I fell ill with a terrible flu this past week and was out for four days practically bed ridden. I come back today to find the thread has boomed incredibly!
Anyway, I caught a couple comments on my original post but they’re all fairly similar so I’ll just tackle this one since it seemed a tad more forceful.
The bible describes some of the qualities of scripture. What it does not do, and cannot do, is examine writings and decide their inspiration. The bible does not, and cannot, tell you what the “sacred table of contents” should be. The Church had to do that. It took hundreds of years to settle.
I wasn’t really talking about the canon of the bible. I said that was a good subject, though. I’m only pointing this out because I don’t want to appear to be ignoring your statement on it. I believe someone else also mentioned it, although in a different context that you wouldn’t technically call it “infallible” but “inerrant.” Regardless, I think what I originally meant was clear. The bible has an authority that is special. The difference between me and catholics (and some others) is that I do not believe a sacred tradition goes along with the authority of the bible as equally authoritative.
I have found that, this is usually because one is simply not looking for it in earnest. Each of us tends to seek the defense of our own opinion, as that is simply human nature. There is a mountain of scriptural evidence for Peter’s primacy and leadership. But, you have to read it anew with this in mind. One must look for it and not re-interpret it to fit their notion of “Church” or view it with a jaundiced eye. It must be placed in historical context.
I agree! Of course the difference here is that I think you’re doing that. The problem with this sort of thing is that I know I don’t want to do and I’m willing to bet you don’t want to do it. But it will keep on going anyway.
I would be interested in the “mountain of scriptural evidence” for Peter’s primacy and leadership though. Or, rather, I’d be interested in evidence that suggests that his primacy was to be not only passed on later but also that it wasn’t shared by the other apostles. That’s the problem I have. Someone else asked, I think it was someone else, what I thought of Peter’s keys and etc that were specifically given to him by Christ. I know many like to ignore those and I try not to. However, I don’t see the keys as any particular significance to him as a pope. I see them to him as the first among those who confess the reality of Christ and I see his authority eventually shared by others.
When Peter is told to “feed my sheep” I do not understand it as a command that gives him any unique power, and I’m not sure how it does. Should not all bishops feed their sheep? Should not all bishops be a good shepherd to the flock? I’m not saying that Peter wasn’t given some stuff to do, but I don’t see any evidence that what he had to do ended up being different than what other bishops watching over their churches would have to do later. I see him only as first. The power to bind and loose is later reiterated in Matthew 18:18 for how to handle unrepentant sinners in the church. It is not a mystical ability exclusively given to Peter but is instead an explanation for the authority of the church in how to shepherd its members. Am I mistaken in regards to this?
Catholics often quote the “protestant pope” (Paul), because alarmingly often, no one else will be listened to. Did Paul claim infallibility? If we listen to him, what he said must have had infallibililty at some point. If not, why read it?
Paul, as inspired as he was, still deferred to the Church on doctrinal issues and to make certain that his Gospel did not conflict with that of the twelve.
This seems irrelevant, but perhaps it is because you think I am coming from a protestant background and in that case it might make more sense. Paul wrote books of the bible while inspired by the Holy Spirit, likewise he was moved by the holy spirit with spiritual gifts to aid his preaching. I’m not saying he wouldn’t have to. He’s not going to be infallible all the time he walks the earth after his vision of Christ. If he was he wouldn’t need to worry so much about keeping himself free from sin. 1 Cor 9:26-27
We are all subject to the absolute truth of God. Peter would have been as well.
As well, do you forget the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, the Lutherans and the Anglicans (among others), who also have creeds or confessions that are derived from the bible, but also from tradition? Those creeds and confessions, which were inspired by the bible, were completed by men outside of the bible.
I do not forget them. I don’t understand your point.
I must point out that the bible does not say this, but you do. You have thus made an “infallible” proclamation.
I am referencing 1 Corinthians 13:9-10
For we know in part and we prophesy in part; but when the perfect comes, the partial will be done away.
Unless I am reading this correctly, the bible does indeed say that the spiritual gifts of the first century are temporary. I’m not going to say those gifts can’t exists in some form, but certainly not in the abundance they did. You could walk into any church in the first century and find people speaking in tongues. You can’t do that today and I don’t think you’d argue that. With the passage I quoted, there is obviously disagreement about what the “perfect” is that is mentioned, but my point is that the bible claims they are temporary gifts.
