Protestant Forum I Checked Out

[mcq72]

You cannot have it both ways. Either you trust the church to authoritatively define what scripture is or everything you say about the interpretation of said scripture is irrelevant.

In the sense that you put it, you can have it both ways. Only one Person was perfect in every iota of teaching, all the time, without need of any correction or revisement. For us, who compromise the church in every fashion and office, it is not once right always right. We are quite dependent upon reliance on Him, and therefore it is quite conditional, this perfect reception of His perfect guidance, all the time. Because the church was right on one thing at 400 AD does not then mean she must be right on another thing in 1500 or 1954 AD or in 2025 etc…

 

[HopkinsReb]

adf417:

You cannot have it both ways. Either you trust the church to authoritatively define what scripture is or everything you say about the interpretation of said scripture is irrelevant.

In the sense that you put it, you can have it both ways. Only one person was perfect in every iota of teaching, all the time, without need of any correction or revisement. For us, who compromise the church in every fashion and office, it is not once right always right. We are quite dependent upon reliance on Him, and therefore it is quite conditional on perfect reception of His perfect guidance.

I’ve never heard a Catholic say that anybody but Jesus was “perfect in every iota of teaching, all the time, without need of any correction or revisement.”

 

[mcq72]

??? Never heard that either, that anybody but Jesus was perfect (in teaching)

 

[HopkinsReb]

I interpreted your statement as implying that Catholics believe that others beside Jesus are perfectly inerrant in all their teachings.

Sorry if I misinterpreted.

 

[MichaelP3]

Well you can always have that “other person asking” but then where was Mary not perfect? (Given if that is the way of thinking?)

 

[MichaelP3]

We have the benefit of the unbroken scholarly tradition operating in an institution

You see you said many things there but you fell into the trap of the part I quoted.

You have absolutely no benifit even though you “think” you may have. Have you ever actually checked the “line of the Popes”. If that is what you meant I suggest you take a look. And I mean everything as in every single Pope. You may come to realise that this “we have a direct line” is actually not that proven. And rather concerning if I were “you”.

Regards

 

[HopkinsReb]

Fair enough as it regards my exact words, but it doesn’t really address the point I was addressing (or thought I was addressing).

 

[MichaelP3]

Not your “exact words” but still a fair question if that is “your way of thinking”. Or the CCs way. Still a contradiction either way. Like all the other stuff.

 

[HopkinsReb]

Oh go away. You know exactly what I meant. Stop being a pedant.

 

[MichaelP3]

Honestly the first time I saw such a response to myself. Anything else to add?

 

[HopkinsReb]

Nope, not really.

 

[adf417]

Because the church was right on one thing at 400 AD does not then mean she must be right on another thing in 1500 or 1954 AD or in 2025 etc…

In your view of church one can agree. As a matter of fact many, such as Mormons and JW’s, rely on it and even take it to another level, a level you continue to justify for them because there is no visible infallible authority to correct them. Whats good for your goose is equally good for their gander. The more you fight aginst a visible authority the more you justify not only your position but their positions as well.

Peace!!!

 

[MichaelP3]

But then that is the answer. It is better to contain oneself when you are out of words.

Hope to hear from you again next time.

Regards

 

[HopkinsReb]

Have you ever considered that your incessant condescension does not incline people to your way of thinking?

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

We have the benefit of the unbroken scholarly tradition operating in an institution

You see you said many things there but you fell into the trap of the part I quoted.

You have absolutely no benifit even though you “think” you may have. Have you ever actually checked the “line of the Popes”. If that is what you meant I suggest you take a look. And I mean everything as in every single Pope. You may come to realise that this “we have a direct line” is actually not that proven. And rather concerning if I were “you”.

Regards

I’m referring to the seat of Peter and the Magisterium. They exist in an unbroken line since the Apostles. The unity of the Church is manifest in the Councils called to strive for orthodoxy and agreement, that began with the Council of Jerusalem founded on the ‘pillars’.

 

[mcq72]

In your view of church one can agree. As a matter of fact many, such as Mormons and JW’s, rely on it and even take it to another level, a level you continue to justify for them because there is no visible infallible authority to correct them. Whats good for your goose is equally good for their gander. The more you fight aginst a visible authority the more you justify not only your position but their positions as well.

Agree, wouldn’t have it any other way…can’t force truth on anyone…there is freedom of conscience, even of religion…i don’t need such an infallible authority to justify myself over others who hold to error. The wheat is quite substantial in of itself , even amongst the tares.

but we do have an infallible Shepherd , and the Holy Spirit, and His Word. We do have a standard to bear against false teaching. I and you are not toothless in testifying against JW’s or Mormons etc., and really any error , even amongst ourselves. Just don’t feel we need an infallible office to that end, and don’t feel it is any more efficient , nor wise to presume such thing.

 

[guanophore]

Just don’t feel we need an infallible office to that end, and don’t feel it is any more efficient , nor wise to presume such thing.

Jesus did not establish things that were unnecessary. The gift of infallibility was given by Christ to protect His teaching, not some “office”. It prevents the Church from falling into error, which would cause the members of the Church to pass through the gates of hell.

 

[mcq72]

The gift of infallibility was given by Christ to protect His teaching, not some “office”.

No one has said infallibility is to protect an office. What was posted is that the office is infallible, and as you say, when "protecting Christ’s teaching ". The "office’’, the seat of Peter, the pope , posses infallibility to your stated end. Of course there is more, but that is a basic beginning of any such dialogue.

 

[mcq72]

Jesus did not establish things that were unnecessary.The gift of infallibility was given by Christ to protect His teaching, not some “office”

Understand , thank you. Obviously we question not the necessity to protect His teaching, but the method, in this case.

God has presented His Word since the beginning, and seems like He did not need an infallible office. Office(s) , magisterium, yes. Infallible ? Yet the Christ child came right on time, as promised and taught since the fall (and not without challenges). I would think the Bride, the church , will be delivered pure and right on time, as promised and taught also (and not without challenges), at His
second coming. His Word (teaching) is protected in OT as in NT, the OT as prototype.

 

[guanophore]

i don’t need such an infallible authority to justify myself over others who hold to error

The purpose of the gift is not to justify oneself over others, either. Perhaps you have never been embroiled in a heresy like Gnostisism or Arianism, which took over as much as 80% of Christendom. It has certainly been necessary, throughout the history of the Church, to have an infallible authority. This does not just function in the person who is the successor of Peter, but also the councils. Most Christians accept the products of the first 7 councils as infallible teaching (like the Trinity, hypostatic union, dyotheletism, Theotokos, etc.).

God has presented His Word since the beginning, and seems like He did not need an infallible office.

Yes we will agree that he has protected His Word from the beginning. He established several avenues of expressing it, such as the prophets. He commissioned Moses to write the law, and stated that the “seat of Moses” was in the hands of the Sanhedrin. He enjoined the Jews to follow what they said, not what they do, demonstrating that teaching can be infallibly preserved even if men go astray.

Office(s) , magisterium, yes. Infallible ?

Not everything done by the Magesterium is infallible, either. There are very strict conditions.

I would think the Bride, the church , will be delivered pure and right on time, as promised and taught also (and not without challenges), at His second coming.

Indeed, Maranatha! But He prayed that we would have unity on earth before that time, and left instruction as to how this was to occur.

His Word (teaching) is protected in OT as in NT, the OT as prototype.

Indeed Jesus affirmed that the Septuagint is the Word of God. He has vouchsafed the Holy Scriptures, despite the efforts of the Pagan Roman Empire to eliminate them.

The problem lies in the interpretation of those Holy Writings. The Holy Spirit does not lead one person in one direction, and another in an opposite direction. One of the most important duties of the infallible authority is to provide a framework for rightly understanding the Holy Scripture.