Sola Scriptura: an Evangelicals attempt to help to clarify its meaning

[st_felicity]

michaelp:

I am so lost. I was just asking if you were serious about the question above. Yes or no. If yes, then I will respond. You have just gone in a million directions. Keep it simple, one subject at a time, I am not a smart man.

Michael

Michael, it is all the same topic. You say the Bible is the only infallible authority, and authority must be verified, but you refuse to accept the only authority that has verified it because it was done by the successors of Peter and not an Apostle (with his signs and wonders) himself. Someone already pointed out that the authorship of Hebrews is probably not Paul–and Revelation is probably not John the Apostle’s. Mark is claimed to have been written by an unknown Hellenistic Jewish Christian, and Matthew drew from several sources…How are all these “verified” according to you? Do you believe it is verified by its own testimony? Do you think it dropped from the hand of God?

Your whole argument is without base–it goes round and round and round…:whacky:

 

[Huiou_Theou]

QUOTE
Christ’s verification does not help John??? Wow! OK. I know you believe this, but I will just have to disagee.

Since John was already known to be a prophet before Jesus said anything, tell me how does Jesus help John’s ministry here?
If the quote you used were not in scripture, what would John have lost? If you disagree, please explain.

John’s ‘usefulness’ was in bringing people to Jesus. That was what it meant to pave the way:John brought repentance to sinners and gave them an idea about the baptism to come. John prepared people for the messiah by removing obstacles from their hearts. (I think the Pope is admirable in that respect too).

QUOTE
John’s statement has no bearing on this issue one way or the other. John was simply saying that Now that Christ’s ministry has begun, his is over. People CAN have ministries without being thought of as infallible or being verified. Christ’s testimony of John gives him legitimacy beyond a doubt.

Hmm… But John spoke for God. So does the Pope.

John’s statement is that his ministry is over when Jesus’ began? well then it it too late for the verification to have much value. It is a nice rubber stamp to say “John you did what I made you for”, but it does not help anyone believe in John as a follower of him.
Would you follow John once he was verified? John had disciples like that, they seemed to not like Jesus. As the passage says, Johns disciples went away. Poor John, couldn’t get them to believe in Jesus. Must have irked Jesus, that John’s disciples left him for John again: What did you go out to see…

My point is that John held the ministry of Prophet, where his entire useful (bringing people to Jesus) ministry was done without verification of miracles. Jesus did not verify John until John’s ministry was really already over. The remainder of Johns ministry would be to get people to leave himself for Jesus.

Perhaps you only know that Caiphas was a true prophet because a verified apostle says so, but I knew Caiphas was a true prophet from what could easily be labeled as eisousososos… eg. reading the bible including the OT.

Perhaps I need to reverse the argument. Nowhere in the bible does it say that one has to perform miracles to speak for God (as a prophet).
To read that into scripture is easily labeled eisiousis too.

Because a person could mark a piece of paper with their signature, does not mean they must mark a piece of paper with their signature in order to be who they are.
How do you get from a wonderous sign marks an Apostle – to – an Apostle must perform a wonderous sign?

If A then B does not necessarily mean if B then A.
We are missing the word ‘only’ in the scripture passages you are citing.

Also, Caiphas cuts both ways. Your argument has been that there is no reason to trust an unverified speaker of God.
But Caiphas was ‘verified’ according to you, and I certainly wouldn’t trust him. Verification doesn’t enjender trust.
Was not Judas (Iscariot) one of the twelve? Chosen by Jesus? Did he not go on the outings which included miracles??

I do believe the current Pope has healed people, thousands of them, through his words of teaching. Which is the greater miracle, the healing of a limb or the soul? SOME popes apparently have miracles associated with them. If not the present pope, would you follow the teaching of a past pope who did have a miracle associated with them ???

I really don’t see how ‘verification’ is much of a comfort to anyone.

The issue of infallibility is seperate, to me, from the issue of speaking for God. ( loosely speaking – a prophet ).

 

[michaelp]

I truly did not understand most of your post. John was verified by a living prophet who DID perform miracles.

How do you deal with 2 Cor 12:12 where, in the context, Paul was battling others who were claiming to speak for God?

This last part of your post was interesting. If you let go of infallibility, then we are on the same page. I believe that I speak for God, being a pastor, but not infallibly. I believe that I have authority, but not infallible authority. A prophet or apostle spoke infallibly for God. Therefore, they all needed signs to verify themselves.

Michael

 

[Huiou_Theou]

michaelp:

I truly did not understand most of your post. John was verified by a living prophet who DID perform miracles.

How do you deal with 2 Cor 12:12 where, in the context, Paul was battling others who were claiming to speak for God?

This last part of your post was interesting. If you let go of infallibility, then we are on the same page. I believe that I speak for God, being a pastor, but not infallibly. I believe that I have authority, but not infallible authority. A prophet or apostle spoke infallibly for God. Therefore, they all needed signs to verify themselves.

Michael

– John did not verify himself –

When John needed to distinguish himself from other prophets, (Pharasees, Saducees, etc). how did he do it? --not by miracles–

When did John need to have this verification, before or after Jesus began his ministry? – before –

The verification was therefore moot. Why does it matter that John was verified, he might as well not have been. People do not know the future, only the past and present. If I place myself in any disciples shoes and try to use verification with John, it is useless.

I could suppose that there may be many people who speak for God who will not be ‘verified’ until we meet them in heaven – including the Pope.
Does my supposition help you believe in the Pope?
I doubt it.
Even should my supposition prove true, what good is it to you ?

John was battling others who questioned his authority, but he performed no sign as proof. Many therefore did not believe in him.
Yet John was the one whom god chose to go before him to prepare the way. Who could have needed ‘verification’ more than John. Yet no verification of any clearness was available.

The context of 2 Cor 12:12 is the same for John as for Paul.
Paul is now battling with usurpers of his authority, but Paul does perform miracles.

The context of 2Cor12:12 does not change the argument.
Just because Paul used a miraculous sign to differentiate himself, does not mean that it is mandatory that he had to do so.
There is nothing in scripture to show that miracles were the only option to prove that the person was an apostle (nor for that matter that testimony from scripture or anyone else was mandatory).

I could accept the argument you are proposing, but I have no scriptural reason to.

For me, that the Pope has supreme authority over the entire church which Christ founded. The pope is the prime minister of the New Jerusalem on earth. Couple that with the inability of the church to fall -mortally- leads to the conclusion of infallibility.
It is a nuanced argument with quite a few limitations.

I should ask, before going any furthur, what do you mean by infallability. I do not want a ‘sleight of hand’ argument because we are using a word to mean different things.

P.S. if you actually read the definition of Papal infallability (Vatican I), I think the discussion may get more interesting.

 

[michaelp]

John did not verify himself –

When John needed to distinguish himself from other prophets, (Pharasees, Saducees, etc). how did he do it? --not by miracles–

When did John need to have this verification, before or after Jesus began his ministry? – before –

John was verified by Christ. But we may just have to agree to disagree.

The point is, look across the boad. Look at all the people who claimed to speak infallibly for God in the Scriptures. There were hundreds. They all had some type of attesting sign. If you want to leave out John, fine. But, for arguments sake, does the exception provide the rule. ALL of the prophets and apostles had to perform a sign. NONE of the popes do??

I could suppose that there may be many people who speak for God who will not be ‘verified’ until we meet them in heaven – including the Pope.

That is the most honest statement that I have seen yet. Thanks.

Does my supposition help you believe in the Pope?
I doubt it.
Even should my supposition prove true, what good is it to you ?

Your right. Not much.

John was battling others who questioned his authority, but he performed no sign as proof.

But he was verified by one who did perform a sign.

The context of 2 Cor 12:12 is the same for John as for Paul.
Paul is now battling with usurpers of his authority, but Paul does perform miracles.

And he says that signs were the authenticating factor for ALL apostles (those who claim to have authority and speak infallibly on behalf of God), not just Paul. He says “the signs of a (indefinite article showing that it is all apostles) apostle were performed among you.” He did not say, “the signs of **my **apostleship were performed among you.”

The context of 2Cor12:12 does not change the argument.
Just because Paul used a miraculous sign to differentiate himself,

Not himself, but all those who claim to speak on God’s behalf.

There is nothing in scripture to show that miracles were the only option to prove that the person was an apostle (nor for that matter that testimony from scripture or anyone else was mandatory).

Signs, not just miracles. A sign could be a prophecy (Deut 13, 18)

I could accept the argument you are proposing, but I have no scriptural reason to.

I appreciate this.

For me, that the Pope has supreme authority over the entire church which Christ founded. The pope is the prime minister of the New Jerusalem on earth. Couple that with the inability of the church to fall -mortally- leads to the conclusion of infallibility.
It is a nuanced argument with quite a few limitations.

Yes, and it is pragmatic.

I should ask, before going any furthur, what do you mean by infallability. I do not want a ‘sleight of hand’ argument because we are using a word to mean different things.

When a person makes an infallible statement, that person is speaking on behalf of God, because God is protecting this statement making sure it represents who He truly is and what he truly desires.

P.S. if you actually read the definition of Papal infallability (Vatican I), I think the discussion may get more interesting.

Thanks, I will read it again.

Hope that you are doing well and have a good night . . . um . . . morning!

Michael

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Really now,

I did not disagree that John has the testimony of Jesus, I just see it as a moot point.

A prophecy is a particular kind of miracle. (People do not naturally know the future).

QUOTE:
And he says that signs were the authenticating factor for ALL apostles (those who claim to have authority and speak infallibly on behalf of God), not just Paul. He says “the signs of a (indefinite article showing that it is all apostles) apostle were performed among you.” He did not say, “the signs of my apostleship were performed among you.”

A definite case is still encompassed by an indefinite case. ‘My’ apostleship is still an apostleship. Also, the passage does not say the ONLY sign of an apostle, just the sign. It could be the premeir sign, the ultimate sign, … I don’t know for certain.
SO?

Strange, to argue over the indefinite article which does not exist in Greek. Kind of a complicated argument chain, I’ll have to look the passage up and check the exact grammer.

Also, where did the NONE of the popes perform miracles come from? I have already pointed out that some have.
We’ll just have to disagree on that I suppose.

 

[mtr01]

1. Does the pope or congregation of bishops claim to speak infallibly on behalf of God? Yes.
2. Does God requires signs of those who claim to speak infallibly for them? Yes.
3. Have the Catholic popes or bishops followed these requirements? No.
Conclusion: Should be believe they speak on behalf of God with infallible authority? No.

In your opinion I have not demonstrated this. I believe that it has been demonstrated with great clarity.

Michael

So much for clarity, your “forceful” reiteration of your position does nothing but demonstrate more strongly your misunderstanding of infallibility.

1. Infallibility does not rest in the bishops (including the pope) as a result of their ordination. It rests in the councils and the office of the successor of St. Peter. When a bishop is ordained, he does **not **automatically obtain the charism of infallibility.
2. Interesting, you want a council to perform a miracle? The chair of St. Peter to perform signs and wonders? :whacky: I wonder if the Council of Ephesus raised anyone from the dead
3. You assume that none have. Be that as it may, they don’t have to, as they are pastors, not apostles.

Conclusion: Your conclusion is invalid because it rests on faulty premises.

 

[michaelp]

Which point is wrong MT: 1, 2, or 3?

*1. Does the pope or congregation of bishops claim to speak infallibly on behalf of God? Yes.
2. Does God requires signs of those who claim to speak infallibly for them? Yes.
3. Have the Catholic popes or bishops followed these requirements? No.
Conclusion: Should be believe they speak on behalf of God with infallible authority? No.

I am not trying to give an exhuastive understanding of infallibility, I am just working with its implications. So, no false premise demonstrated as of yet.*
I pray that you are doing well MT. I appreciate your continuing willingness to discuss these issues.
*Michael
*

 

[TNT]

Heb. is not part of the bible. Unless, of course you can prove it by miracles, signs and wonders.

It’s nice piece of old literature, but that’s it. Quoting from it proves nothing at all toward SS. You don’t even know who wrote it with certainty.

Of course** that’s the dread-lock of a SS advocate. So, it won’t be addressed here…or anywhere else**.

** How rigtht I was.**

2nd Time michaelp…We’re all waiting.

And while your at it,

When, exactly do you INTERPRET infallibly. If never, then you could be wrong, and that’s the whole point. YOU COULD BE WRONG.
Your faith is in you. It is not Divine Faith required for salvation. It’s merely a human faith . Until you receive the gift of Divine Faith by accepting the True Church of Christ, you’re one of the lost sheep looking in all the wrong places for home, and time is running out, day by day.

You can play word games all day and night, but you cannot get passed 2 things:

1. YOU CANNOT PROVE INFALLIBLY THAT YOU EVEN HAVE THE CORRECT COLLECTION OF INFALLIBLE NT BOOKS.
2. YOU CANNOT PROVE INFALLIBLY THAT YOU CAN INTERPRET THEM INFALLIBLY EVEN IF YOU KNEW WHICH BOOKS THEY WERE…
** Interpretation without infalliblity is nothing but blowing in the wind. Completely useless.**
It’s no different than having the US Constitution without a court to give final interpretation. (BTW: Why are YOU not the final authority on the interpretation of the US Constitution ??) Though they are not infallible, but the finallity of interpretation is a self-evident fact of life that an SS advocate just WILL NOT face honestly. Why? Because it allows him to remain outside the True Church of Christ which, knowing it or not, is where he fervently desires to be. Why? because he demands to be the only and final authority in his faith. Declaring your final authority to be some set of books and then declare that only your interpretation is infallible is the height of hypocracy whether you know it or not.

In Summary, here’s what the revolutionaries of SS have done:

1. The Truthfull witness was the Scriptures.
2. The Judge who interpreted them was always the True Church of Christ - the Catholic Church. Why? Because God knows, even if you deny it, the Scriptures cannot defend themselves against heretic interpretors. It is silent on its misuse.
3. Now, the revolutionaries threw the judge off the bench.
4. They grabbed the truthful witness and tied it to the judges chair. Being silent against heretical abuse, they appeal to it, knowing all along that it will remain silent to every heretic’s declaration of interpretation.

Very effective for the blind, the prideful, the liars, any any other religious misfit. These are collectively called protestants, as they have only ONE common belief that unites their otherwise anarchy of beliefs: The True Speaking, living judge is now ME. I will judge all things as to what these books mean. Me and anyone who agrees with ME.

Now, you can either EFFECTIVELY address items **1 and **2 or know that everyone sees only a wondering mind in your posts, with absolutely NO substance in either logic or Scripture. And worst of all, NO AUTHORITY TO INTERPRET.

And when you tell us what words of your so-called Scriptures mean, make sure you put forth the required wonders, signs or miracles.

BTW:
What wonders, signs or miracles did the writer of Heb. give you? Exactly?
What was even his correct name?

SS is a fool’s paradise. Leave it, just as the sister of James White finally did, by the acceptance of God’s Grace which REQUIRES* HUMILITY*.

If you must have miracles, signs and wonders, then would 60,000 witnesses work for you? If so, read the whole chronicle of Fatima. Even the atheist press was a witness, (NEWS PRINT STILL AVAILABLE) and proclaimed it happened. But neither did they for a moment convert. Nor will such an obvious miracle with signs and prophecies move you.

Our Lord waits patiently, and knocks, but not forever.
“Amen, amen (a double witness oath… BOTH as MAN and as GOD) I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.” Jn 6:54.
"My Flesh is Meat, indeed My Blood is Drink, indeed."Jn 6:56.

I wish you someday realize what you are missing.

 

[mercygate]

For me, the second crack in my belief in sola Scriptura was the recognition that all the “best” heresies were based in Scripture. :bigyikes:

 

[michaelp]

2nd Time michaelp…We’re all waiting.

I already said that Hebrews was written in the 60s. There were plenty of apostles around to verify it, since it was not written by an apostle. The evidence goes as follows:

1. It was written under the ministry of the apostles and was not condemned.
2. It was accepted by the Church.
3. It was under the providential hand of God who is not sitting on His throne saying, “Why can’t they realize that Hebrews is not supposed to be there? What are we to do?”

When, exactly do you INTERPRET infallibly. If never, then you could be wrong, and that’s the whole point. YOU COULD BE WRONG.

Of course I can be wrong. What are you talking about?? Can YOU not be wrong?

Your faith is in you.

Faith is according to the evidence, not against it.

It is not Divine Faith required for salvation. It’s merely a human faith . Until you receive the gift of Divine Faith by accepting the True Church of Christ, you’re one of the lost sheep looking in all the wrong places for home, and time is running out, day by day.

Totally question begging.

**

1.

** YOU CANNOT PROVE INFALLIBLY THAT YOU EVEN HAVE THE CORRECT COLLECTION OF INFALLIBLE NT BOOKS.

I cannot infallibly prove that the sun is going to rise either, but I am morally obligated by God, all of society, my family, and by committments to act as if it was.

Are you infallibly certian that the sun is going to raise tomorrow? If not, how can you truly believe that it is?

**

2.

** YOU CANNOT PROVE INFALLIBLY THAT YOU CAN INTERPRET THEM INFALLIBLY EVEN IF YOU KNEW WHICH BOOKS THEY WERE…

Do you infallibly know that you are right about this?? How can you, not being infallible, say anything with infallible certianty. Are you infallibly certian that the Roman Catholic Church is God’s mouthpeice?? NO! Because you are not infallible. We all start with infallibility. That is why the evidence is the only thing that matters.

Interpretation without infalliblity is nothing but blowing in the wind. Completely useless.

Again, I ask you, are you infallible? No! Then you cannot infallibly certian about this.

It’s no different than having the US Constitution without a court to give final interpretation.

The court is a fallible authority. So I agree %100. Perfect illustration.

cont . . .

 

[michaelp]

(BTW: Why are YOU not the final authority on the interpretation of the US Constitution ??) Though they are not infallible, but the finallity of interpretation is a self-evident fact of life that an SS advocate just WILL NOT face honestly. Why? Because it allows him to remain outside the True Church of Christ which, knowing it or not, is where he fervently desires to be. Why? because he demands to be the only and final authority in his faith. Declaring your final authority to be some set of books and then declare that only your interpretation is infallible is the height of hypocracy whether you know it or not.

Accusations that do not add anything to the current discussion but your fallible allegations.

Very effective for the blind, the prideful, the liars, any any other religious misfit. These are collectively called protestants, as they have only ONE common belief that unites their otherwise anarchy of beliefs: The True Speaking, living judge is now ME. I will judge all things as to what these books mean. Me and anyone who agrees with ME.

Only allegations that have no support but your own fallible opinion. Purely question begging.

Now, you can either EFFECTIVELY address items **1 and **2 or know that everyone sees only a wondering mind in your posts, with absolutely NO substance in either logic or Scripture. And worst of all, NO AUTHORITY TO INTERPRET.

No infallible authority, just like you, since you cannot even infallibly understand your own “infallible” authority based upon all the conflicting opinions on this website and in Catholicism in general. Pragmatic arguments are decents sometimes as long as the end is truly accomplished. In your case, the end, true unity, is not there.

And when you tell us what words of your so-called Scriptures mean, make sure you put forth the required wonders, signs or miracles.

I don’t have to since I only present the evidence and don’t claim infallibility. I, unlike you, think that people are smart enough to understand God’s word.

BTW:
What wonders, signs or miracles did the writer of Heb. give you? Exactly?
What was even his correct name?

He wrote in the 60s under the umbrella of the Apostles. Just like Luke and Mark.

SS is a fool’s paradise. Leave it, just as the sister of James White finally did, by the acceptance of God’s Grace which REQUIRES* HUMILITY*.

My friend, please forgive the forthrightness, but these are baseless allegations that suggest to me that you are not really confident in the evidence of your opinion, just the strenth of the rhetoric. Rhetoric alone cannot convince anyone of anything and is a bad excuse for not having evidence.

If you must have miracles, signs and wonders,

God is the one that required them (Deut 13, 18, 2 Cor. 12:12). Otherwise ANYONE could claim to speak infallibly for God. If you don’t have any tests of verification, why not?

I wish you someday realize what you are missing.

Thank you my friend. I do appreciate your concern. But I could say the same thing to you. It does not really get us anywhere at this point.

Have a great night,

Michael

 

[michaelp]

mercygate:

For me, the second crack in my belief in sola Scriptura was the recognition that all the “best” heresies were based in Scripture. :bigyikes:

Yes, you are right. And to illustrate I could say, you attempt base your doctrine of Transubstantiation on Scripture. As well, you attempt to base you doctrine of infallibility on it. But allegations are not the important thing here, evidence is. Oh, another thing, your insistence of the necessity of works is based on it. Could we go on and on? These types of comments are unnecessary, aren’t they?

Michael

 

[TNT]

michaelp:

Which point is wrong MT: 1, 2, or 3?
*…Conclusion: Should be believe they speak on behalf of God with infallible authority? No.

I …** So, no false premise demonstrated as of yet.***

*Michael
*

This is what the Catholic Bible says:
Hebrews 13
7 Remember your prelates who have*** spoken*** the word of God to you; whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation,

17 Obey your prelates, and** be subject to them**. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.

Epistle to the Church of Rome:

1. that the Roman Church’s faith is proclaimed throughout the whole world;
   “First I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith * is proclaimed in all (universal, catholic) the world*” (Rom.1:8)
2. that the Roman Church is filled with all knowledge;
   “full of goodness” and “filled with all knowledge” (15:14). (Before he ever got there to teach.)
3. that she is respected and saluted by all the local churches of Christ;
   “all the churches of Christ salute you”(16:16).
4. that her obedience (of Faith) is known to all;
   “your obedience is known to all” (16:19). St. Paul doesn’t mean merely moral or behavioral obedience. He makes clear elsewhere that he understands this as the obedience to the faith (1:5; 16:26); obedience to the law of the Spirit (8:2); and, unlike others, obedience to the truth (2:8).
5. that under the feet of the Church of Rome God will crush Satan; points to the unique authority and status possessed by the Roman Church.
   “then the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet”(16:20a).
   There is a significance here which no other local church mentioned in the NT is accorded. God will crush Satan under the feet of the Church of Rome. God is revealing here a unique role and authority held by the Roman Church. To no other local church is this privilege or role given.
   **Matt 18: **17 And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. (ie excomunicated from salvation.)
   Why?
   **1 Timothy 3:**15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

All My Catholic Scriptures are INFALLIBLY determined as to what books to include and to Exclude…(many now lost to us, never to be re-examined for “inspiration”.)

The Roman Church of which Paul speaks so highly, gives me their necessary interpretation…infallibly.
I obey my Prelates.
I take my grievences to the Church.

I am not a Lone Ranger pretending that I am a Christian who says they obey God, but only obey themselves.

Fingers to the forehead: “In the name of the Father”
Fingers to the heart: “and of the Son”
Fingers to the left shoulder: “and of the Holy Ghost”
Fingers to the right shoulder: “AMEN (so be it)”.

 

[dennisknapp]

michaelp:

Yes, you are right. And to illustrate I could say, you attempt base your doctrine of Transubstantiation on Scripture. As well, you attempt to base you doctrine of infallibility on it. But allegations are not the important thing here, evidence is. Oh, another thing, your insistence of the necessity of works is based on it. Could we go on and on? These types of comments are unnecessary, aren’t they?

Michael

Based on it in what sense? Based on it alone, no. Witnessing to its truth, yes.

Question, how do you see the Catholic Church coming to her beliefs?

Peace

 

[michaelp]

TNT:

This is what the Catholic Bible says:
Hebrews 13
7 Remember your prelates who have*** spoken*** the word of God to you; whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation,

17 Obey your prelates, and** be subject to them**. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls; that they may do this with joy, and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.

Epistle to the Church of Rome:

1. that the Roman Church’s faith is proclaimed throughout the whole world;
   “First I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith * is proclaimed in all (universal, catholic) the world*” (Rom.1:8)
2. that the Roman Church is filled with all knowledge;
   “full of goodness” and “filled with all knowledge” (15:14). (Before he ever got there to teach.)
3. that she is respected and saluted by all the local churches of Christ;
   “all the churches of Christ salute you”(16:16).
4. that her obedience (of Faith) is known to all;
   “your obedience is known to all” (16:19). St. Paul doesn’t mean merely moral or behavioral obedience. He makes clear elsewhere that he understands this as the obedience to the faith (1:5; 16:26); obedience to the law of the Spirit (8:2); and, unlike others, obedience to the truth (2:8).
5. that under the feet of the Church of Rome God will crush Satan; points to the unique authority and status possessed by the Roman Church.
   “then the God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet”(16:20a).
   There is a significance here which no other local church mentioned in the NT is accorded. God will crush Satan under the feet of the Church of Rome. God is revealing here a unique role and authority held by the Roman Church. To no other local church is this privilege or role given.
   **Matt 18: **17 And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. (ie excomunicated from salvation.)
   Why?
   **1 Timothy 3:**15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

All My Catholic Scriptures are INFALLIBLY determined as to what books to include and to Exclude…(many now lost to us, never to be re-examined for “inspiration”.)

The Roamn Church of which Paul speaks so highly, gives me their necessary interpretation…infallibly.
I obey my Prelates.
I take my grievences to the Church.

I am not a Lone Ranger pretending that I am a Christian who says they obey God, but only obey themselves.
Christian is my name. Catholic is my surname.

Fingers to the forehead: “In the name of the Father”
Fingers to the heart: “and of the Son”
Fingers to the left shoulder: “and of the Holy Ghost”
Fingers to the right shoulder: “AMEN (so be it)”.

This has nothing to do with the post that you quoted from what I can see. I don’t get you point. Which point is wrong in the post that you quoted??

Michael

 

[dennisknapp]

michaelp:

Which point is wrong MT: 1, 2, or 3?

*1. Does the pope or congregation of bishops claim to speak infallibly on behalf of God? Yes. *
2. Does God requires signs of those who claim to speak infallibly for them? Yes.
3. Have the Catholic popes or bishops followed these requirements? No.
Conclusion: Should be believe they speak on behalf of God with infallible authority? No.

I am not trying to give an exhuastive understanding of infallibility, I am just working with its implications. So, no false premise demonstrated as of yet.

I pray that you are doing well MT. I appreciate your continuing willingness to discuss these issues.

Michael

Premise 1 is faulty.

It misrepresents papal infallibility.

Premise 1 does not clarify what “speaking on behalf of God” means, and only takes into account the definition given be the proponent of the argument.

The argument is only true if the definition of infallibility given in Premise 1 is in fact the actual definition. Is it? No.

Infallibility only passes on and clarifies what has been taught and passed down. It does not speak for God as if to reveal something new-- it can’t. It can only preserves and clarifies.

CCC 889
“In order to **preserve **the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a ‘supernatural sense of faith’ the People of God, under the guidence of the Church’s living Magisterium, ‘unfailingly adheres to this faith.’”

Peace

 

[michaelp]

dennisknapp:

Premise 1 is faulty.

It misrepresents papal infallibility.

Premise 1 does not clarify what “speaking on behalf of God” means, and only takes into account the definition given be the proponent of the argument.

The argument is only true if the definition of infallibility given in Premise 1 is in fact the actual definition. Is it? No.

Infallibility only passes on and clarifies what has been taught and passed down. It does not speak for God as if to reveal something new-- it can’t. It can only preserves and clarifies.

CCC 889
“In order to **preserve **the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a ‘supernatural sense of faith’ the People of God, under the guidence of the Church’s living Magisterium, ‘unfailingly adheres to this faith.’”

Peace

Dennis is in the house!!!

So, the Pope does not in any sense speak on behalf of Christ??

BTW: Prophets, most of the time did not give new revelation either. They just condemned their culture, interpreting the previous revelation of the Law. Therefore, the stipulations are for those who speak on behalf of God. If the pope does not in any sense claim to do this infallibly, then we may be on the same page.

Michael

 

[dennisknapp]

michaelp:

Dennis is in the house!!!

So, the Pope does not in any sense speak on behalf of Christ??

BTW: Prophets, most of the time did not give new revelation either. They just condemned their culture, interpreting the previous revelation of the Law. Therefore, the stipulations are for those who speak on behalf of God. If the pope does not in any sense claim to do this infallibly, then we may be on the same page.

Michael

In this sense then we too are prophets because we speak out against our culture. What do you mean by “speak on behalf of God?”

Peace

 

[michaelp]

dennisknapp:

In this sense then we too are prophets because we speak out against our culture. What do you mean by “speak on behalf of God?”

Peace

You and I do represent God, I agree. But we do not infallibly speak on behalf of God. The prophets and the apostles did. Does the Pope infallibly speak on behalf of God?