Personal interpretation

[PRmerger]

To which Doggg answered:
‘How did you come to know that the Magisterium should be trusted and authoritative for helping people to understand the written word?’

To which nobody answered.

How we came to know that the Magisterium should be trusted and is authoritative for helping people to understand the written word:
Originally posted by Randy Carson

The following verses suggest that the Catholic Church is protected by God from ever teaching error in matters of faith and morals, and questions concerning each verse are provided as food for thought.

Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder?

Matthew 18:15-18
If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Q: If the Church has the authority to bind and loose on earth in a manner that is also true in heaven, then assuming that there is no error in heaven, can the Church err on earth?

Matthew 28:20
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error at any time during the nearly 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation, did Jesus remain with the Church “always”?

Luke 10:16
“He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

Q: If the Church speaks with such authority that those who hear the Church are actually hearing Christ and such that anyone who rejects the words of the Church are rejecting Christ Himself, can the Church ever be allowed to speak error on behalf of Jesus?

John 14:15-16
15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—

Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error, would this indicate that Jesus did not give the Counselor or that the Counselor simply failed to remain with the Church “forever”?

John 14:18
18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.

Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, did Jesus actually leave us as “orphans” during all that time?

John 14:26
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

Q: Despite this promise, did the Holy Spirit fail to teach the Church “all things” or to remind the Church of the things that Jesus had said to the Apostles?

John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Q: Did the Holy Spirit fail to guide the Church into all truth?

Now, consider the following three verses:

1 John 4:4
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.

1 Timothy 3:13
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Mark 3:27
27In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.

Q: Is Satan stronger than Jesus, is the Church the household of God, and can Satan rob the Church of the deposit of truth by “binding” Jesus in any way?

In light of the above, is it possible that the Church fell into doctrinal error? Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church “went off the rails” at some point in history. Taken as a whole, they portray Christ’s own involvement in building, nurturing and protecting His Church until the end of time. The Catholic Church remains strong and vibrant – not by her own efforts or innate qualities – but because God Himself is leading and guiding her to ensure that “the gates of hell will not overcome it.”
]

 

[Doggg]

No, it is not circular. The argument is a* spiral* argument.

“We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument. On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history. From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded. And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired).** What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired.”** source

Perhaps you could define “infallible” when you say, “From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded.”

 

[PRmerger]

Constantine, give me one example where the Magisterium interpreted certain passages in Scripture as the correct one in order to stop an incorrect interpretation?

How about this, regarding the Trinity, which corrected the Sabellian, Arian, Modalism heresies?

And this, which combats the Nestorian heresy?

And, actually, this article on the 21 Ecumenical Councils details the myriad ways that the Magisterium has combated incorrect interpretations of Scripture.

 

[PRmerger]

Perhaps you could define “infallible” when you say, “From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded.”

Infallible: incapable of teaching error in the areas of faith and morals.

 

[Doggg]

The following verses suggest that the Catholic Church is protected by God from ever teaching error in matters of faith and morals, and questions concerning each verse are provided as food for thought.

The Catholic Church is protected by God from ever teaching error? This is circular. See my post #37.

 

[Doggg]

Infallible: incapable of teaching error in the areas of faith and morals.

From this definition it would seem that what the body of Christ believes and does is pretty much irrelevant to the issue church infallibility. As long as the church teaches no error in the area of faith and morals, that is good enough for God!

 

[PRmerger]

The Catholic Church is protected by God from ever teaching error? This is circular. See my post #37.

Well, we don’t have to say the CC. We can say the Church that was established by Jesus.

Any church that can trace its roots, its teachings, its priests/presbyters/pastors/bishops to the time of the apostles can claim the infallibility as proven by Scripture.

I don’t mean to be disrespectful to your church tradition, Doggg, but if you don’t have the Eucharist, or a valid priesthood, or bishops, or venerate Mary, or pray for the dead, then your church is not the Church that was established by Jesus.

[SIGN1]
Again, it is spiral, not circular.[/SIGN1]

 

[PRmerger]

From this definition it would seem that what the body of Christ believes and does is pretty much irrelevant to the issue church infallibility.

How do you make this conclusion? Where is there a dichotomy between the spiral argument of Church infallibility and “what the body of Christ believes and does is pretty much irrelevant to the issue of church infalliblity”?

There’s a disconnect in your conclusion.

As long as the church teaches no error in the area of faith and morals, that is good enough for God!

This most certainly is NOT the CC’s position, Doggg.

Like most non-Catholics here, you are arguing against a Catholic Church that does not exist.

 

[Ben_F]

No, I don’t, at least for the Catholic Church. The only problem I see is that you apparently do not believe the words of Jesus

I did not interpret anything. All I did was take the very words of Jesus literally as translated. That is not interpretation. Those words are the same in any Bible whether it be protestant or Catholic. Interpretation assigns a different meaning to words other than the literal one. I find we Catholics are more literal in our understanding of scripture than protestants. For instance Mt 26:26-28:

"26 Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is my body.” 27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you; 28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.”
[Mt 26:26-28 RSV]

Catholics do not interpret this passage as we take Jesus literally here . When Jesus says the bread is His Body and the Wine is His Blood then the Bread is His Body and the wine is His Blood. There is no interpretation and especially so when John 6 is considered. There Jesus said that he who ate his flesh had life eternal. and He said Hisflesh was real food. Protestants, however, interpret Mt 26:26-28 into something other than the literal meaning. They claim It is not His actual Body it is only a symbol. They claim the same for the wine. Yet nowhere in the Greek words does one find any hint of symbolism.

Now Jesus did use symbolism. He claimed he was a door. He claimed He was a vine. He claimed He was a shepherd when in fact He was none of those. So why do we think the Bread is His Body? Because Jesus commanded the Apostles to do the very same thing. Do this in remembrance of me He said and we know the early church did exactly that. Search the first 500 or 1000 or 1500 years of the church and see if the church ever taught sola scriptura. You won’t find it. Sola scriptura was invented in the 16th century as a denial of Church authority and by doing so is directly contradicted by Mt 16:18-1; John 16:13; 2 Thess 2:15 and a couple of other scripture passages.

If you want to see the effects of interpreting scripture on your own all you need to do is look at the divisions in protestantism. There are thousands of protestant denominations all claiming to be spirit led and preaching truth but all differing in the truth taught. A good example is the many contradicting teachings on Baptism. Protestants can’t agree on whether it is necessary or not, whether it saves or not, adult only or infant too, pouring or immersion, sacrament or ordinance. There are plenty more differing interpretations too. Is God a Trinity or not? The list goes on and on. That is what interpreting scripture on your own will do. It is called chaos and chaos is the work of satan not God.

Stuff like this really strengthens my faith. God bless:thumbsup:

 

[Doggg]

Back at ya: How do you know that your faith community was founded by Christ? Does this even matter to you?

Yes, it matters to me. My church community, as a group, claims to place its faith in the infallible truths found in God’s word, and not in the fallible traditions of sinful men. Jesus said, “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.” In His warning against false teaches, Jesus said, “By their fruits you will know them.”

 

[Doggg]

Infallible: incapable of teaching error in the areas of faith and morals.

To which I responded:

From this definition it would seem that what the body of Christ believes and does is pretty much irrelevant to the issue church infallibility.

How do you make this conclusion? Where is there a dichotomy between the spiral argument of Church infallibility and “what the body of Christ believes and does is pretty much irrelevant to the issue of church infalliblity”?

I don’t even know what a spiral argument is, and I haven’t said anything about any dichotomy between the spiral argument of Church infallibility and “what the body of Christ believes and does is pretty much irrelevant to the issue of church infalliblity”

There’s a disconnect in your conclusion.

What is my conclusion…as you understand it?

Like most non-Catholics here, you are arguing against a Catholic Church that does not exist.

How so?

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, it matters to me. My church community, as a group, claims to place its faith in the infallible truths found in God’s word, and not in the fallible traditions of sinful men.

This is quite curious, Doggg, as it was sinful men who wrote these “infallible truths found in God’s word”, no?

Unless you believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were also, like Mary, created sinless?

Also, it was** sinful men** who gave you the canon of Scripture, and unless you believe they erred (perhaps you believe Revelation should not be considered* theopneustos* and maybe the Gospel of Thomas should?) you believe this list of books of Scripture is infallible, too.

Jesus said, “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.” In His warning against false teaches, Jesus said, “By their fruits you will know them.”

Amen!

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t even know what a spiral argument is,

Think of a corkscrew, Doggg. You start at one point, go up the curve and come out at a higher point.

A spiral argument starts with a fact and ends with a different conclusion, with multiple supporting facts along the way.

So, the spiral argument for the infallibility of the church starts with the reliability of the Bible as a historical document. Then we note that this historical document states that a Church was formed. The Church then states that the Bible is* theopneustos. *

Thus, spiral, not circular. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired).

Circular arguments have the initial premise concluding the same thing as the ending argument.

Example of a circular argument: I know what’s inspired because the Bible says it is; and I know what’s in the Bible because it’s inspired.

 

[PRmerger]

What is my conclusion…as you understand it?

This is your conclusion, after learning what the Church’s definition of infallibility is:

From this definition it would seem that what the body of Christ believes and does is pretty much irrelevant to the issue church infallibility.

There is no connection between the concept of infallibility and your conclusion above.

How so?

You are proposing that Catholics believe that “what the body of Christ believes and does is pretty much irrelevant to the issue church infallibility.”

Please provide a Church document which states this.

 

[Doggg]

This is quite curious, Doggg, as it was sinful men who wrote these “infallible truths found in God’s word”, no?

I hope you won’t think I’m splitting hairs, but as I understand it, the books of the bible were all written by God even if it was sinful men who put those words onto paper.

Unless you believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were also, like Mary, created sinless?

Also, it was** sinful men** who gave you the canon of Scripture, and unless you believe they erred (perhaps you believe Revelation should not be considered* theopneustos* and maybe the Gospel of Thomas should?) you believe this list of books of Scripture is infallible, too.

I don’t understand what you mean here. What do you mean when you say, it was** sinful men** who gave you the canon of Scripture"?

 

[zz912]

I don’t understand what you mean here. What do you mean when you say, it was** sinful men** who gave you the canon of Scripture"?

Have you ever considered how the Bible came to be? Who decided which books/letters/epistles to include, and which ones to exclude? There were hundreds of writings claiming to be Scripture. How was it decided which were Scripture and which were not?

You should study up on the history of the Bible. It may shock you.

 

[Doggg]

Think of a corkscrew, Doggg. You start at one point, go up the curve and come out at a higher point.

A spiral argument starts with a fact and ends with a different conclusion, with multiple supporting facts along the way.

So, the spiral argument for the infallibility of the church starts with the reliability of the Bible as a historical document. Then we note that this historical document states that a Church was formed. The Church then states that the Bible is* theopneustos. *

Thus, spiral, not circular. This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired).

Circular arguments have the initial premise concluding the same thing as the ending argument.

Example of a circular argument: I know what’s inspired because the Bible says it is; and I know what’s in the Bible because it’s inspired.

I would be truly interested in seeing your non-circular argument that validly and persuasively concludes with, “Therefore, the RCC is the one true church established by Christ.”

---

Circular argument

(part of this was cut and pasted from a website that deals with fallacies of various types)

“Circular reasoning” is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: “X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true.”

A Circular Argument

1. Anyone who studies church history in general, and apostolic succession specifically, will know that the RCC is the one true church.
2. Only the RCC traces its apostolic roots all the way back to the apostle Peter.

 

[Doggg]

Have you ever considered how the Bible came to be? Who decided which books/letters/epistles to include, and which ones to exclude? There were hundreds of writings claiming to be Scripture. How was it decided which were Scripture and which were not?

You should study up on the history of the Bible. It may shock you.

Do you believe that God is sovereign over all of His creation? And do you believe Jesus when He said, “My sheep listen to my voice and they follow me”?

It is my belief that God has written all of the books of the bible and that He has caused His people–the sheep, to hear Him speaking through His word. It wasn’t for us sinful and fallible souls to determine which books and letters to include, because these were never excluded. Scripture is what it is regardless what any of us might say about it. So the church didn’t decide the canon; it only recognized and, by His grace, continues to recognize, what is God-breathed.

 

[PRmerger]

I hope you won’t think I’m splitting hairs, but as I understand it, the books of the bible were all written by God even if it was sinful men who put those words onto paper.

Yes. And if you believe that God did this with sinful men then why do you object to the His continuing to use sinful men to continue to guide His Church** infallibly**?

I don’t understand what you mean here. What do you mean when you say, it was** sinful men** who gave you the canon of Scripture"?

Where do you think the Bible came from, Doggg?

It came from the Catholic Church.

It was codified, preserved and presented to Christianity by the sinful men of the Catholic Church. Yet God was able to use these sinful men to infallibly declare the canon of Scripture.

Check out this list of a multitude of early Christian texts. You would not know that the Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel is not theopneustos, but that the letter to Philemon is, except for the Catholic Church.

 

[PRmerger]

I would be truly interested in seeing your non-circular argument that validly and persuasively concludes with, “Therefore, the RCC is the one true church established by Christ.”

I already did. See post #57 in which I cited CAFs member Randy Carson.

But, I will put a bow on it for you:

"In light of the above, is it possible that the Church fell into doctrinal error? Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church “went off the rails” at some point in history. Taken as a whole, they portray Christ’s own involvement in building, nurturing and protecting His Church until the end of time. The Catholic Church remains strong and vibrant – not by her own efforts or innate qualities – but because God Himself is leading and guiding her to ensure that “the gates of hell will not overcome it.” ** Therefore, the CC is the one true church established by Christ.**