Mainly For Those Not Roman Catholic: Whom Must You Obey?

[Roman_Catholic_1]

The notion of human infallibility is not present in Judaism, even among Rabbis or, in ancient times, Prophets

What about the writers of scripture? Jewish believers don’t consider their writings infallible? That’s interesting. Why accept it as ultimate truth if it’s writers weren’t infallible?

God bless

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Is the Assemblies of G-d the same as Pentecostalism or a division of it? I had never heard about Solo Scriptura rather than Sola Scriptura; how interesting!
I wish Judaism were that simple. Oral tradition is part of it; but the main part is following the commandments of the Torah (Pentateuch), which is the Mosaic Law. The oral tradition has been codified in the books of the Talmud, which contain Rabbinical commentaries and opinions about the Torah and applications to the modern world. But no interpretive commentaries, however brilliant, may conflict with or cast aside basic Torah Law.

Pentecostalism has a various array of denominations.
If I recall correctly, the Assemblies of God were among the first. Then in 1910 there was a split between those who were Trinitarians, and those who denied the Trinity and are known as Oneness. After the heads of the AOG reaffirmed the Trinity and called Oneness as heresy, the latter group walked out and formed the United Pentecostal Church. Other Pentecostal denominations appeared too, like for example, the Church of God.

I underscored a difference between Solo and Sola because the latter was upheld by the Reformation, and the Reformers believed that while Tradition can be useful and important to interpret the Bible, the Bible allows us to weave out traditions that possibly have not been part of the original Christian doctrine - thus, for instance, Luther rejected indulgences and prayer for the dead, because he didn’t see them as scriptural, and therefore considered it as not Christian tradition, but affirmed the Real Presence, which he saw as not only biblical but supported by the Early Church Fathers.

Evangelicals have a different philosophy. The Early Church is entirely disregarded as irrelevant in terms of doctrine. What the Bible says is enough, and you’ll know what the Bible is supposed to say through the discernment of the Holy Spirit. Thus no Real Presence (“sounds weird”), no liturgy (focus on preaching), no ceremonies, etc. You’ll notice that for all the bickering there has been between Lutherans and Catholics, they have a lot more in common in terms of doctrine than Lutherans would with Evangelicals.

Judaism sounds really complicated. I suppose that’s why there are so many branches. Which branch are you? Orthodox?

 

[catalina343]

I was raised Pentecostal and they believe that the Bible and only the Bible has any authority. If it’s in the Bible, follow it to the tee. If you can’t find it in the Bible it must not be true.

 

[meltzerboy]

What about the writers of scripture? Jewish believers don’t consider their writings infallible? That’s interesting. Why accept it as ultimate truth if it’s writers weren’t infallible?

God bless

Perhaps the writers of Tanakh (Hebrew Scripture) are considered, according to Judaism, divinely inspired, just as Catholicism regards the Pope as infallible when he is speaking ex cathedra. But in neither case are they necessarily infallible at other times. Still, in Orthodox Judaism, the Torah–as transmitted from G-d directly to Moses–holds special privilege in terms of infallibility more than the other parts of Scripture. As the Mishnah says: “The Torah is a Tree of Life for those who cling to her.”

 

[Izdaari]

The way that the Southern Baptist Convention is set up, there is no central authority. The SBC is more of a loose confederacy of autonomous churches that may or may not hold all the points of the Baptist Faith and Message, yet still cooperate together for missions etc.

Generally, Southern Baptist churches are going to be somewhere in the spectrum of prima scriptura and sola scriptura. I think stating that one is in favor of strict sola scriptura is a bit nieve. Even the SBC defers to Church tradition for things like the date of Easter, the New Testament canon, and the existence of the trinity. So in reality, we’re probably mostly prima scriptura folks that believe that the Bible is the primary source for Truth, and that Church tradition is secondary and subject to scripture.

All that pretty much goes for Assemblies of God too. Like the SBC, we have a very loose organization with mostly autonomous churches. We have our Fundamental Truths, and our position papers (on the same site) but not all of us agree with all of them. I agree also with your position on prima scriptura. The only significant theological difference would seem to be that we are continuationist.

 

[Izdaari]

Is the Assemblies of G-d the same as Pentecostalism or a division of it? I had never heard about Solo Scriptura rather than Sola Scriptura; how interesting!

AG is the single largest branch within Pentecostalism. Foursquare and Open Bible are smaller, but doctrinally almost identical. You’d be hard pressed much theological difference between us and conservative Baptists or Methodists except that we’re officially continuationist. I think of that group as the “non-wacky Pentecostals”, i.e. the ones who aren’t into snake-handling, Oneness theology, prosperity gospel or other weirdness.

(Personally, I’m somewhere between Pentecostal, Anglican and Lutheran, even though my church membership is AG. I believe in Real Presence in a Lutheran kind of way. And I do like liturgy at least occasionally.)

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Perhaps the writers of Tanakh (Hebrew Scripture) are considered, according to Judaism, divinely inspired, just as Catholicism regards the Pope as infallible when he is speaking ex cathedra. But in neither case are they necessarily infallible at other times. Still, in Orthodox Judaism, the Torah–as transmitted from G-d directly to Moses–holds special privilege in terms of infallibility more than the other parts of Scripture. As the Mishnah says: “The Torah is a Tree of Life for those who cling to her.”

Thanks. So this statement is not correct then?

The notion of human infallibility is not present in Judaism, even among Rabbis or, in ancient times, Prophets

There is a notion of human infallibility in Judaism? Notably in regards to the Tanakh? Just trying to mesh the two statements of yours. There is either a notion of human infallibility which extended to the writers of Scripture or there isn’t a notion of infallibility which then, of course, wouldn’t have extended to the writers of scripture. Can’t be both ways. See what I am asking?

God bless

 

[meltzerboy]

Thanks. So this statement is not correct then?

There is a notion of human infallibility in Judaism? Notably in regards to the Tanakh? Just trying to mesh the two statements of yours. There is either a notion of human infallibility which extended to the writers of Scripture or there isn’t a notion of infallibility which then, of course, wouldn’t have extended to the writers of scripture. Can’t be both ways. See what I am asking?

God bless

I’m not the ultimate authority on this matter; but I believe the notion of infallibility would apply only to the writing of the Torah by Moses, not to the rest of the Hebrew Bible, which, however, would be regarded as authoritative. The concept of infallibility carries with it literalism, which Judaism does not believe applies to much of the Tanakh. However, for Orthodox Jews, the Torah is taken quite literally. For Conservative and especially Reform Jews, the Torah as well is viewed symbolically rather than literally.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I’m not the ultimate authority on this matter; but I believe the notion of infallibility would apply only to the writing of the Torah by Moses, not to the rest of the Hebrew Bible, which, however, would be regarded as authoritative.

Okay, so there is a notion of human infallibility within Judaism correct?

God bless

 

[meltzerboy]

Okay, so there is a notion of human infallibility within Judaism correct?

God bless

I added some information to my previous post. Jews are nervous about the concept of human infallibility: only G-d is considered infallible. The term itself is an oxymoron. However, when Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible he was transmitting through divine inspiration the Word of G-d, so in that sense and that sense only one may consider his writing–but not his person–infallible.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

I added some information to my previous post. Jews are nervous about the concept of human infallibility: only G-d is considered infallible. The term itself is an oxymoron. However, when Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible he was transmitting through divine inspiration the Word of G-d, so in that sense and that sense only one may consider his writing–but not his person–infallible.

So if what Moses wrote was infallible?..

I get it even if you don’t want to say it. There is a notion of human infallibility within Judaism.

God bless

 

[JonNC]

From what I’ve read about Roman Catholicism, the Pope’s statements ex cathedra are regarded by the Church as infallible, and perhaps at other times as well (please correct me here if I’m in error), and there are also the teachings of Church tradition and the Magisterium which must be followed. If you are not Roman Catholic, whose teaching in your religion is considered either authoritative or infallible? Is it the Church, the Bible, oral tradition, cultural practice, something other than these, or nothing at all? I’m addressing this question mainly (but not exclusively) to non-Roman Catholics, including Orthodox, Protestants of any denomination, Anglican Catholics, Quakers, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, Oneness Pentecostals, Unitarians, Christian Scientists, Religious Scientists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Shintoists, Confucians, Pagans, followers of Wicka, Voodoo practitioners, Scientologists, New Agers, or any other religion, sect, or cult.

For Lutherans, no one individual person except, as Roman_Catholic said, Christ! Lutherans are, however, held to scripture, and the right reflection of scripture in our confessional statements, the Book of Concord in general, the three ecumenical Creeds,the Augsburg Confession, its apology, and Luther’s Small Catechism in particular.

Jon

 

[djd83]

Jehovah’s Witnesses obey a group of ‘heaven-bound’ “annointed elders” that form the Governing Body… Even though the reject “tradition…” XP

 

[Dave_Noonan]

You’re correct to a certain extent. Judaism is similar to Protestantism in that the Bible is the ultimate authority; more so the Torah (Pentateuch) than the whole Tanakh (Hebrew Bible). The Talmud (Gemara and Mishnah) consists of rabbinical commentaries, interpretations of the Torah, and applications to modern life. But no Rabbi may radically depart from the Word of G-d as expressed in the Bible. At least no Orthodox Rabbi. Judaism is subdivided into Orthodox (Torah Judaism) as well as Conservative and Reform. The latter two (especially Reform Judaism) depart from Torah Judaism, so much so that Orthodox Judaism does not recognize the legitimacy of these branches or their Rabbis, and considers both divisions heretical movements. However, most Jews abide by the Thirteen Principles of Judaism as expressed by the famous Rabbi Maimonides (aka the Rambam). These constitute the dogma of Judaism and do not deviate from the Mosaic Law of the Torah. Still, Rabbinical Tradition is also quite important in Judaism, authoritative even if not infallible.

Would you maybe say that much of Judaism (e.g., Orthodox) has an infallible text but not infallible interpretations of the text? IMO Judaism is much better equipped to tolerate a diversity of interpretations than would be typical in Christian circles.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Do Catholics think the Pope is infallible in his “own” person? :nope:This was the context. Meltzerboy was saying/agreeing with another poster that Protestantism and Judaism had a lot in common, one of those things was there being no notion of human infallibity. Obviously this is not true.

With respect, you set up the strawman. If Moses was prevented from writing error, ie infallible, than there is a notion of infallibility. I never said the Moses was infallible in his “own” person or through his own power. You did.

God bless

 

[meltzerboy]

Do Catholics think the Pope is infallible in his “own” person? :nope:This was the context. Meltzerboy was saying/agreeing with another poster that Protestantism and Judaism had a lot in common, one of those things was there being no notion of human infallibity. Obviously this is not true.

With respect, you set up the strawman. If Moses was prevented from writing error, ie infallible, than there is a notion of infallibility. I never said the Moses was infallible in his “own” person or through his own power. You did.

God bless

Let me see if I can settle this discussion. G-d used Moses as the instrument to write the Word of G-d. It didn’t come from Moses’ own mind, but from the mind of G-d. Therefore, what Moses wrote is infallible teaching. Moses had no choice in the matter. How one interprets the more difficult passages of what he wrote is open to debate and error. And Moses himself is not infallible since he is being used by G-d as the vessel to convey G-d’s Law. If you still interpret what I am saying as meaning that Judaism believes in the concept of human infallibility, so be it. But remember that your interpretation is fallible!

To call Moses infallible would be like saying that what he wrote or the miracles he performed came from his own mind or power. They did not. Therefore he is not infallible and, to my way of thinking, there is no concept of human infallibility in Judaism. In Catholicism, the Pope is considered infallible when he speaks ex cathedra because the Word of G-d is being conveyed through him. If you wish to draw an analogy to Moses’ writing of the Torah, I can understand that. However, Jews would not call such divine inspiration human infallibility. It is a concept foreign and even forbidden to Judaism. We would describe it in the way I did in the previous paragraph.

 

[meltzerboy]

Nor even in Moses’ own writing; for it is the Word of G-d being conveyed through Moses.

 

[meltzerboy]

Would you maybe say that much of Judaism (e.g., Orthodox) has an infallible text but not infallible interpretations of the text? IMO Judaism is much better equipped to tolerate a diversity of interpretations than would be typical in Christian circles.

Interpretations may be authoritative and believed and practiced by most Jews, but they are never regarded as infallible. The text itself, particularly the Torah, is regarded as infallible teaching by Orthodox Jews. But Reform Jews are not so convinced that even the Torah was divinely inspired. There are diversity of interpretations as to the meaning of Torah passages within Orthodox Judaism. When the diversity extends to some of the interpretations of Conservative and Reform Judaism, however, it is regarded more as heterodox and heretical than orthodox from the perspective of Orthodox Judaism.

 

[AmateurPianist]

From what I’ve read about Roman Catholicism, the Pope’s statements ex cathedra are regarded by the Church as infallible, and perhaps at other times as well (please correct me here if I’m in error), and there are also the teachings of Church tradition and the Magisterium which must be followed. If you are not Roman Catholic, whose teaching in your religion is considered either authoritative or infallible? Is it the Church, the Bible, oral tradition, cultural practice, something other than these, or nothing at all? I’m addressing this question mainly (but not exclusively) to non-Roman Catholics, including Orthodox, Protestants of any denomination, Anglican Catholics, Quakers, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists, Oneness Pentecostals, Unitarians, Christian Scientists, Religious Scientists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Shintoists, Confucians, Pagans, followers of Wicka, Voodoo practitioners, Scientologists, New Agers, or any other religion, sect, or cult.

Lemme give this a stab…

As a Christian in a relationship with God through Jesus Chrst, I am first and foremost accountable to obey God through Jesus Christ.

However, if I live it at that, there is a real danger in me creating my own God as what I would wish to believe and practice but not what is necessarily true. So I then look to where God has revealed Himself outside of where I sense and feel.

I find that in the pages of the Bible which claims itself to be the Word of God and inspired by God. That is sufficient authority of Scriptures.

But even though the Bible claims itself as the Word of God, no such claims are made as to my understanding of it. I do not want to be a victim of a nice new understanding of Scripture that has no historical basis. So for that I turn to a church to be taught the Word of God. And although I do not consider my church as incapable of being incorrect,
i do recognize that God has placed pastors and teachers within the church for the express purpose of teaching the Word of God.

 

[Roman_Catholic_1]

Let me see if I can settle this discussion. G-d used Moses as the instrument to write the Word of G-d. It didn’t come from Moses’ own mind, but from the mind of G-d. Therefore, what Moses wrote is infallible teaching. Moses had no choice in the matter.

You are welcome to believe this but in the end it was Moses who wrote and you accept what he wrote as the ultimate truth, without error. So Moses was indeed infallible in his writings. I grant you that you believe this was the working of God and not Moses but Catholics would say the same of the Pope in his infallibility. It is nothing in and of himself but, rather, the guidance and protection of God. I took exception to you saying that Protestants and Judaism both have no notion of human infallibility with the understanding being that Catholicism does. I was trying to show you that your belief of Moses being free from error in his writings is much like Catholic’s belief in papal infallibility. It comes from God.

Even Protestants have a notion of infallibility, the writers of scripture.

To call Moses infallible would be like saying that what he wrote or the miracles he performed came from his own mind or power. They did not.

I have to ask, when a Catholic says that be believes the Pope is infallible is this what you think? That this infallibility isn’t from God? If so you have a flawed understanding of it.

Therefore is not infallible and, to my way of thinking, there is no concept of human infallibility in Judaism.

Then using your definition of human infallibility there isn’t one in Catholicism either therefore you not only have this in common with protestantism but also Catholicism.

God bless