Protestants: How Do You Know That Your Interpretation of the Bible is the Right one? Part II

[agbasinger]

Please, agbasinger, find where I have said Catholics are going to hell, are not Christians, or are an apostate church, and then when you don’t find these things, feel free to retract your statement comparing me to Jack Chick.

No humor, eh?

You win, ckempston. I cannot find where you have said that Catholics are going to hell, are not Christians, are an apostate church.

I was not comparing you to Jack Chick. I was asking if you are Jack Chick.

 

[JRKH]

Hello, JRKH IMHO ckempston is doing a fine job and I have been enjoying this thread…however, I thought I would add a short bit.
As far as I know there is no Magisterium that determines what is the correct interpretation of history/historical documents, but that doesn’t prevent one historian from arguing that another historian’s interpretation is wrong. Likewise, I am still able to argue that your interpretation (or the RCC’s interpretation) of scripture is wrong…I just won’t claim that I possess infallibility when doing so.

Are you sure you do not claim infallibility when you tell me I am wrong?
Why would you want to tell me I am wrong when you do not know that you are right? Unless you are 100% convinced that you are infallibly correct in your interpretation then you risk your soul and mine by trying to convince me that I am wrong.
If you admit that you could be wrong (not claim infallibility) then you should be actively seeking that truth that you can accept “infallibly”, which leads to the next section which you addressed.

I think you should do better than this James…it sounds as if you are suggesting that SS can only be held by the unintelligent or by those that ignore the differences between protestant beliefs. That thought might be comforting, but it is hardly valid.

You are right and perhaps I should not have phrased it that way. I know many wonderful and dedicated non-catholics who are highly intelligent. But they are also blinded by the inconsistancies of SS doctrine.

Let me see if I can explain it this way:
God is One and Has One Holy Spirit.
We Basically have One Holy Bible that we Adhere to as “God Breathed”
Christ Founded One Church which was to be Guided by the Holy Spirit.

For 1500 years this Church, guided by the Holy Spirit and using Biblical Scripture for 1000 of those years maintained a consistant doctrinal base, and basic unity. (though ckempson argues this:shrug but even if we allow for variations within the church we don’t have more than 30 or so variations.

Once the Teaching Authority was taken from the Church and placed in the individual with a Bible, the splitting began in earnest and the longer it goes on the more splits there are over doctrinal issues.

Now lets get back to the original statement above that God has One Holy Spirit.
Would that Holy Spirit inspire thousands of different sets and subsets of “Christianity”?

This is what many non-catholics are coming to wonder about. How can all these different theologies all be “Bible Based” and yet right? And if not right the who is wrong and how do I tell. Thus it is that the issue always comes back to authority.

Christ Gave us that Authority in the Church.
Did you know that the word “Church” is used only 2 times in the Gospels and both times by Christ and both times it was to grant Authority?? (Mt 16: 18-19 and Mt: 15-18)
Members of the early Church then recorded some of the teachings of Christ and the Apostles.
The Church then compiled these NT writings along with the appropriate books of the OT into the Bible we have today.
Why would anyone think that The Church would,

1. Include anything in the Bible that contradicted Church teaching, or
2. Assemble the Bible with the idea that it should, could, would be used outside of the Apostolic authority and Tradition of the Church that The Bible itself attests to?

The SS idea may have been a noble experiment in trusting the Holy Spirit, but it seems obvious that, as a Doctrine it is a failure for there is no accountability and no authority.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

You believe what the church tells you to believe. Or are you speaking hypothetically here?

Sure I can.

Is this your personal interpretation of the situation?

Just to be clear, you will note by my profile that I am a revert to catholicism. That means that I have been outside the Church and looked around. The reasons I have come to the conclusions I have are because they are biblically sound and clearly spelled out.

The church is all baptized believers and any gathering of the same. I’ve proven that Catholics are wrong in their understanding of church, and that I, and all Baptized believers, are a part of it regardless of what the Pope says.

Actually The Church teaches that anyone who is properly baptized, that is a trinitarian baptism is, in fact a member of the Body of Christ. So we are part of the same Church. So Catholics are NOT wrong in their understanding of “Church” as being the Body of believers.
Where you are wrong is in assuming that it is ONLY the “Body of Believers” and nothing else. The Unitexd States is a “Body of Citizens” without that body there is no country. Yet the United States is Also a Government. It is also Law enforcement through a judicial system that can say that one is right and another wrong.
Your definition of Church simply does not EXCLUDE Earthly Authority. You exlude that by your erronious and restrictive interpretation of the term.

Apples and oranges. “The Church” proper is all baptized believers. The church locally is a gathering of the same (Baptized believers). This definition is consistent with the New Testament usage, unlike the Catholic definition.

See Above, they are not mutually exlusive

So, Antioch should have dealt with the issue of mosaic law locally instead of refering it to the Church at Jerusalem. Should the Local decision then been binding upon ALL the Believers?
(And by they way I assume that we both agree that spreading a false doctrine is a sin)

You’re totally misrepresenting my position.

I don’t see how. You used the term “ALL”.

So you are willing to accept that ALL doesn’t necessarily mean ALL. It could mean a representative group.
It could mean that, since we cannot gather ALL believers together, the local community is sufficiant to deal with an issue. Or, by extension, that representatives of local communites could represent their respective local communities in a council, or even that Bishops of local communities could meet and resolve issues of teaching and doctrine that effect ALL of the faithful.
Would you accept this idea?
And if you do, would you accept the Idea that decision made by such councils would be binding upon ALL the local communities?

Christ was not telling us anything, for one. He was telling the Apostles. If the Apostles had authority to bind and loose in Christ’s name, what on earth would they go to someone else for? They wouldn’t. Christ is talking about shaming a person publicly before a gathered group of believers to try to get them to repent.

Are you sure???
What if the “gathered group of Believers” sides both ways. That is, what if 60% think your right and 40% think I’m right, and no amount of explaining or debating changes the opinions or percentages, what then???

So, Jesus told the Apostles to take it before the church, and the Apostles in obeying Jesus took the matter before…themselves. yeah, that makes tons of sense!

Sure does. They took issues before themselves in council. Just as has been done many times down through the centuries when great issues stand before the Church. They meet, discuss and debate and pray and discern. Then a decsion is reached and ALL then “listen to the church” and submit any personal opinions to the greater Good in Christ.

Peace
James

 

[ckempston]

Are you sure you do not claim infallibility when you tell me I am wrong?
Why would you want to tell me I am wrong when you do not know that you are right? Unless you are 100% convinced that you are infallibly correct in your interpretation then you risk your soul and mine by trying to convince me that I am wrong.
If you admit that you could be wrong (not claim infallibility) then you should be actively seeking that truth that you can accept “infallibly”, which leads to the next section which you addressed.

You are right and perhaps I should not have phrased it that way. I know many wonderful and dedicated non-catholics who are highly intelligent. But they are also blinded by the inconsistancies of SS doctrine.

I know many wonderful and dedicated Catholics who are highly intelligent, but they are blinded by the inconsistencies of the Magesterium.

Let me see if I can explain it this way:
God is One and Has One Holy Spirit.
We Basically have One Holy Bible that we Adhere to as “God Breathed”
Christ Founded One Church which was to be Guided by the Holy Spirit.

For 1500 years this Church, guided by the Holy Spirit and using Biblical Scripture for 1000 of those years maintained a consistant doctrinal base, and basic unity. (though ckempson argues this:shrug but even if we allow for variations within the church we don’t have more than 30 or so variations.

ckempston argues it because it’s patently false. When was the first antipope? And I had to laugh at that one - “we don’t have more than 30 or so variation.” ROTFL!!!

Once the Teaching Authority was taken from the Church and placed in the individual with a Bible, the splitting began in earnest and the longer it goes on the more splits there are over doctrinal issues.

Now lets get back to the original statement above that God has One Holy Spirit.
Would that Holy Spirit inspire thousands of different sets and subsets of “Christianity”?

This is what many non-catholics are coming to wonder about. How can all these different theologies all be “Bible Based” and yet right? And if not right the who is wrong and how do I tell. Thus it is that the issue always comes back to authority.

One, or all, of them are wrong. That’s axiomatic. There is one truth, and it is not dependent upon our belief in it.

Christ Gave us that Authority in the Church.
Did you know that the word “Church” is used only 2 times in the Gospels and both times by Christ and both times it was to grant Authority?? (Mt 16: 18-19 and Mt: 15-18)
Members of the early Church then recorded some of the teachings of Christ and the Apostles.

When does someone become a member of the church in the Bible?

The Church then compiled these NT writings along with the appropriate books of the OT into the Bible we have today.
Why would anyone think that The Church would,

1. Include anything in the Bible that contradicted Church teaching, or
2. Assemble the Bible with the idea that it should, could, would be used outside of the Apostolic authority and Tradition of the Church that The Bible itself attests to?

The SS idea may have been a noble experiment in trusting the Holy Spirit, but it seems obvious that, as a Doctrine it is a failure for there is no accountability and no authority.

Peace
James

It does indeed seem to be a failure, which would explain the number of reverts/converts from the various Protestant faiths, which is a fairly good argument for Catholicism. Catholicism, however, is not without its problems, even in regard to authority.

 

[SteveGC]

Good posts, James.

Let me also say something about “proof”, which some here seem to think they can offer.

No one can “prove” anything so long as there is no acknowledgement of infallibility. Infallible means incapable of falsely teaching faith and morals. Both sides must acknowledge the infallible nature of a lone arbitrator. If none do, or if only one does, proof ceases to be a possibility.

The only thing that can exist is salesmanship and persuasion. The only way an acknowledger of infallibility can be persuaded against their previous belief is if they disavow their belief in infallibility. The denier of infallibility can be swayed by either a persuasive argument, or an acknowledgement of infallibility, or both.

If both become acknowledgers of infallibility, “proof” begins to be possible, for it is acknowledged that Truth in fact does reside on earth somewhere to be found, and when it is referenced for conflict, proof emerges for one side, or the other.

The Bible itself is only infallible inasmuch as it’s interpretation is shown to be infallible. So, it is humans that possess infallibility. If there are no humans with infallibility, then all of Christendom is just a chaotic mess of hoping we’re right, and convincing “arguments” and insightful debates, clever verse picking. At the end of the day, and at the end of all time, without infallible humans, Christianity remains forever divided, scattered about the earth in an mess of like-minded groups who hope and pray that they understand what being a Christian is all about, and what is required for salvation, but never really knowing for sure.

This isn’t the way Christianity is supposed to be. We are not supposed to have to work this hard to KNOW what being Christian entails, or to KNOW what is required for salvation. The KNOWING has been provided since Pentecost - we don’t have to go digging around Scripture for it. The hard part is supposed to be DOING what is entailed to be a Christian, and DOING what it takes to be saved. As soon as we deny infallibility this side of heaven, we unnecessarily double our burden by erasing revealed Truth, and endlessly, futilely attempting to reinvent the wheel.

God Bless

 

[ckempston]

Just to be clear, you will note by my profile that I am a revert to catholicism. That means that I have been outside the Church and looked around. The reasons I have come to the conclusions I have are because they are biblically sound and clearly spelled out.

Except for the one that “all truth” was revealed to the Apostles and did not continue to grow over the centuries. Missed that little snag, eh?

Actually The Church teaches that anyone who is properly baptized, that is a trinitarian baptism is, in fact a member of the Body of Christ. So we are part of the same Church. So Catholics are NOT wrong in their understanding of “Church” as being the Body of believers.

You miss the point. You can’t be a part of the Body without being a part of the Church. You cannot be “imperfectly” a part of the church. You either are, or you are not.

Where you are wrong is in assuming that it is ONLY the “Body of Believers” and nothing else. The Unitexd States is a “Body of Citizens” without that body there is no country. Yet the United States is Also a Government. It is also Law enforcement through a judicial system that can say that one is right and another wrong.
Your definition of Church simply does not EXCLUDE Earthly Authority. You exlude that by your erronious and restrictive interpretation of the term.

The United States has a government, it IS not a government. By interpretation is Biblical. Yours is not.

See Above, they are not mutually exlusive

If you claim someone can be a member of the Body of Christ and at the same time not a member of the Church, then yes, they are mutually exclusive.

So, Antioch should have dealt with the issue of mosaic law locally instead of refering it to the Church at Jerusalem. Should the Local decision then been binding upon ALL the Believers?
(And by they way I assume that we both agree that spreading a false doctrine is a sin)

Your problem is that you are connecting two scriptures that have no connection. Jesus told the Apostles how they should deal with sin: Privately, in a small group, and then public humiliation. In the other Scripture, we’re not talking about sin, but a doctrinal issue. You are misapplying the passage.

I don’t see how. You used the term “ALL”.

So you are willing to accept that ALL doesn’t necessarily mean ALL. It could mean a representative group.
It could mean that, since we cannot gather ALL believers together, the local community is sufficiant to deal with an issue. Or, by extension, that representatives of local communites could represent their respective local communities in a council, or even that Bishops of local communities could meet and resolve issues of teaching and doctrine that effect ALL of the faithful.
Would you accept this idea?
And if you do, would you accept the Idea that decision made by such councils would be binding upon ALL the local communities?

All means all, and no. The decision was binding because it was made by Apostles, not because it was some special council.

Are you sure???
What if the “gathered group of Believers” sides both ways. That is, what if 60% think your right and 40% think I’m right, and no amount of explaining or debating changes the opinions or percentages, what then???

Again, you are confusing doctrine (which is what the Jerusalem council was about) and sin, which is what Jesus was instructing the Apostles about. Are you understanding now?

Sure does. They took issues before themselves in council. Just as has been done many times down through the centuries when great issues stand before the Church. They meet, discuss and debate and pray and discern. Then a decsion is reached and ALL then “listen to the church” and submit any personal opinions to the greater Good in Christ.

Wrong again. You are confusing doctrine (council) and sin (what Jesus was addressing).

 

[ckempston]

Good posts, James.

Let me also say something about “proof”, which some here seem to think they can offer.

No one can “prove” anything so long as there is no acknowledgement of infallibility. Infallible means incapable of falsely teaching faith and morals. Both sides must acknowledge the infallible nature of a lone arbitrator. If none do, or if only one does, proof ceases to be a possibility.

Wrong. People prove things all the time. We can prove many things using deductive reasoning, and be reasonably sure of most other things using inductive reasoning.

Socrates is a man.
All men are mortal.
Socrates is mortal.

BAM! Out of the park! If you accept the premises, the conclusion follows. PROOF!

The only thing that can exist is salesmanship and persuasion. The only way an acknowledger of infallibility can be persuaded against their previous belief is if they disavow their belief in infallibility. The denier of infallibility can be swayed by either a persuasive argument, or an acknowledgement of infallibility, or both.

If both become acknowledgers of infallibility, “proof” begins to be possible, for it is acknowledged that Truth in fact does reside on earth somewhere to be found, and when it is referenced for conflict, proof emerges for one side, or the other.

The Bible itself is only infallible inasmuch as it’s interpretation is shown to be infallible. So, it is humans that possess infallibility. If there are no humans with infallibility, then all of Christendom is just a chaotic mess of hoping we’re right, and convincing “arguments” and insightful debates, clever verse picking. At the end of the day, and at the end of all time, without infallible humans, Christianity remains forever divided, scattered about the earth in an mess of like-minded groups who hope and pray that they understand what being a Christian is all about, and what is required for salvation, but never really knowing for sure.

This isn’t the way Christianity is supposed to be. We are supposed to have to work this hard to KNOW what being Christian entails, or to KNOW what is required for salvation. The KNOWING has been provided since Pentecost - we don’t have to go digging around Scripture for it. The hard part is supposed to be DOING what is entailed to be a Christian, and DOING what it takes to be saved. As soon as we deny infallibility this side of heaven, we unnecessarily double our burden by erasing revealed Truth, and endlessly, futilely attempting to reinvent the wheel.

God Bless

 

[MrS]

Wrong. People prove things all the time. We can prove many things using deductive reasoning, and be reasonably sure of most other things using inductive reasoning.

Socrates is a man.
All men are mortal.
Socrates is mortal.

BAM! Out of the park! If you accept the premises, the conclusion follows. PROOF!

Protestants left the One Church founded by Jesus and reject some of His Truth.
Those who reject Jesus and ALL that He taught are not fully Christian.
Protestants are not fully Christian.

BAM!

Of course you are still reverting to something. The question then is what are you reverting from? (besides authority that is, since anyone can see that in your posts)

.

 

[ckempston]

Protestants left the One Church founded by Jesus and reject some of His Truth.
Those who reject Jesus and ALL that He taught are not fully Christian.
Protestants are not fully Christian.

Well, Premise 1 is not true, so your argument doesn’t work. It may have been true of Martin Luther and others like him, but it is not true of most Christians today. Most of them grew up in this or that church and never “left” anything. You also equivocate and have four (or more) terms in your syllogism.

BAM!

Of course you are still reverting to something. The question then is what are you reverting from? (besides authority that is, since anyone can see that in your posts)

.

Believe it or not, I submit to authority from the leaders of my current church and my fellow Christians “out of reverence for Christ” and to “maintain unity through the bond of peace.” Of course, if they started saying we’re going to start sacrificing chickens at Sunday service, I would reject that authority.

 

[SteveGC]

Wrong. People prove things all the time. We can prove many things using deductive reasoning, and be reasonably sure of most other things using inductive reasoning.

Socrates is a man.
All men are mortal.
Socrates is mortal.

BAM! Out of the park! If you accept the premises, the conclusion follows. PROOF!

Your Socrates example is not proof, it is convincing deductive reasoning, which is not the same thing. Not to me, anyway. Just because I can follow your logic, and I agree with it, doesn’t mean you just “proved” Socrates was mortal. It means I’m convinced that Socrates was mortal. Am I stating that infallibly? No. Could I be wrong? Yes. Why? Because I am not gifted with infallible truth. My ungifted logic could be proven wrong. By whom? By God, or someone to whom He has gifted with infallibility, which I acknowledge. This is the type of proof I am speaking of. We’re not talking about a convincing set of premises which lead to a convincing conclusion. We’re talking about absolute Truth.

 

[ckempston]

Your Socrates example is not proof, it is convincing deductive reasoning, which is not the same thing. Not to me, anyway. Just because I can follow your logic, and I agree with it, doesn’t mean you just “proved” Socrates was mortal. It means I’m convinced that Socrates was mortal. Am I stating that infallibly? No. Could I be wrong? Yes. Why? Because I am not gifted with infallible truth. My ungifted logic could be proven wrong. By whom? By God, or someone to whom He has gifted with infallibility, which I acknowledge. This is the type of proof I am speaking of. We’re not talking about a convincing set of premises which lead to a convincing conclusion. We’re talking about absolute Truth.

If this is your position, then you have a poor understanding of deductive logic, and are rejecting the very tool used by your Magesterium (well, sometimes) to explain certain doctrines.

In syllogistic logic, if the premises are true, and the form is valid, it is said to be a “sound” argument and is therefore true becaue the conclusion necessarily follows. This is “proof” in every sense of the word because we agree upon the premises, and put them in the correct form then it “proves” the conclusion.

iep.utm.edu/v/val-snd.htm

 

[ckempston]

This has been loads of fun, but I’m going out of town for a few days, and probably won’t be checking in. I know you’ll all be heartbroken, but don’t worry, I’ll be back.

 

[SteveGC]

If this is your position, then you have a poor understanding of deductive logic, and are rejecting the very tool used by your Magesterium (well, sometimes) to explain certain doctrines.

In syllogistic logic, if the premises are true, and the form is valid, it is said to be a “sound” argument and is therefore true becaue the conclusion necessarily follows. This is “proof” in every sense of the word because we agree upon the premises, and put them in the correct form then it “proves” the conclusion.

iep.utm.edu/v/val-snd.htm

Ok. I’ll concede that. And I’ll concede that you’ve proven Socrates mortality to me. But in this discussion of Christian authority, we DON’T agree with the premises. You can never arrive at “proof” without agreement on the premises which deductively, logically explain things. IOW, you’re reasoning is unreasonable to me. Your logic is illogical to me. And of course, vice versa. This is why you cannot prove anything you state here. Not one thing. Not until you provide us with reasonable, logical premises. Don’t worry, we obviously haven’t been successful in doing that for you, either. My point is, proof eludes this debate, because (again) one or both parties denies infallibility in the matter.

God Bless. Safe travels.

 

[JRKH]

Except for the one that “all truth” was revealed to the Apostles and did not continue to grow over the centuries. Missed that little snag, eh?

That is your interpretation.
All Truth has been revealed to the Apostles and Handed down to us through The Church which Christ Intitutied.

You miss the point. You can’t be a part of the Body without being a part of the Church. You cannot be “imperfectly” a part of the church. You either are, or you are not.

You missed teh Point - the term Church can have different meanings and implications depending on when and how itis used.

The United States has a government, it IS not a government. By interpretation is Biblical. Yours is not.

No Difference here. If I say “US Senate” you know I mean THE senate of THE United States of America. If I Say “Magisterium” you know I am refering to the Teaching Arm of The Church.
The Church, just like the US, HAS a both a body and a governing body. There is no problem here except that you will not acept it.

If you claim someone can be a member of the Body of Christ and at the same time not a member of the Church, then yes, they are mutually exclusive.

I do nto claim that a person can be a memeber of the Body of Christ and not be a member of the church. However there are many members of the church who, by refusing to acknowledge and obey the rightful representatives of Christ’s kingodm on earth, seterate themselves from full communion in that church.

Your problem is that you are connecting two scriptures that have no connection. Jesus told the Apostles how they should deal with sin: Privately, in a small group, and then public humiliation. In the other Scripture, we’re not talking about sin, but a doctrinal issue. You are misapplying the passage.

Not at all, unless you are saying that the spreading of false doctrine is not a sin.
You are incorrectly restricting the passage in a way that was not intended.
If you look at Mt 16, Mt 18, and Acts 15 together, a clear picture emerges as I tried to demonstrate. The Church holds the keys. We are to tell it to the Church. The decision of the Church is final. It is bound on earth and in heaven.

All means all, and no. The decision was binding because it was made by Apostles, not because it was some special council.

Simple denial and refusal to look at the facts as they exist.

Again, you are confusing doctrine (which is what the Jerusalem council was about) and sin, which is what Jesus was instructing the Apostles about. Are you understanding now?

Wrong again. You are confusing doctrine (council) and sin (what Jesus was addressing).

Teaching and spreading false Doctrine IS Sin. Are you Understanding now?

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

This has been loads of fun, but I’m going out of town for a few days, and probably won’t be checking in. I know you’ll all be heartbroken, but don’t worry, I’ll be back.

Have a good and safe Trip.
May angels watch over you.
You are a good debator and I believe that, Like Paul, once you are convinced of the Church’s True position, you will be a powerful Apologist for the Catholic faith. Not unlike Dr Scott Hahn and others.

Peace
James

 

[ckempston]

Ok. I’ll concede that. And I’ll concede that you’ve proven Socrates mortality to me. But in this discussion of Christian authority, we DON’T agree with the premises. You can never arrive at “proof” without agreement on the premises which deductively, logically explain things. IOW, you’re reasoning is unreasonable to me. Your logic is illogical to me. And of course, vice versa. This is why you cannot prove anything you state here. Not one thing. Not until you provide us with reasonable, logical premises. Don’t worry, we obviously haven’t been successful in doing that for you, either. My point is, proof eludes this debate, because (again) one or both parties denies infallibility in the matter.

God Bless. Safe travels.

I agree that we have to agree upon the premises, but papal infallability is not arrived at by deduction as far as I know. If it was, I would believe it without question. In fact, I’d be interested in seeing any attempts at doing so.

Thanks, I’m outta here!

 

[ckempston]

Last post! A quicky!

That is your interpretation.
All Truth has been revealed to the Apostles and Handed down to us through The Church which Christ Intitutied.

Somewhat agree.

You missed teh Point - the term Church can have different meanings and implications depending on when and how itis used.

Also agree. So, what are they?

No Difference here. If I say “US Senate” you know I mean THE senate of THE United States of America. If I Say “Magisterium” you know I am refering to the Teaching Arm of The Church.

But it is not the “whole” church, i.e. it is not an interchangeable word.

The Church, just like the US, HAS a both a body and a governing body. There is no problem here except that you will not acept it.

But neither of them are equivalent to the other, nor are they equivalent to the whole.

I do nto claim that a person can be a memeber of the Body of Christ and not be a member of the church. However there are many members of the church who, by refusing to acknowledge and obey the rightful representatives of Christ’s kingodm on earth, seterate themselves from full communion in that church.

This is exactly what I am saying there is no such thing as: you’re either in the church, or not. You can’t be in partial communion. You either are, or you are not. That’s like saying you’re part Christian and part Muslim.

Not at all, unless you are saying that the spreading of false doctrine is not a sin.
You are incorrectly restricting the passage in a way that was not intended.
If you look at Mt 16, Mt 18, and Acts 15 together, a clear picture emerges as I tried to demonstrate. The Church holds the keys. We are to tell it to the Church. The decision of the Church is final. It is bound on earth and in heaven.

Of course it is. I’ll ponder that fact over the weekend.

Simple denial and refusal to look at the facts as they exist.

So if a bunch of Christians just get together they can bind things on all other Christians? The nature of the council was authoritative by virtue of its members.

Teaching and spreading false Doctrine IS Sin. Are you Understanding now?

As I said, I’ll look at that.

 

[MrS]

Well, Premise 1 is not true, so your argument doesn’t work. It may have been true of Martin Luther and others like him, but it is not true of most Christians today. Most of them grew up in this or that church and never “left” anything. You also equivocate and have four (or more) terms in your syllogism.

Believe it or not, I submit to authority from the leaders of my current church and my fellow Christians “out of reverence for Christ” and to “maintain unity through the bond of peace.” Of course, if they started saying we’re going to start sacrificing chickens at Sunday service, I would reject that authority.

Why, now you have something against chickens too?



.

 

[JRKH]

For the benefit of others following the conversation,

Also agree. So, what are they?

Where Christ is confering authority, Bind and loose he is refering obvioulsy to an “authority group” and not to every single deciple.
When the Apostles commissioned Bishops in the various Churches by the laying on of hands and invoking The Holy Spirit, they confirred this same authority to bind and loose on them. Thus, the beginnings of Apostolic succession.

But it is not the “whole” church, i.e. it is not an interchangeable word.

But neither of them are equivalent to the other, nor are they equivalent to the whole.

I agree that there can be differences because the two entities are not identical. The US is a democracy and The Church is a Kingdom.
And yet the US government is able to pass “Laws” in the name of the entire population and those laws are Binding on the whole population.

This is exactly what I am saying there is no such thing as: you’re either in the church, or not. You can’t be in partial communion. You either are, or you are not. That’s like saying you’re part Christian and part Muslim.

Frankly this will get into a whole other set of details that I am not qualified to address.

So if a bunch of Christians just get together they can bind things on all other Christians? The nature of the council was authoritative by virtue of its members.

Precisely - When a Council of the Church, attended by members who are duly ordained successors of the Apostles with the Authority to “Bind and Loose - whatever”, it is authoritative by virtue of its members.

Safe Trip

Peace
James

 

[Radical]

Are you sure you do not claim infallibility when you tell me I am wrong?

Absolutely, …the one thing I can do with infallibility is to know what I am thinking.

Why would you want to tell me I am wrong when you do not know that you are right?

I understand that you are using “know” to mean absolute 100% certainty. Humans, by nature are fallible, and therefore, if we only acted when we possessed infallibility we wouldn’t get much, if anything, done. We empower judges to interpret our laws, but only a fool would think any human judge is infallible in his decisions regarding those laws….but we have to function with our limitations.

Unless you are 100% convinced that you are infallibly correct in your interpretation then you risk your soul and mine by trying to convince me that I am wrong.

…and if I am 99% (or even 70%) sure that I am right, should I not declare what I believe to be true?

If you admit that you could be wrong (not claim infallibility)…

I would suggest that infallibility with respect to doctrine is something that can only be granted by God and I do not claim to have received that gift from God (and see no reason to believe that it is possessed by the RCC).

Let me see if I can explain it this way:
God is One and Has One Holy Spirit.
We Basically have One Holy Bible that we Adhere to as “God Breathed”
Christ Founded One Church which was to be Guided by the Holy Spirit.

agreed…it seems that you understand that its hierarchy (as identified by you) is gifted with infallibility with respect to its official doctrine (with any bad doctrine put forward by any member of the hierarchy being dismissed as unofficial), but not with respect to its conduct. I see guidance, but don’t see an infallible gifting.

For 1500 years this Church, guided by the Holy Spirit and using Biblical Scripture for 1000 of those years maintained a consistant doctrinal base, and basic unity.

I would say that for 1500 years this Church, guided by the Holy Spirit and using Biblical Scripture for the whole time maintained a consistent doctrinal base (wrt the original deposit), and basic unity, but during that time uninspired additions were made to that original deposit of faith. I say the “whole time” b/c the OT was always there and used and Paul’s epistles, for example, were there nearly from the very start and were immediately recognized as authoritative (their recognition as God’s Word did not make them God’s Word)

Once the Teaching Authority was taken from the Church and placed in the individual with a Bible, the splitting began in earnest and the longer it goes on the more splits there are over doctrinal issues.

This is indeed an unfortunate reality. Splits have occurred over ridiculous details. That being said, if one recognizes that membership in the body of Christ is determined by the presence of the Holy Spirit and not by complete agreement on doctrine, then those disagreements only result in a physical and not a spiritual split in the body of Christ.

Now lets get back to the original statement above that God has One Holy Spirit.
Would that Holy Spirit inspire thousands of different sets and subsets of “Christianity”?

I don’t believe splits are inspired.

Christ Gave us that Authority in the Church.

and as long as you define Church as being those indwelt by the Holy Spirit

Did you know that the word “Church” is used only 2 times in the Gospels and both times by Christ and both times it was to grant Authority?? (Mt 16: 18-19 and Mt: 15-18)

you mean 18:17

Members of the early Church then recorded some of the teachings of Christ and the Apostles.

I would say that the apostles (or those directed by the apostles) recorded some of the teachings of Christ and the Apostles and that the early church preserved those writings.

The Church then compiled these NT writings along with the appropriate books of the OT into the Bible we have today.

I would say that the church then relied upon and took from the Jews what the Jews recognized as God’s Word. Within the church there is not a complete consensus as to what the Jews treated as scripture at the time of Christ and therefore slightly different OT canons exist. The church also considered the writings that it had and determined which of those writings possessed apostolic authority. This was rather easy in most cases (for example, Paul wrote a letter to the Corinthians which was immediately recognized as being from an apostle and was circulated and accepted on that basis). It should be noted that by recognizing something as scripture the early church recognized that writing as having an authority that non-scripture did not possess.

Why would anyone think that The Church would, 1) Include anything in the Bible that contradicted Church teaching, or…

or why would the church stray from or add to a teaching contained in a letter it received from an apostle? …one way would be to assume that its uninspired additions were inspired.

1. Assemble the Bible with the idea that it should, could, would be used outside of the Apostolic authority and Tradition of the Church that The Bible itself attests to?

I understand apostolic authority to be an authority that is inspired and therefore infallible. Paul’s epistles possessed that authority with or without recognition by the church. 1st Clement does not claim to possess that authority nor has it been given that authority. 1st Clement is part of a body of tradition that has less authority than scripture. Jesus taught people directly and not only through the filter of some hierarchy. Likewise the Holy Spirit continues to teach people directly and not through the filter of some hierarchy. B/c fallible humans are involved, mistakes happen. That will be the way it is until we see face to face.

The SS idea may have been a noble experiment in trusting the Holy Spirit, but it seems obvious that, as a Doctrine it is a failure for there is no accountability and no authority.

Accountability would be to God and to fellow Christians. Infallible authority would be possessed by God and his Word alone. Fallible authority would be possessed by the church and those holding positions of authority within it. I would suggest that the actual problem remains that those with fallible authority act as if they possess infallible authority. Those that sat in the “seat of Moses” possessed fallible authority and by thinking too much of their interpretation placed a yoke upon the children of God.

Peace