argument.

The infallibility of the Church is not based solely on Matt. 16:18. You seem to have this idea frozen in your head that the Church is a purely human institution with old men pulling doctrines out of their funny hats. Infallibility is a negative charism, a divine prevention, a gift from God. The Church did not assign infallibility to herself, which seems to be your premise. To you, a fallible church compiled an infallible book, and that demonstrates an irrational resistance to the truth about infallibility.

That the Gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church in no way necessitates that there is never a false teacher within the Church, as Paul prophesies. It is a prophecy of perseverance.

Well thank you for that much. “…not prevail…” does not mean “not be attacked”. But since Protestants themselves cannot claim infallibility, they have no way of knowing with absolute certainty when a “reputable” teacher is teaching falsehoods.
Quote:
Matt. 16:19 - for Jesus to give Peter and the apostles, mere human beings, the authority to bind in heaven what they bound on earth requires infallibility. This is a gift of the Holy Spirit and has nothing to do with the holiness of the person receiving the gift.

Why does it require infallibility?

 

[kepha1]

So are you claiming that the Old Testament Temple hierarchy was infallible? A simple yes or no would be fine.

Insofar as they held and taught from the seat of Moses, yes, but infallibility developed when Jesus passed this seat to Peter. “…he who hears you (Apostles and their successors) hear Me…” is not in the Old Testament.

Because inerrant interpretation does not necessitate infallible interpretation.

Infallibility is not confined to interpretations.

The work of the Evangelical Theological Society as a scholarly forum proceeds on the basis that “the Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs.” This affirmation, together with the statement on the Trinity, forms the basis for membership in the ETS to which all members annually subscribe in writing. Confessional Catholicism, as defined by the Roman Catholic Church’s declarations from the Council of Trent to Vatican II, sets forth a more expansive view of verbal, infallible revelation.

Specifically, it posits a larger canon of Scripture than that recognized by evangelical Protestants, including in its canon several writings from the Apocrypha. It also extends the quality of infallibility to certain expressions of church dogma issued by the Magisterium (the teaching office of the Roman Catholic Church), as well as certain pronouncements of the pope, which are delivered ex cathedra, such as doctrines about the immaculate conception and assumption of Mary.

We recognize the right of Roman Catholic theologians to do their theological work on the basis of all the authorities they consider to be revelatory and infallible, even as we wholeheartedly affirm the distinctive contribution and convictional necessity of the work of the Evangelical Theological Society on the basis of the “Bible alone and the Bible in its entirety” as “the Word of God written and . . . inerrant.”

The ETS doctrinal statement asserts more than just a view of Scripture; it also makes a claim about the nature of the Deity, that “God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory.” But this claim and all the rich metaphysical ideas it imports without attribution from the victorious side of the intra-Christian debates of the fourth century which resulted in the Nicene Creed — “person,” “one in essence,” “equal in power and glory” — are not explicitly stated in the inerrant Bible that the ETS maintains is alone the Word of God.

Assuming that the ETS believes that its formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity is a true description of God, then this formulation is an item of revelation: theological knowledge that one could not have arrived at without God’s having chosen to reveal it. It is not a deliverance of natural theology, something that one could discover with unaided natural reason. **But this would mean that ETS accepts “a more expansive view of verbal, infallible revelation,” which puts ETS in precisely the same position it attributes to the Catholic Church. **
Franscis Beckwith

This puts TriuneUnity in precisely the same position he attributes to the Catholic Church.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Insofar as they held and taught from the seat of Moses, yes, but infallibility developed when Jesus passed this seat to Peter. “…he who hears you (Apostles and their successors) hear Me…” is not in the Old Testament.

I wasn’t arguing against the idea that the OT Temple hierarchy did not have authority. Clearly, they did (as the comment in regards to Moses’ seat demonstrates). However, it simply shows that one does not need an infallible interpreter in order to have infallible Scripture, which the poster I responded to asserted.

 

[anode]

This is an absolutely crazy statement when you consider Dr. Beckwith’s education. You’re implying that he is not a thinking man-- nothing could be further from the truth. He’s an intellectual GIANT.

There are many intellectual giants in all of the religions of the globe, including Judaism and Buddhism, —and atheism. Having a brain and a lot of education has nothing to do with religious belief–or lack of it.

 

[Third_Day]

=TriuneUnity;6500462]So are you claiming that the Old Testament Temple hierarchy was infallible? A simple yes or no would be fine.

Yes, when they spoke from the chair of Moses. Likewise the Church is infallible when she speaks from the chair of Peter.

Because inerrant interpretation does not necessitate infallible interpretation.

I don’t understand what you are saying here. Please re-phrase.

Please answer my question to you. Why have infallible scripture if there is no infallible interpreter? Why would God give us infallible scripture and not give us someone to tell us infallibly what it means?

 

[KathleenGee]

The perfection of the Catholic Church is found in the body of professing believers in Jesus Christ who died for our sins and rose from the dead. This profession of faith is the only area within the Church that is perfect…this conviction of truth or doctrine of our faith in Christ.

There are different levels of truth. The highest level of truth of God is found in the Church in union with the Holy Father and the bishops, found in the teachings of Vatican II, the spirit of the Church in union with Christ as its Bride. It is mystical and universal and formed upon Jesus the Word and His Sacraments.

The next degree of truth is the universal catechism. After that are papal encyclicals and all these do not carry the same weight. It all depends. Very few times has the Holy Father spoken or decreed in truth.

It is all about context. Same with our study of Scripture…we see it as a whole, not separate pieces in their own contexts…everything in the Word of God in Scripture is all interconnected and in context to the salvation history. The context comes from the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Catholicism centers around God, and our understanding of Scripture is not based on a book of the bible in itself, but rather reflective of God and our cooperative relationship with Him, an ongoing journey.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Yes, when they spoke from the chair of Moses. Likewise the Church is infallible when she speaks from the chair of Peter.

Define speaking from the chair of Moses and how it relates to the infallibility of the Temple priesthood on faith and morals? How infallible was the OT hierarchy on interpretation of the Messianic Scriptures?

I don’t understand what you are saying here. Please re-phrase.

Please answer my question to you. Why have infallible scripture if there is no infallible interpreter? Why would God give us infallible scripture and not give us someone to tell us infallibly what it means?

A correct interpretation of Scripture does not require a charism of infallibility. It simply requires the same knowledge necessary to interpret any other writing. You do not need to be infallible to get a 100% on a spelling exam.

 

[KathleenGee]

And we must also recall that at Pentecost, the Holy Spirit then gave new light and understanding as well as fulfillment to questions in the Old Testament.

We cannot take one piece out of Scripture and interpret it away from the whole. All is interconnected, and this interpretation of the Holy Spirit brings unity.

Hermeneutics is like a key from light of the new revelation of Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit and going back to the Old Testament and finding full understanding of its meaning.

 

[Berean2]

(All emphases in Bible quotes are mine.)

Jesus told the APOSTLES that He would send THEM the Holy Spirit and guide THEM into all truth. THis does not apply to individuals like you and me

. Sorry, but Scripture begs to differ:

(Luke 3:15)—And as the people were in expectation, and all men mused in their hearts of John, whether he were the Christ, or not, John answered, saying unto them all, “I indeed baptize you with water, but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire.”

Jn. 7:37ff—…Jesus stood up and proclaimed, "If any one thirst, let him come to me and drink. He who believes in me, as the Scripture has said, ‘Out of his heart shall flow rivers of living water.’ " Now this he said about the Spirit, which those who believed in Him were to receive; for as yet the Spirit had not been given, because Jesus was not yet glorified.

1Cor. 6:19—Do you [addressed to the Corinthian congregation] not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God? You are not your own.

Eph. 1:13—In Him you [again: addressed to the Ephesian lay people] also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and have believed in Him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, which is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it, to the praise of His glory.

Acts 2:4—And they [lay people] were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

Acts 2:38—Then Peter said unto them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you [lay people] in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

Acts 4:31—And when they had prayed, the place was shaken where they were assembled together; and they [lay people] were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of God with boldness.

Acts 5:32—And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.

Acts 8:12 & passim—But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women…Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John, who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost…

Acts 10:44ff—While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all of those who heard the word. And they of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles [lay people] also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, “Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?”

Acts 11:15ff—And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.

Acts 15:7ff—And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, “Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as He did unto us.”

Acts 19:2 & passim—He said unto them [lay people], “Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?” And they said unto him, “We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.”…When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus…the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with tongues, and prophesied.

So, in all of these verses, it is clear that not only the VIP’s (leaders) of the flock receive the Holy Spirit, but ALL those who believe on Christ as Savior and LORD. It is that selfsame Spirit who causes insight and understanding that trump both the world as well as erroneous clerical judgements. How about, in John 9, the young man blind from birth? They [the established church authorities, aka Pharisees] answered him, “You were born in utter sin, and would you teach us?” And they cast him out. Amazing, isnt’ it? Even tho he was a lowly, unlearned, unordained chap, that young man rightly recognized that Jesus was sent from God, whereas the highly trained establishment religionists didn’t. Their attitude typifies that of the perennial religious elitists who marvel that mere bumpkins like Peter and John can speak so knowledgeably (Acts 4:13).

(Continued below; post too long)

 

[Berean2]

(Continued from above)

How do you know that what you “think and understand” is the truth?

In addition to providing us with His Holy Writ, He installs a “radar system” or “baloney detector” in us (thru the Spirit). In John 10, Jesus says, “My sheep hear my voice” (how?) and in Matt.16 He tells Peter (when he affirms that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, the Savior) that “flesh and blood * has not revealed this to you, Simon Bar Jona, but my Father in heaven,” which parallels the passage in Acts 16, where God opens Lydia’s heart to the Gospel. Brief example from my own life: at age 20, having been a Christian only 5 days, and only a beginner in reading the Bible and not yet having attended church, I got a visit at the front door from a JW: I knew nothing about “cults,” nor about JW’s. But after he had given me his smiley-friendly introduction, complete with the offer of a free copy of his rag, I distinctly “heard” inside of me “No!” 3x firmly conveyed. I ended up politely declining his offer to chat or read his publication.

Now, granted, there are times when I have to hold something in abeyance, because insight on it comes over days, months or even years (for example, shortly after I started going to church regularly—when I was 1/2way thru my 2nd reading of the complete Bible—when I was first confronted with the “Left Behind” poppycock, I was stunned: had I misread the Bible that badly? I saw nothing of the sort in the Word. So, privately, I doubted that scenario, but never revealed my hesitations to the other believers around me at that time who held that conviction; only many years later did those doubts get substantiated. Another case in point: the very first time I stumbled onto Harold Camping’s radio program, I knew he wasn’t kosher, tho I couldn’t have refuted him in a cross examination type of procedure; then, when his false 1994 prophecy didn’t materialize, it proved the rightness of my rejecting him as a valid teacher.)

Why do you think Peter says that Pauls writings are "hard to understand?

• First of all, it only says that SOME of them are hard to understand (2 Peter 3:16): “There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.” 2ndly, notice what type of people are doing the textual abuse: “ignorant & unstable” and they do it with the other Scriptures as well (which is why Paul exhorts us to “rightly handle the Word of God”). Paul already refers to that sort of problem in Romans 3:8 “And why not say (as we are slanderously reported and as some claim that we say), ‘Let us do evil that good may come’?” Even Luther, in his Dolmetscherbrief (Letter on Translation) writes (and I am paraphrasing, bec. I read this back in about '78), “Behind closed doors, you fellas [the Catholic VIP’s] admit that I am right about justification by grace thru faith, but you clamor against teaching it to the masses, bec. you claim that it will incite them to licentiousness.” This has ever been the inherent danger of preaching the pure Gospel: there will be those who don’t grasp that God delivers FROM sin UNTO righteousness.

(Continued below)

 

[Berean2]

(Continued from #51)

If private judgement means anyone can read the Bible and formulate interpretations, why does that automatically exclude ours?

It doesn’t (you’re projecting RCC exclusivism on Protestantism; after all, we’re not the ones who dispense anathemas via such pronouncements as Trent, and we don’t claim to be THE only true church of Christ): for example, Luther still recognized the RCC as a legitimate church and was in no way seeking to start a different church (even in his 95 theses, he avers that only the Pope has the power to grant forgiveness), intending only to bring the Church back to Biblical fidelity; Calvin was in love with Augustine (an RCC doctor); and as for us lowly contemporary Protestants, we have no beef, either, whenever the RCC’s doctrines concur with Scripture. Thus, any truly Biblical Protestant Church (i.e. not the apostate mainline denominations) affirms the Apostles and Nicene creeds and is on you guys’ side on abortion, euthanasia, divorce, homosexuality, women in the pulpit, etc. (I myself have walked out of churches that had women in the pulpit or as elders.)

Where we balk is on doctrines not clearly taught in the Word (and lest I elicit another verbal pummeling, I will refrain from listing some of the key offenders in this category, but I’m sure you know which ones I’m alluding to). Furthermore, recall the Protestant principle of Scripture interpreting Scripture, of clear passages illuminating the more murky ones. Nor do Protestants deny the need for “iron sharpening iron” (Prov. 27:17). Hey, you guys’ iron has already sharpened my iron just in the few hours I’ve read around this site! I’ve been to all kinds of churches (and even attended 3 different RCC educational institutions for a total of 6 years) & I can learn from all kinds of folks (even secularists, if only to see how their mental processes work: it’s important to know how your opponent’s gears grind). But my filter is always the sum total of the Bible.

And don’t think for one minute that I don’t apply that same filter just as rigorously to non-RCC sermons/writings/pronouncements/movements. It has stood me in good stead against such inanities (abominations, actually) as charismania; the Health & Wealth “Gospel” (which includes the name-it-claim-it rubbish); the so-called Purpose Driven Church baloney (Hullo? Paul & crew were driven by their purpose of spreading the Gospel; the fact that the PDC fad made such inroads into Evangelical circles just goes to prove how anemic modern Evangelicalism has become); Left Behindism; the “Appointment With God” fetish (Henry Blackaby); the Toronto “Blessing,” Oprah’s “Secret” and all manner of New Age variations (which have also crept into the church under the guise of “contemplative spirituality”).

You have no authority to teach

Nope, sure don’t, never claimed I did (wouldn’t want to, either, bec. those who teach will be judged more severely): my gifts are mercy works & spiritual discernment. As Romans 12:4 puts it: “For as in one body we have many members, and all the members do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. Having gifts that differ according to the grace given to us [and who gives them? cf. ESV.org”]1Cor. 12:11 ], let us use them: if prophecy, in proportion to our faith; if service, in our serving; he who teaches, in his teaching; he who exhorts, in his exhortation; he who contributes, in liberality; he who gives aid, with zeal; he who does acts of mercy, with cheerfulness.”

I find intriguing, tho, the passage in 1Cor. 14 (emphases mine): What then, brethren? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for edification. If any speak in a tongue, let there be only two or at most three, and each in turn; and let one interpret. But if there is no one to interpret, let each of them keep silence in church and speak to himself and to God. Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others [notice: not just the men of the cloth]* weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting by, let the first be silent. For you can **all ***prophesy one by one, so that all may learn and all be encouraged; and the spirits of prophets are subject to prophets. Notice how democratic/townhallish this is: EVERYbody can contribute, not just the men of the cloth----and who is the originator of the contributions? The Holy Spirit.

 

[KathleenGee]

Berean,

To a certain degree you are right, and yes we have been taught that Luther did not intend to break away as he did. It has been admitted there were faults on both sides.

But again, you look at church history, and there has always been a continuing of the breaking of the bread from Jewish culture, to the Last Supper, to the initiation of the Sacraments…and that authority always came back to the seat of Peter.

The Catholic Church is going to survive the present scandal, because yes, we have the Good Shepherd, and we also have inside perspective knowing where there is scandal, there are also many more devout and faithful far exceeding those who have sinned.

I experience the same presence of Christ with Protestant friends. But they do not have the experience we have of the Eucharist, the adoration of Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament – His physical presence a part of the same God who led the Jews out of Egypt, Who became the Pillar of Fire, Who provided them with manna from heaven, Who had His angel point out to the shepherds, the Son was placed in an animal feeder to become food for us.

Jesus instituted the sacrament of Penance on the evening of the Resurrection to give Apostles and their successors the power to forgive sins…not from themselves, but from Christ Himself. The laying of hands continues through all believers of the same Holy Spirit, but He did give us bishops and priests.

The Holy Spirit moved through the Apostles into many regions of the world. The Nazarene Jews who followed Christ evolved somewhat differently, but their descendents are some of those remaining in Palestine, and they still practice the breaking of the bread in their home, the Palestinian Christians whose numbers are now greatly decreasing. They have my greatest respect because they have been faithful inspite of the history of the Holy Land.

What I see of Protestantism is divorce. That is the whole flaw. We are not one, we cannot pray together. We are very sensitive to this separation and pray for our separated brethren. And the inability to experience the Holy Spirit in the Church and its leadership.

If we were all one, the Church would have new life because we are lacking the gifts of our separated brethren. Someday it will come, but what price will we all pay?

 

[Berean2]

And the inability to experience the Holy Spirit in the Church and its leadership.

John said to him, “Teacher, we saw a man casting out demons in your name, and we forbade him, because he was not following us.” But Jesus said, "Do not forbid him; for no one who does a mighty work in my name will be able soon after to speak evil of me. For he that is not against us is for us. For truly, I say to you, whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because you bear the name of Christ, will by no means lose his reward. (Mark 9:38, emphases mine)

He who confesses the Son has the Father also.(1 Jn. 2:23)

By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God…Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God…Every one who believes that Jesus is the Christ is a child of God…He who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself…He who has the Son has life…(1Jn. 4 & 5 passim)

Also, please review the verses I posted in #50.

Someday it will come, but what price will we all pay?

Not sure what you’re asking here: are you saying “How much are we all willing to give up to make it a reality?” or are you saying, “Who knows what kinds of atrocities [a la Torquemada] will have to happen first before that unity comes about?”

 

[KathleenGee]

Got it.

Have you read the now open documents of the Spanish Inquisition? The Church removed charges of most…The information that people have been dealt with was promoted by two Americans of the 1830’s mindset. They drew on true happenings but without context.

I can read the Bible with the help of the Holy Spirit in what it means to me, I can identify the fruits of the same spirit regarding patience, understanding, gentleness, etc., but when it comes to understanding Scripture through the Church, it needs to be properly interpreted.

Christ has called us to be one. That is also the work of the Holy Spirit. Individual vs ecclesial interpretation can at times be the same, but in many other times, individual interpretation of Scripture is prone to being taken out of context.

 

[KathleenGee]

The other issue I have is the issue of the post you asked me to share…this is at the very beginning of the church…just like we find Jesus in the manger at Bethlehem…at His beginning. He did not do public ministry until he was around 30 years of age.

This post shows the very beginnings of the Pentecost…in time the apostles appointed their successors and had many pupils. From there came the sub Apostolic age and from there the final revelation on the nature of Christ as True God and True Man at the Council of Nicea, as well as the formation of the beginnings of Christianity into Church form.

Do you follow me?

And the other reference to a priest of the Inquisition…you are not acknowledging the countless priests who exonerated the accused.

Out of context.