Correct. There is no assurance of certainty.
I also think God would want us to interpret His word the way He wants it interpreted. What does that prove? He isn’t going to force someone from interpreting it wrong. He hasn’t taken away our freewill.
This logic to me makes no sense and is totally out of character for our Lord. Through the desert God continually led His Children through the desert with a pillar of fire by night and a cloud by the day. Then He spoke through His judges, Prophets, and Kings. Then according to your scenario, God just leaves us out to fend for ourselves with no assurance that what we are believing is correct or not? Please help me with the logic of this???
I did not say we had no guide. God gave us the truth and the truth is our guide. It just takes a little effort and faith to recognize the truth. We must be vigilent against people offering us falsehood.
What is the truth? Truth is not a moving target. It has to be a firm, planted object. Without somewhere having the gift of infallibility, where do we determine what is the basis of our truth? Individual truth is not truth, it is opinion, upon which our faith cannot be based.
What are you putting your trust in, the truth or a person who you happen to believe tells the truth infallibly?
How do you form your basis of truth?
That is a very odd question. Those particular words don’t even seem to go together. If you asked how I came to my understanding of the truth I could begin to explain, but it would be a long story. It would be my life story actually. It wouldn’t be a complete story either since I always hope to have a better understanding of the truth in the future.
If a discussion of name-calling is a waste of time, then you never should have brought it up. Moreover, you should not make accusations that you cannot substantiate. Furthermore, you made an accusation against me that is patently false. I never called you “Judas” and you have never retracted that accusation either.
Thank you for making these remarks about the ministerial priesthood. They illustrate the substance of your argument in terms of quality and quantity. The refutations given to you were overwhelming and involved numerous passages from the Old and New Testaments concerning the ministerial priesthood. Your response to the overwhelming evidence including all of the passages involving deacons, priests, and bishops was what you just stated above. Any reasonable person would find your position untenable.
Odd, or you just don’t want to face the question squarely? See, it’s a fairly easy question to answer, and doesn’t need to be one’s life story to tell it.
I would say assemble and determine. There were many spurious writings circulatiing at the time. The Church needed to determine which writings were divinely inspired–and then assemble those writings to form the canon.
This is so much better than your previous stuff - thank you for taking the time to share it. :yup: I think it shows a considerable committment to Him and wisdom as well. I am glad to see that my efforts at getting you to speak your mind were fruitful - most would not have extrapolated what you have posited here simply by reading the verses you listed - keep that in mind for future posting.
That is as is should be.
Honestly. I don’t underdstand the question. What is a “basis of truth”?Angainor:
That is an odd question.Odd, or you just don’t want to face the question squarely? See, it’s a fairly easy question to answer, and doesn’t need to be one’s life story to tell it.DARichards:
What I mean is: How do you (in this situation) form your definition of right or wrong? If the Scripture isn’t inerrant or infallible (which you haven’t said) what is your spiritual plumbline?
I do not accept the premise of this question. If you asked “How have I come to my understanding of right and wrong?” we could begin to have a dialogue, but I’m not sure how it would be relevant to this topic.
If there isn’t an infallible interpreter, why are you asking me?
This is very relavent to this discussion. Remember, the thread is “Sola Scriptura”. This represents the foundational precept of the Protestant Reformation that everything we know, or need to know about faith, salvation, justification, sanctification and living our lives in Christ are found in the 66 books of the Protestant Bible. So, let me rephrase. If you are an orthodox protestant, then you adhere to this philosophy. If you don’t, and you also don’t adhere to the “tripod” of the Catholic Church of Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium, then it seems than your philosophy is moral and spiritual relativism.
Again, truth about Scripture and the Church is not a moveable relative item. There has to be in the end a final interpreter of the Scripture…not ourselves…
Unity is a worthy goal. It must, however, be a free unity. For Cathoilicism to call for me to submit to its self-proclaimed authority for the sake of the appearance of unity is wrong.