D
DavWan
Guest
Alternately, nothing gets through your denial.
Slinging verses doesn’t mean much if you can’t prove that was how it was always interpreted.
Indeed, we could argue that you are living up to Matt 7:3-5
- Status
Slinging verses doesn’t mean much if you can’t prove that was how it was always interpreted.
Indeed, we could argue that you are living up to Matt 7:3-5
M
Malachi_18
Guest
You could well be right. It could also apply to you.Alternately, nothing gets through your denial.
Slinging verses doesn’t mean much if you can’t prove that was how it was always interpreted.
Indeed, we could argue that you are living up to Matt 7:3-5
I believe it is better to teach from the Bible than to teach from the commentaries.
D
DavWan
Guest
But what guarantee do we have that you interpret the Bible accurately? Because you say so? No thanks.
If someone wants to argue the Catholics “corrupted” the teachings of Christianity, let him or her show evidence of how the Scriptures were originally understood.
This is not putting commentaries above the Bible. It is evidence of what was believed.
M
Malachi_18
Guest
John 14:26
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
This means that your church and its magisterium are not the final word.
The Holy Spirit teaches individuals (anyone who diligently seeks), not just priests, bishops, and popes.
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
This means that your church and its magisterium are not the final word.
The Holy Spirit teaches individuals (anyone who diligently seeks), not just priests, bishops, and popes.
D
Daniel_Keeran
Guest
Does anyone have a chronological listing of papal literature from Peter to Damasus? Such a central position of teaching authority would surely have made pronouncements preserved by the church in this period as was the New Testament from the beginning.
D
Deconi
Guest
Thank you, ‘ex-p.’
Of course you are correct on all fronts. My point, however, is that of all the authors of Scriptures, we rely on The Church’s decision on the list of the canon, in order to accept it as being ‘Authored’ by Our Maker!
BUT in Mat.16…we have a unique situation. God Himself, certifies Infallibility by verifying it, and EXPLAINING for us how it works!
He confirms that His Father ‘INTERFERED’ with Peter’s mind in order to reveal to Peter, His True Identity!
As memory serves me, it is the only time God (Christ) verifies infallibility in this manner! His Father is speaks Infallibly. Yet Peter’s lips speak the words. Therefore, at that moment, Peter’s words are Infallible!
Having indentified His choice, before the rest of his brethren, Peter is chosen, renamed, and The Church to be built on him.
The Keys of Heaven are also given to him; NOT to any of the others!
Christ said the Holy Spirit, being sent, will guide The Church into all truths! The bishops of The Church all have this guidance, yet Councils are convened to settle various issues throughout history! We also see various Sees and locales appeal to Rome from period to period! Is The Holy Spirit not guiding correctly?
Most Protestants believe and accuse The Pope of claiming Infallibility continuously, because of that passage! They then point to the faults of Peter as the anti-argument!
We undersand more of it! The guidance of God (Holy Spirit) on the whole church universal, like the rest of the Apostles gathered at Mat.16, does not include Divine Interference on anyone else, except one, Peter!
There is NO QUESTION that Peter spoke Infallibly, because Christ PROVED IT!
How does this infallibility come to be transferable through the lineage of The Papacy? Well, some need more homework time…
D
Deconi
Guest
I wish you would listen to your own advice, Mal.
It isn’t just in what Peter says. The passage is about what Christ says!
M
Malachi_18
Guest
I realize that I will never convince any of you guys of anything. Nor will anything I say make any change in the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
The reason I am here, though, is to expose people to things that the Bible says, in the hopes that sooner or later someone somewhere will see the light. Not because I said it, but because the Holy Spirit confirmed it.
The reason I am here, though, is to expose people to things that the Bible says, in the hopes that sooner or later someone somewhere will see the light. Not because I said it, but because the Holy Spirit confirmed it.
G
GJx86
Guest
How do we distinguish those who diligently seek from those who don’t?
Lots of people claim to seek diligently, yet for every one who has diligently sought and affirmed X, there seems to be one who has affirmed not X.
Are you suggesting that God contradicts himself?
M
Malachi_18
Guest
Psalm 118:8 – It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
When you folks repeat the Roman Church’s teachings regarding Matthew 16:18 you tell me that the Roman Church would have us to believe that Jesus would put His confidence in man, when He expressly says that that is something that should not be done.
When you folks repeat the Roman Church’s teachings regarding Matthew 16:18 you tell me that the Roman Church would have us to believe that Jesus would put His confidence in man, when He expressly says that that is something that should not be done.
M
Malachi_18
Guest
A. We do not have to do the distinguishing.
B. Lots of people claim lots of things.
C. My point all along has been that God does not contradict himself.
G
GJx86
Guest
If one person believes that X is true, and another believes that X is not true, why should we believe one and not the other?
Clearly we can’t believe both X and ~X at the same time. And the Bible even says that we–no one else–are to “examine everything carefully” and to “hold fast to that which is good.”
Two people claim that God has privately taught them and kept them from error. They reach diametrically opposite conclusions. They cannot both be right. Which of the two is right? More importantly, how do you know that it is you and not the person across the table from you?
M
Malachi_18
Guest
Yes we are supposed to examine everything carefully (test the spirits is the way it is stated, I believe), but it is not our job to distinguish whether someone is a diligent seeker after God; that is God’s purvey.
I have not said that I have been kept from error, nor should you or anyone else think that I have.
Which of the two is right? If you are diligently seeking after God then He will show you the way. Maybe neither is right. Maybe there is a third (or Nth) option.
It would seem that the major part of discernment is being able to listen to God’s “still small voice,” even though it may contradict the way you’ve “always heard it should be.”
D
DavWan
Guest
I would agree and I remain a Catholic. Indeed, I remain a Catholic because I believe God does not contradict Himself… belief in Sola Scriptura and other Protestant claims would require me to believe God could contradict Himself.
Perhaps you should consider the possibility that some of us read the Scriptures and see what the Church teaches within?
Again, give us some demonstration that your interpretation of Scriptures is authentic… or do you claim for yourself an Infalibility you deny to the Popes?
Z
zach_dunn
Guest
You put your trust in the author of the Psalms, you also put your trust in all the other authors of the Bible, trusting that every thing they wrote is true. But that’s because they have a distinguishing quality, they were guided by God (Holy Spirit). Along with guidance of God the Holy Spirit, he also got guidance by God the Father. This guidance was for him and only him. The specifics of this have been pointed out by Deconi on several occasions.
Now here’s my message to the OP, I just kinda thought about this last night as I went to bed so I want to get it down before I forget it.
So, we all agree that Jesus became man and dwelt among us, but why? Why do we believe this? Because the Bible says so, ok, fair enough. Well, how do you nkow the Bible is true? Because it is the inspired Word of God, ok, that’s good. Here’s the last and most important question, how do you know that the Bible is the inspired Word of God? There is really only one answer to this question, but you’ll most likely encounter two, they are 1) The Bible says it is, and 2) The Church says it is.
Answer number one is a logical fallacy, I can say that I am the inspired Word of God, that doesn’t make true, and you’ve already stated that you don’t believe in sola scriptura so we don’t have to worry about this so we’ll move on to the next answer.
I’m believe you would have said number two because you are Catholic and you accept all the other teachings. The problem with this is how do we know even the Church is right? How can you know that the Church got the canon of the Bible right? If you don’t accept Papal Infallibility, you can never be sure about any doctrine the Catholic Church holds because all doctrine was defined at Councils in which the Magisterium uses its own infallibilty to define doctrines on faith and morals without errors. The Magisterium can only have infallibilty is if the pope has it to begin with because the Magisterium has to be in union with him and he has to ratify the council’s decisions (I believe he has to ratify them, I’m not sure).
You mentioned several times that part of your doubt comes from the fact that it’s only benn used twice. My following statement is kind of my memory of a chapter of Karl Keating’s Catholicism and Fundamentalism: The Attack on “Romanism” by “Bible Christians”. Infallibilty means that a pope can not teach error on matters of faith and morals, it does not require him to teach what is true. After all, if he does not know what is true himself, how can he teach it? This plays into the developement of doctrine and the fact that you can’t help but draw true inferences from true doctrine. Also that the Holy Spirit gradually opens our minds to deeper meanings of the doctrines that we already know are true. Infallible statement are made when the Church thinks that the members of the Church can be helped by having a certain doctrine defined.
I hope this helps!
Pax,
Zach
G
garysibio
Guest
Do you believe yourself to be infallible? Do you believe that your interpretation of Scripture is not open to dispute? If you answer ‘no’ to the above then maybe the real reason you are here is because God wants you to learn something. Of course, if you answered ‘yes’ then we just can’t take you seriously.
Gary
D
DavWan
Guest
Matthew 18:17
"If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector (NASB).
As I said above, I am a Catholic because I believe God does not contradict Himself.
M
Malachi_18
Guest
I do not need to demonstrate that my interpretation of Scripture is authentic. Yes, I have said certain passages mean such and such, but you should check for yourself. Don’t take my word for it, check it out. Be a Berean.
Like I said, the reason I am here is to expose people to the things that the Bible says, like this:
Isaiah 55:10-11
10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:
11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
Someone pejoratively accused me of “slinging scriptures” around. If I sling enough Scripture around then someone will read it and it will not be to no avail. It will accomplish that which God intended for it to accomplish. I just find them and type them, God makes them grow.
(I don’t know how to quote more than one item like I have seen others do, so I will copy and paste and color.)
Do you believe yourself to be infallible? Do you believe that your interpretation of Scripture is not open to dispute? If you answer ‘no’ to the above then maybe the real reason you are here is because God wants you to learn something. Of course, if you answered ‘yes’ then we just can’t take you seriously.
Gary
No I do not believe myself to be infallible. I am here to learn. As I type these things out I find that I am learning. Sometimes I surprise myself with what I find I believe.
If your excuse is “that’s the way I always heard it should be,” it might be time to check in with the Holy Spirit, read your Bible, and see for yourself what it says, rather than accept without question the word of some other human or group of humans telling you what they think you should think.
G
garysibio
Guest
I wrote>> Do you believe yourself to be infallible? Do you believe that your interpretation of Scripture is not open to dispute? If you answer ‘no’ to the above then maybe the real reason you are here is because God wants you to learn something. Of course, if you answered ‘yes’ then we just can’t take you seriously. <<
To which Malachi 18 responded>> No I do not believe myself to be infallible. I am here to learn. As I type these things out I find that I am learning. Sometimes I surprise myself with what I find I believe. <<
Yet you say this: >> I do not need to demonstrate that my interpretation of Scripture is authentic. Yes, I have said certain passages mean such and such, but you should check for yourself. Don’t take my word for it, check it out. Be a Berean. <<
If you are not infallible, you do need to show the rest of us why your interpretation of the Scripture is better than the Catholic Church’s. You can’t just make a statement and tell us that we have to believe you. You’re just another guy with his own private interpretation of Scripture.
By the way, if you really want to be a Berean, you have to (1) stick to the Old Testament because that was the only Bible they had and (2) use the Septuagint version of the Old Testament canon because, being Greek, that was the canon of the Bible which the Bereans used. That means you can’t just ignore the books of the Bible which Luther tried to get rid of. If you’re going to be a Berean, at least be a consistent one.
Malachi 18>> If your excuse is “that’s the way I always heard it should be,” it might be time to check in with the Holy Spirit, read your Bible, and see for yourself what it says, rather than accept without question the word of some other human or group of humans telling you what they think you should think. <<
In case you haven’t noticed, I am the guy who started this thread because I was having some problems with the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility. Have you considered the possibility that yuo are the one saying “that’s the way I always heard it should be”? Are you truly open to discovering the true meaning of Scripture?
Although I was raised Catholic, I left the Church for a period of eleven years and attended Evangelical Protestant churches because I had doctrinal problems with Catholicism. While attending a Baptist church I was asked to do a Sunday School class on Catholicism and discovered that Catholic teaching fit much better with Scripture than Evangelicalism. After making this discovery and praying about it quite a bit, I was led back to Catholicism. If you truly want to be a Bible-believing Christian, you must become Catholic.
Gary
To which Malachi 18 responded>> No I do not believe myself to be infallible. I am here to learn. As I type these things out I find that I am learning. Sometimes I surprise myself with what I find I believe. <<
Yet you say this: >> I do not need to demonstrate that my interpretation of Scripture is authentic. Yes, I have said certain passages mean such and such, but you should check for yourself. Don’t take my word for it, check it out. Be a Berean. <<
If you are not infallible, you do need to show the rest of us why your interpretation of the Scripture is better than the Catholic Church’s. You can’t just make a statement and tell us that we have to believe you. You’re just another guy with his own private interpretation of Scripture.
By the way, if you really want to be a Berean, you have to (1) stick to the Old Testament because that was the only Bible they had and (2) use the Septuagint version of the Old Testament canon because, being Greek, that was the canon of the Bible which the Bereans used. That means you can’t just ignore the books of the Bible which Luther tried to get rid of. If you’re going to be a Berean, at least be a consistent one.
Malachi 18>> If your excuse is “that’s the way I always heard it should be,” it might be time to check in with the Holy Spirit, read your Bible, and see for yourself what it says, rather than accept without question the word of some other human or group of humans telling you what they think you should think. <<
In case you haven’t noticed, I am the guy who started this thread because I was having some problems with the Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility. Have you considered the possibility that yuo are the one saying “that’s the way I always heard it should be”? Are you truly open to discovering the true meaning of Scripture?
Although I was raised Catholic, I left the Church for a period of eleven years and attended Evangelical Protestant churches because I had doctrinal problems with Catholicism. While attending a Baptist church I was asked to do a Sunday School class on Catholicism and discovered that Catholic teaching fit much better with Scripture than Evangelicalism. After making this discovery and praying about it quite a bit, I was led back to Catholicism. If you truly want to be a Bible-believing Christian, you must become Catholic.
Gary
D
Deconi
Guest
There is much truth in what you say, Mal. Perhaps, you may have achieved some purpose in driving individuals back to reading the Scriptures; including Catholics.
The MAIN problem for you though is that you HAVE to ignore the fact that The Catholic Church GAVE YOU the Scriptures you speak of! For your premise to be valid, you have to show two things;
- that The Church had no part in formulating Scriptures.
This is IMPOSSIBLE. - That The Church did not understand Her own book!
Hmm…you know how it goes!
This is also how Protestantism decide the meaning of a snippet of Scriptures; to “bounce” it off each other until a majority is reached or come to be accepted. That they do not ask The Church, at all, of what a possible meaning could be is their folly!
Thank you, Mal. Catholics have the advantage of being able to check Scriptures with an AUTHORITY available to them. It is always my hope that you and the rest of our brethren “floundering” in the uncertainty of Protestantism may come to humble themselves, just long enough to consider that maybe, just maybe, that “The Origin” of Scriptures may have the answer.
Then all may not be in vain.
- Status