S
Sean77
Guest
Last edited:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
No. I never jumped to that conclusion.. . . you automatically jump to the conclusion that we should reject the Petrine works?
Taking what you are saying to it’s logical conclusion COULD bring YOU there.
.
.
.Start over, conclusion jumper.
OK.
.
“Conclusion jumper” here. (Also known as “Cathoholic”)
Considering Bishop St. Peter unofficially taught WRONG teaching (he “taught” that he did NOT KNOW Jesus), would THIS disqualify him from teaching without error?
It is a simple yes or no question. No built-in presuppositions in the question. Very basic.
.
.
.LUKE 22:54-57 54 Then they seized him and led him away, bringing him into the high priest’s house. Peter followed at a distance; 55 and when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and sat down together, Peter sat among them. 56 Then a maid, seeing him as he sat in the light and gazing at him, said, “This man also was with him.” 57 But he denied it, saying, “Woman, I do not know him.”
So are you saying St. Peter’s denial of Christ in Luke 22:54-57 impacts Peter so much, that 1st Peter and 2nd Peter in the Bible need to be REJECTED??
Or are you saying in THAT SENSE, St. Peter’s conduct and unofficial “teaching” is irrelevant?
For example . . .
(Even though Peter’s conduct was wrong, and even though Peter here even taught this woman [in error] that he did not know Jesus. . . . .
. . . Peter CAN STILL TEACH WITHOUT ERROR in certain circumstances despite these bad things right? . . .
. . . Like with the Holy Spirit using Peter to write part of the Bible. Correct?)
Because it can only be one or the other.
Last edited:
S
Sean77
Guest
Except you didn’t take it to its logical conclusion. You skipped straight over the logical conclusion that those who hold teaching offices within the church, sometimes do things that are not inspired by the Holy Spirit, to the inane conclusion that we should reject the Word of God. You should sell scarecrows with all these straw men you keep constructing.No. I never jumped to that conclusion.
Taking what you are saying to it’s logical conclusion COULD bring YOU there.
Last edited:
F
Francis
Guest
i agree with you.
Luke 22:32 32 but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”
2 Peter 3:14 Therefore, beloved, while you are waiting for these things, strive to be found by him at peace, without spot or blemish15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, beware that you are not carried away with the error of the lawless and lose your own stability.
Jeremiah 3:15 I will give you shepherds(Popes) after my own heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding.
John 21:15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 A second time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter felt hurt because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep. 18 Very truly, I tell you, when you were younger, you used to fasten your own belt and to go wherever you wished. But when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will fasten a belt around you and take you where you do not wish to go.” 19 (He said this to indicate the kind of death by which he would glorify God.) After this he said to him, “Follow me.”
Acts 5:9 Then Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” 10 Immediately she fell down at his feet and died. When the young men came in they found her dead, so they carried her out and buried her beside her husband.11 And great fear seized the whole church and all who heard of these things14 Yet more than ever believers were added to the Lord, great numbers of both men and women,15 so that they even carried out the sick into the streets, and laid them on cots and mats, in order that Peter’s shadow might fall on some of them as he came by. 16 A great number of people would also gather from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing the sick and those tormented by unclean spirits, and they were all cured.
Luke 22:32 32 but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”
2 Peter 3:14 Therefore, beloved, while you are waiting for these things, strive to be found by him at peace, without spot or blemish15 and regard the patience of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 17 You therefore, beloved, since you are forewarned, beware that you are not carried away with the error of the lawless and lose your own stability.
Jeremiah 3:15 I will give you shepherds(Popes) after my own heart, who will feed you with knowledge and understanding.
John 21:15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 A second time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter felt hurt because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep. 18 Very truly, I tell you, when you were younger, you used to fasten your own belt and to go wherever you wished. But when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will fasten a belt around you and take you where you do not wish to go.” 19 (He said this to indicate the kind of death by which he would glorify God.) After this he said to him, “Follow me.”
Acts 5:9 Then Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Look, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.” 10 Immediately she fell down at his feet and died. When the young men came in they found her dead, so they carried her out and buried her beside her husband.11 And great fear seized the whole church and all who heard of these things14 Yet more than ever believers were added to the Lord, great numbers of both men and women,15 so that they even carried out the sick into the streets, and laid them on cots and mats, in order that Peter’s shadow might fall on some of them as he came by. 16 A great number of people would also gather from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing the sick and those tormented by unclean spirits, and they were all cured.
Last edited:
C
Chris4
Guest
That was clear for anyone looking for light. It is there. Thanks Francis!
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Sean77 . . .
I asked about ONE MAN who held a teaching office within the church. St. Peter.
And I am still awaiting your answer.
.
.
Earlier I said . . .
St. Peter’s “conduct” is IN A SENSE, irrelevant with regards to his TEACHING.
I was discussing “table fellowship” misconduct by St. Peter in Galatians 2.
.
Sean77 replied . . .
Completely disagree.
.
This seems to suggests that Sean77 thinks because of this table fellowship issue, that St. Peter could NOT teach infallibly.
But this conclusion would be so far fetched I thought it best to ask Sean77 directly for CLARIFICATION on what Sean77 was thinking.
I have asked several times and am still waiting for Sean77’s answer.
.
.
Sean77.
Considering Bishop St. Peter unofficially taught WRONG teaching (he “taught” that he did NOT KNOW Jesus), would THIS disqualify him from teaching without error?
.
So are YOU saying Sean77, that St. Peter’s denial of Christ in Luke 22:54-57 impacts Peter so much,
that 1st Peter and 2nd Peter in the Bible need to be REJECTED?? . . .
. . . OR . . . .
. . . Are YOU saying in THAT SENSE, St. Peter’s conduct and unofficial “teaching” is IRRELEVANT?
.
For example . . .
(Even though Peter’s conduct was wrong, and even though Peter here even taught this woman [in error] that he did not know Jesus. . . . .
. . . Peter CAN STILL TEACH WITHOUT ERROR in certain circumstances despite these bad things right? . . .
. . . Like with the Holy Spirit using Peter to write part of the Bible. Correct?)
What are YOU saying here Sean77?
Because it can only be one or the other.
I didn’t ask about “those who hold teaching offices within the church”.You skipped straight over the logical conclusion that those who hold teaching offices within the church, sometimes do things that are not inspired by the Holy Spirit, to the inane conclusion that we should reject the Word of God.
I asked about ONE MAN who held a teaching office within the church. St. Peter.
And I am still awaiting your answer.
.
.
Earlier I said . . .
St. Peter’s “conduct” is IN A SENSE, irrelevant with regards to his TEACHING.
I was discussing “table fellowship” misconduct by St. Peter in Galatians 2.
.
Sean77 replied . . .
Completely disagree.
.
This seems to suggests that Sean77 thinks because of this table fellowship issue, that St. Peter could NOT teach infallibly.
But this conclusion would be so far fetched I thought it best to ask Sean77 directly for CLARIFICATION on what Sean77 was thinking.
I have asked several times and am still waiting for Sean77’s answer.
.
.
Sean77.
Considering Bishop St. Peter unofficially taught WRONG teaching (he “taught” that he did NOT KNOW Jesus), would THIS disqualify him from teaching without error?
.
.LUKE 22:54-57 54 Then they seized him and led him away, bringing him into the high priest’s house. Peter followed at a distance; 55 and when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and sat down together, Peter sat among them. 56 Then a maid, seeing him as he sat in the light and gazing at him, said, “This man also was with him.” 57 But he denied it, saying, “Woman, I do not know him.”
So are YOU saying Sean77, that St. Peter’s denial of Christ in Luke 22:54-57 impacts Peter so much,
that 1st Peter and 2nd Peter in the Bible need to be REJECTED?? . . .
. . . OR . . . .
. . . Are YOU saying in THAT SENSE, St. Peter’s conduct and unofficial “teaching” is IRRELEVANT?
.
For example . . .
(Even though Peter’s conduct was wrong, and even though Peter here even taught this woman [in error] that he did not know Jesus. . . . .
. . . Peter CAN STILL TEACH WITHOUT ERROR in certain circumstances despite these bad things right? . . .
. . . Like with the Holy Spirit using Peter to write part of the Bible. Correct?)
What are YOU saying here Sean77?
Because it can only be one or the other.
Last edited:
S
Sean77
Guest
You already received my answer. My answer is that your question was absurd.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
You are not going to give me a yes or no are you Sean77?
I don’t think you can because you know where I am going with this.
If you say bad behavior disqualifies one from teaching infallibly then you will have to say that about St. Peter.
That couldn’t be. Why? Because St. Peter was used by the Holy Spirit to help author Scripture.
And if you admit that bad behavior does NOT disqualify one from teaching infalllibly it undermines much of your whole set of un-Biblical false arguments against the Church.
And you know I would rapidly trot THAT out.
So you are stuck.
You cannot answer yes. And you cannot answer no.
So you have to resort to admitting the Catholic Church is RIGHT at least in PRINCIPLE.
Or . . . .
. . . Resort to personal attacks and keep believing your (what you now know is) false attacks against Christ and His Bride, the Church (“My answer is that your question was absurd.”).
I don’t think you can because you know where I am going with this.
If you say bad behavior disqualifies one from teaching infallibly then you will have to say that about St. Peter.
That couldn’t be. Why? Because St. Peter was used by the Holy Spirit to help author Scripture.
And if you admit that bad behavior does NOT disqualify one from teaching infalllibly it undermines much of your whole set of un-Biblical false arguments against the Church.
And you know I would rapidly trot THAT out.
So you are stuck.
You cannot answer yes. And you cannot answer no.
So you have to resort to admitting the Catholic Church is RIGHT at least in PRINCIPLE.
Or . . . .
. . . Resort to personal attacks and keep believing your (what you now know is) false attacks against Christ and His Bride, the Church (“My answer is that your question was absurd.”).
Last edited:
S
Sean77
Guest
I have already given you a full answer. You just keep making category errors in logic and repeating them as if by posing the question in multiple ways you are going to get a different answer.
Lastly, I have not resorted to any personal attacks. I have addressed the doctrines you are attempting to defend. If I demonstrate the faulty argument or logic you are trying to make in your defense, that does not constitute a personal attack.
Lastly, I have not resorted to any personal attacks. I have addressed the doctrines you are attempting to defend. If I demonstrate the faulty argument or logic you are trying to make in your defense, that does not constitute a personal attack.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Considering my absurdity, and the fact that you allegedly have answered my question (“I have already given you a full answer”) . . .
And considering . . .
There is choice A or choice B.
.
A. St. Peter’s denial of Christ in Luke 22:54-57 impacts Peter so much, that St. Peter cannot teach infallibly.
B. Bishop St. Peter CAN STILL TEACH WITHOUT ERROR in certain circumstances despite wrong doing AND personally and unofficially teaching error (like teaching a woman that he doesn’t know Jesus).
.
.
What is the answer Sean77?
.
.
I think the answer is B.
And then I am going to apply that Biblical principle to the Church and the Bishops you have run-down here on this thread to attempt for you to disprove the veracity of the Catholic faith.
What do YOU say the answer is Sean77?
You have already given me the answer (accoding to you).
So it should be easy to just say “A” or “B”.
Which answer Sean77? A.or B?
And considering . . .
.LUKE 22:54-57 54 Then they seized him and led him away, bringing him into the high priest’s house. Peter followed at a distance; 55 and when they had kindled a fire in the middle of the courtyard and sat down together, Peter sat among them. 56 Then a maid, seeing him as he sat in the light and gazing at him, said, “This man also was with him.” 57 But he denied it, saying, “Woman, I do not know him.”
There is choice A or choice B.
.
A. St. Peter’s denial of Christ in Luke 22:54-57 impacts Peter so much, that St. Peter cannot teach infallibly.
B. Bishop St. Peter CAN STILL TEACH WITHOUT ERROR in certain circumstances despite wrong doing AND personally and unofficially teaching error (like teaching a woman that he doesn’t know Jesus).
.
.
What is the answer Sean77?
.
.
I think the answer is B.
And then I am going to apply that Biblical principle to the Church and the Bishops you have run-down here on this thread to attempt for you to disprove the veracity of the Catholic faith.
What do YOU say the answer is Sean77?
You have already given me the answer (accoding to you).
So it should be easy to just say “A” or “B”.
Which answer Sean77? A.or B?
Last edited:
S
Sean77
Guest
Additionally, going back to your comment on whether Peter’s constitutes teaching, I will refer back to Galatians 2:
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.a 13And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”
As you can see here Peter’s practice did in fact constitute a teaching which was an aberration from the gospel causing other men to follow his example. Paul then corrects Peter with the truth of the gospel. That being said you keep trying to equate Peter with the Holy Spirit. Peter is not the Holy Spirit unless you are attempting to introduce a fourth member of the Trinity. Yes, Peter was influenced by the Holy Spirit, however, Peter like us was a sinful man, subject to error and correction. The Church also is not the Holy Spirit. It is supposed to submit to the Holy Spirit, but can also sin as well. The means by which the Church is rebuked and corrected is through the word of God. The objective record of that word is the scriptures.
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.a 13And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”
As you can see here Peter’s practice did in fact constitute a teaching which was an aberration from the gospel causing other men to follow his example. Paul then corrects Peter with the truth of the gospel. That being said you keep trying to equate Peter with the Holy Spirit. Peter is not the Holy Spirit unless you are attempting to introduce a fourth member of the Trinity. Yes, Peter was influenced by the Holy Spirit, however, Peter like us was a sinful man, subject to error and correction. The Church also is not the Holy Spirit. It is supposed to submit to the Holy Spirit, but can also sin as well. The means by which the Church is rebuked and corrected is through the word of God. The objective record of that word is the scriptures.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Sean77 . . . .
What is your conclusion.
You are answering the question by repeating the premise.
This is a tautology. It is fallacious.
Based upon your observation, what is your conclusion?
Can St. Peter still teach infallibly under certain circumstances or not?
So?As you can see here Peter’s practice did in fact constitute a teaching which was an aberration from the gospel causing other men to follow his example.
What is your conclusion.
You are answering the question by repeating the premise.
This is a tautology. It is fallacious.
Based upon your observation, what is your conclusion?
Can St. Peter still teach infallibly under certain circumstances or not?
S
Sean77
Guest
Actually, both arguments rely on circular reasoning and I am comfortable with that. When you are talking about an ultimate authority your argument has to involve a certain ontological circular reasoning because when you are discussing the ultimate authority you cannot then appeal to a greater authority. So if I say, God is inerrant or infallible, therefore the word which he breathes out by its nature is infallible. Why? Because it was uttered by God and God is infallible. I am very comfortable with that reasoning, and so should you as a Catholic. If you deny that, I would be greatly worried. Anyway, I don’t think you really thought that one through. To answer your question, my conclusion is that Peter is not infallible and I do not make the category error of assuming Peter is on the same level of authority as God.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Sean77 . . .
.
.
.
.
.
Sean77 . . .
I said St. Peter was “infallible under certain circumstances”.
And he IS (was) infallible under certain circumstances.
The very charism of infallibilty has built-in that it is Jesus working in and through the recipient of that Charism. Whch is WHY he is infallible.
If you deny that, you are denying Scripture (1st Peter and 2nd Peter).
If you are admitting this, than that PRINCIPLE can still be applied in the Bishops today. Especially the Bishop of Rome (who we often affectionately refer to as “the papa” or in English, “The Pope”).
I am not comfortable embracing circular reasoning Sean77. But I appreciate you admitting you do.. . . I am comfortable with that (circular reasoning). . . . I am very comfortable with that reasoning, and so should you as a Catholic.
.
Apparently you have no problems with the argumentum ad misericordiam fallacy either (appealing to pity, in this case you pitying my rejection of circular reasoning).If you deny that, I would be greatly worried.
.
.
Which is exactly what sola Scriptura does with private interpretation. It makes YOU, the greater authority over the Church Jesus establishes and promises His own Divine protection of.. . . when you are discussing the ultimate authority you cannot then appeal to a greater authority.
.
.
Sean77 . . .
I didn’t say, “Peter is infallible.”To answer your question, my conclusion is that Peter is not infallible and I do not make the category error of assuming Peter is on the same level of authority as God.
I said St. Peter was “infallible under certain circumstances”.
And he IS (was) infallible under certain circumstances.
The very charism of infallibilty has built-in that it is Jesus working in and through the recipient of that Charism. Whch is WHY he is infallible.
If you deny that, you are denying Scripture (1st Peter and 2nd Peter).
If you are admitting this, than that PRINCIPLE can still be applied in the Bishops today. Especially the Bishop of Rome (who we often affectionately refer to as “the papa” or in English, “The Pope”).
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Sean77 . . .
You wouldn’t put it that way but that is exactly what you are doing.
Peter in one sense does not “have the authority of God”.
But in another sense, when, under certain circumstances, God chooses to work through St. Peter in certain special ways, yes he DOES have the “authority as God” because God is WORKING IN AND THROUGH St. Peter in such instances.
Just like God worked in and through St. Peter, when 1st Peter was written and when 2nd Peter was written as well.
What you are doing here Sean77 is denying the power of Jesus (not Peter).To answer your question, my conclusion is that Peter is not infallible and I do not make the category error of assuming Peter is on the same level of authority as God.
You wouldn’t put it that way but that is exactly what you are doing.
Peter in one sense does not “have the authority of God”.
But in another sense, when, under certain circumstances, God chooses to work through St. Peter in certain special ways, yes he DOES have the “authority as God” because God is WORKING IN AND THROUGH St. Peter in such instances.
Just like God worked in and through St. Peter, when 1st Peter was written and when 2nd Peter was written as well.
Last edited:
S
Sean77
Guest
Why is God infallible? Please explain using a non-circular line of reasoning. Then realize how absurd it is that you had to take this quote out of context.I am not comfortable embracing circular reasoning Sean77. But I appreciate you admitting you do.
Also incorrect. We do not believe in private interpretation. I stand on the saints who came before me. Again though, I do not equate them with being God. I can point to church fathers who wrote absolutely brilliant defense of Christian doctrine using scripture as their basis for reasoning on the one hand, and then used absolutely atrocious hermeneutics for another topic. Same person, two standards of exegesis. I am not bound to that which is demonstrably fallacious because I have an objective source to which I can appeal to demonstrate why I believe what I believe, or be corrected by it. You on the other have no means of doctrinal correction when a “majority rules” methodology of declaring what is sacred tradition is introduced as doctrine.Which is exactly what sola Scriptura does with private interpretation. It makes YOU, the greater authority over the Church Jesus establishes and promises His own Divine protection of.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Sean77 . . .
Now your next question almost has to be . . .
I do not base my faith upon my FEELINGS. That is putting faith in your faith. That is fideism. That is a formula for atheism at some later time in one’s life.
I am not saying feelings cannot be part of the formula. But I am saying feelings cannot be your foundation.
Because He is God.Why is God infallible? Please explain using a non-circular line of reasoning.
Now your next question almost has to be . . .
Because of the WITNESSES to His Resurrection. (Not witnesses to the “event” but “witnesses to the Risen Christ”). Reliable witnesses.How do you know He is God? Please explain using a non-circular line of reasoning.
I do not base my faith upon my FEELINGS. That is putting faith in your faith. That is fideism. That is a formula for atheism at some later time in one’s life.
I am not saying feelings cannot be part of the formula. But I am saying feelings cannot be your foundation.
Last edited:
S
Sean77
Guest
My point exactly. You seem to be okay employing a circular argument here.Because He is God.
In other words, you place an authority above God. God’s nature is not dependent on my acknowledging his nature. God is self-sufficient.Because of the WITNESSES to His Resurrection. (Not witnesses to the “event” but “witnesses to the Risen Christ”). Reliable witnesses.
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Cathoholic . . . .
Sean77 . . .
Pretend there are 10,000 Protestants in a room all admitting they have no authority and all having their Bibles in hand.
There is one Catholic Pope there who also has a Bible, at least claims he has oral Tradition, and at least claims if necessary and under certain circumstances, he can with the protection of Christ, CLARIFY an interpretation in dispute (Magisterium or “teaching office”).
All 10,000 Protestants all have differing views on SOME aspect of Scripture. Baptizing babies or not. Pictures of Jesus or not. Various flavors of “the rapture”. The list goes on and on.
With only a mere 8 differences (there are even many more differences than eight among infighting Protestants), you could get over 40,000 “denominations”.
Which one do YOU attack?
The 9,999 (who all say various differnt things–a proverbial Babel)?
Or the ONE TRUE CHURCH?
You go after the ONE.
By definition, 9,999 of these guys are (even by your standards) carrying out PRIVATE INTERPRETATION and are WRONG somewhere.
But you are silent about how they go about business and deny you are engaging in PRIVATE INTERPRETATION (when that is exactly what you are doing Sean77).
And ignore them and attack the Church that Jesus founded.
What good is an infallible book . . . Without an infallible interpretation?
.Which is exactly what sola Scriptura does with private interpretation. It makes YOU, the greater authority over the Church Jesus establishes and promises His own Divine protection of.
Sean77 . . .
Sean77. Think about it.Also incorrect. We do not believe in private interpretation.
Pretend there are 10,000 Protestants in a room all admitting they have no authority and all having their Bibles in hand.
There is one Catholic Pope there who also has a Bible, at least claims he has oral Tradition, and at least claims if necessary and under certain circumstances, he can with the protection of Christ, CLARIFY an interpretation in dispute (Magisterium or “teaching office”).
All 10,000 Protestants all have differing views on SOME aspect of Scripture. Baptizing babies or not. Pictures of Jesus or not. Various flavors of “the rapture”. The list goes on and on.
With only a mere 8 differences (there are even many more differences than eight among infighting Protestants), you could get over 40,000 “denominations”.
Which one do YOU attack?
The 9,999 (who all say various differnt things–a proverbial Babel)?
Or the ONE TRUE CHURCH?
You go after the ONE.
By definition, 9,999 of these guys are (even by your standards) carrying out PRIVATE INTERPRETATION and are WRONG somewhere.
But you are silent about how they go about business and deny you are engaging in PRIVATE INTERPRETATION (when that is exactly what you are doing Sean77).
And ignore them and attack the Church that Jesus founded.
What good is an infallible book . . . Without an infallible interpretation?
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
Sean77 . . .
That is fallacious reasoning Sean77.
But you are changing my premise from HOW I know something to God’s nature.God’s nature is not dependent on my acknowledging his nature. God is self-sufficient.
That is fallacious reasoning Sean77.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.