What is the standard against which you measure your understanding of Scripture?

[Benadam]

wouldn’t you say that the apostles role was to enterpret the meaning of what was already believed in the light of their unique and exclusive witness to Jesus?

I think that this is exactly why the authority of apostleship was given to them.

*then it stands to reason that what is already believed will always have to be enterpreted in the light of that apostolic witness in order to guard it’s true meaning. *

Writing things down is always more reliable than traditions. Look at us now. We fight over what was legitimate tradition and what was not. To the point that there had to be an infallible magisterium appointed so that they could descern what was true tradition and what was not. It cannot really be tested if it is not written since there is no paper trail. That is why unwritten tradition seems to be much more unreliable than written tradition (Scripture).

I would say it has already been shown in the line of Adam that oral tradition preserves a richer quality and sense of the divine message. If a comparison is made between the time before and after Moses, before Moses being the time the tradition that brings us genesis is orally transmitted, after Moses being the time that same tradition becomes written, a tradition seems almost doomed once written because the culture that lives the code of that tradition and adds to it with their own lives somehow disinherit themselves because the stories become one step removed.

Their sole purpose was obviously not to write Scripture, but to proclaim the risen Christ by their testimony, and death. I, for one, am glad that most of them seem to have died a martyrs dead. I gives me great comfort since it says to me that Christ really did rise from the grave. What an ironic gift their death and suffering is.

Amen that! Maybe if those events had been recorded for instructing the faithfull it could have been added to the canon?

 

[Pax]

michaelp:

Succession in teaching? This was granted to many. I have no problem with this. But succession as a person(s) who can infallibly speak for God? I cannot find it. This is a big difference. It is the difference between a teacher (which is what I am) and an apostle (which I am not). I am a successor to the apostles as well since I carried on the apostolic message as revealed in scripture…

Bishop, presbyter, pastor . . . they are all used interchangebly. I am also a bishop in this sense. Michael

While I respect your pastoral position within your church, Catholics see a difference in the line of ordination as I pointed out in a couple of previous posts. Priests (prebyters) in scripture offer sacrifice. This is still done through the Catholic priesthood through the sacrifice of the Mass. We believe there is a real and significant difference in the priesthood and the ordained ministry outside of the Catholic Church.

michaelp:

I am not saying that there should not be and was not authority in the Chuch. Heb 13:17 attests to this. The problem is not authority, but infallible authority.Michael

I guess we will continue to disagree, but my hope and prayer for you in this understanding will remain undaunted. You will make a great Catholic.

michaelp:

I gave you my theory and interpretation. What is wrong with it.Michael

I do not believe that your theory matches the historical rabbinical use and understanding of the keys. There is no congruency with your theory and the way the keys are to be understood from the OT. Our line of explanation is congruent with the historical data of scripture and the Jewish understanding.

michaelp:

I am somewhat objective since I don’t have any traditions to which I am bound. Michael

I sense that you are locked into one tradition that strongly binds you to interpret the scriptures the way you do. What I am going to say next, I say with respect and admiration because you have demonstrated great character and have exhibited sincerity on this thread. I think that you resist the Catholic position to some degree simply because it is the Catholic position. Please do not take this statement too simplistically. Traditions run deep. Commitments run deep. Beliefs run deep. Our relationship with God is supposed to be the ultimate relationship of all. You are obviously serious about your faith and your relationship with the Lord. When we truly walk with the Lord we have a certain comfortableness and certitude about what we believe. Afterall, we know whom we love and in whom we are placing our trust. That in itself should give us tremendous confidence. The problem is that “For now we see in a mirror dimly.” We can trust God, but we cannot trust ourselves. As Catholics we trust God completely. Our faith helps us to accept scripture’s testimony concerning the Church. In faith we submit fully to the body of Christ which is His bride. There is but one church and it is a visible church[seeJohn 17:20 visible unity,Matt 5:14 city on a hill, Matt 18:15-17].

cont. on next post

 

[Pax]

cont. from prior post

There is also unity in this church as seen in the following verses.

Eph 4:1-5
I therefore, the prisoner in the Lord, beg you to lead a life worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism,

Phi 1:27
Only, live your life in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ, so that, whether I come and see you or am absent and hear about you, I will know that you are standing firm in one spirit, striving side by side with one mind for the faith of the gospel,

Phi 2:1-2
If then there is any encouragement in Christ, any consolation from love, any sharing in the Spirit, any compassion and sympathy, make my joy complete: be of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind.

All of this was fulfilled and found within the Catholic Church for 1100 years until the Schism. Things became exponentially divided since the Reformation. The Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches still share 98% plus in doctrinal understandings. The Catholic Church has not changed and will not change. The consistency and unity within official Catholic teaching is because of the keys and infallibility. We not only have scriptural support, but we have historical support, and we have a logical hierarchical structure of bishops, and pope that provides the pillar and bulwark of the truth spoken of in scripture.

You offered a competing theory on the “Keys.” As Catholics we submit to this authority. We do not do this blindly but we submit. Think about your position. As a pastor you are the authority. You stated that you are a teacher, a bishop, of sorts. In your church you are, indeed, the bishop. In fact you are the “ultimate” authority. You settle disputes and you are the chief interpreter of scripture. Part of this comes from having been trained in seminary and from a lot of courses in scripture. Part of it comes from the office of pastor, and part of it comes from your superior knowledge in religious matters over the average church member. This gives you a position within your church that has no peer. If you are the pastor of an independent church you are the shepherd of that particular flock and there is no one else above you. You are in effect the pope of that church.

You may not think this is so, but there is a certain reality in this. When someone needs an answer they come to you. You are the shepherd of that flock and they trust you to be true. They trust that you are giving them God’s word in truth. I’m sure that most pastors pray that they are doing that very thing. Is it really that big a leap to see the connections we’ve made in scripture to show that God has provided us with a way of truly protecting and teaching the truth? Your own system denies the possibility, but often quietly operates in a fashion that “resembles” a level of teaching authority and authenticity that begins to approximate infallibilty. Pastors will not admit this and will always claim that it is scripture, but the competing claims of interpretation would indicate that the final word is the pastor.

I mean no offense in this but I believe that there exists a high wall in this area that our non-Catholic brothers and sisters cannot see over. I believe that the traditional teaching within non-Catholic circles makes the whole idea of papal infallibility anethema to them. This is a tradition that runs very deep and builds a bias that is not easily overcome. I believe that your confidence in your interpretation of the keys vs. our more congruent explanation attests to this difficulty. The keys are juridical. The keys are associated with authority. The keys are associated with the prime minister in a kingdom. The keys are associated with binding and loosening. The keys are not associated biblically with opening up the kingdom to the gentiles and others. Evangelization is certainly an important part of our Christian life whether we are in ministry or simply in the congregation. The keys are a different issue.

 

[Lisa4Catholics]

Pax, that was an excellent explaination I am learning alot from you guys, I would love to have the materials that you guys study. I got teared up reading the last 2 posts.I think Michael would be an excellent Catholic,too. I also recognise the wall(prayer can break down walls) God Bless,Lisa

 

[Benadam]

Originally Posted by michaelp
*
I am not saying that there should not be and was not authority in the Chuch. Heb 13:17 attests to this. The problem is not authority, but infallible authority.Michael*

Michael, I don’t understand how authority can be fallible if it is authority that is granted by God. Let me ask a question so I can demonstrate how consistent and concretely I believe this. OK: Did Moses have authority from God and what he had authority over was it fallible or infallible? I’ll answer lets say you said fallible because he allowed the Jews to dismiss their wives. I would say even though he allowed the marital bond to be adulterated that’s what God wanted for the good of His people at that time. Maybe Moses knew the depths of the marital bond maybe not, either way his authority was infallible. Jesus said Moses 'allowed" this word smacks of infallible authrority when Jesus say’s it. The authority in the catholic church bears the marks of providence as well. Adam had authority over nature yet probably had no idea that’s what he was experiencing. God is the only one who can appropriately wield His authority but that doesn’t limit Him in giving it to his fallible creatures since their weakness is His strength and through their ignorance He can make the good decisions necessary to work out His plan.

 

[SPOKENWORD]

SPOKENWORD:

Hi.Michael, Interesting read. Why did they have to cast lots to fill this position?.Was Christ not sure whom He wanted to fill this position. They prayed and this is how they made this decision. Maybe Christ wanted this position to be filled by us?Maybe it was to be left vacant. God Bless.====================================

Hi Michael,and others on this forum. I wanted to point out that these statements I made were because I was walking in the flesh and seeking with the wrong motive in my heart.So I appoligize for that. I needed to be walking in the Spirit and with the right heart in order for God to reveal His Truth. God Bless

 

[Philthy]

michaelp:

Well, I really don’t credit anyone but God for giving us the NT. Just like I don’t credit anyone but God for giving us the OT. God used man to write the Scriptures, and man recognized them to be the true Scriptures.

Michael

Hi Michael -
I hope your time at your folks’ house is giving you the rest you need…

“I really don’t credit anyone but God for giving us the NT… God used man to write the Scriptures, and man recognized them to be the true Scriptures…” It seems to me that your entire theology is premised upon this foundation - and I’m not even sure what you mean EXACTLY. One thing is true, however, and that is that if it isn’t true your theology needs some revising. The problem is, and I realize this is being covered on your other post, we never did get the entire Old and New Testament simply by mere mortals looking at books. God gave us the 10 commandments - he did not “give us” the Testaments in the same sense. And when you say “man” recognized them to be the true Scriptures, that is not entirely true except in the most meaningless way. You still seem to ignore that in addition to recognizing what was of Divine origin, there still needed to be someone to recognize what was not. That dismissiveness is largely a product of the time we live in - it’s easy to take for granted. Your response so far is that it isn’t crucial. We got most of it pretty early on. That truly seems odd to me. On the one hand you say God has revealed it to us, but on the other He didn’t entirely.

Must tend to a crying baby…
Phil

 

[michaelp]

Benadam:

Originally Posted by michaelp

I am not saying that there should not be and was not authority in the Chuch. Heb 13:17 attests to this. The problem is not authority, but infallible authority.Michael

Michael, I don’t understand how authority can be fallible if it is authority that is granted by God. Let me ask a question so I can demonstrate how consistent and concretely I believe this. OK: Did Moses have authority from God and what he had authority over was it fallible or infallible? I’ll answer lets say you said fallible because he allowed the Jews to dismiss their wives. I would say even though he allowed the marital bond to be adulterated that’s what God wanted for the good of His people at that time. Maybe Moses knew the depths of the marital bond maybe not, either way his authority was infallible. Jesus said Moses 'allowed" this word smacks of infallible authrority when Jesus say’s it. The authority in the catholic church bears the marks of providence as well. Adam had authority over nature yet probably had no idea that’s what he was experiencing. God is the only one who can appropriately wield His authority but that doesn’t limit Him in giving it to his fallible creatures since their weakness is His strength and through their ignorance He can make the good decisions necessary to work out His plan.

Benedam, God give authority to parents (Eph 5) and to government (Rom 13). Is this authority? It it infallible?

 

[michaelp]

Philthy:

Hi Michael -
I hope your time at your folks’ house is giving you the rest you need…

“I really don’t credit anyone but God for giving us the NT… God used man to write the Scriptures, and man recognized them to be the true Scriptures…” It seems to me that your entire theology is premised upon this foundation - and I’m not even sure what you mean EXACTLY. One thing is true, however, and that is that if it isn’t true your theology needs some revising. The problem is, and I realize this is being covered on your other post, we never did get the entire Old and New Testament simply by mere mortals looking at books. God gave us the 10 commandments - he did not “give us” the Testaments in the same sense. And when you say “man” recognized them to be the true Scriptures, that is not entirely true except in the most meaningless way. You still seem to ignore that in addition to recognizing what was of Divine origin, there still needed to be someone to recognize what was not. That dismissiveness is largely a product of the time we live in - it’s easy to take for granted. Your response so far is that it isn’t crucial. We got most of it pretty early on. That truly seems odd to me. On the one hand you say God has revealed it to us, but on the other He didn’t entirely.

Must tend to a crying baby…
Phil

Phil, How old it your baby? Boy or Girl? What is its name?

I don’t know about your post here Phil. It seems that Christ and the apostles did not need some infallible declaration before they used the OT with authority. Did they believe in the OT? Or were they not sure what the OT was?

Michael

 

[michaelp]

I guess we will continue to disagree, but my hope and prayer for you in this understanding will remain undaunted. You will make a great Catholic.

Thanks Pax. You already make a great Christian!

I do not believe that your theory matches the historical rabbinical use and understanding of the keys. There is no congruency with your theory and the way the keys are to be understood from the OT. Our line of explanation is congruent with the historical data of scripture and the Jewish understanding.

You still have not dealt with my exegesis. Tell me exactly why it is wrong. Every background commentary that I have read does not agree with your interpretation of Isa. What makes you so sure that you are right. What about the “door” passage in Rev? According to your model, Christ now has the “keys” back from Peter. Right?

I sense that you are locked into one tradition that strongly binds you to interpret the scriptures the way you do.

I really have no tradition to which I am necessarily bound. You would be surprised how much I have developed over the years, going against previously held traditions. I have learned not to let my traditions bind me. I have to. I could not teach with a clear conscious if I was teaching my traditions thinking they were infallible.

What I am going to say next, I say with respect and admiration because you have demonstrated great character and have exhibited sincerity on this thread. I think that you resist the Catholic position to some degree simply because it is the Catholic position.

This could be true, but I do not think so. I just have too many problems with Catholic exegesis and tradition that I find a hard time to find justification for.

Please do not take this statement too simplistically. Traditions run deep.

I do agree. But let me ask you this question: Are your traditions binding you to serious consideration that you may be wrong. This is the first time that I have said something like this on this site since I am not necessarily here to promote my opinion, but to learn from yours. But you must consider this possibility. I have no necessary bind to my traditions that keeps me from objectively considering the RC opinion. Do you? In other words, if I were to give firm exegesis of the Scriptures that says that salvation is by faith without any works whatsoever, could you actually consider it. Or would it involve to much risk?

Afterall, we know whom we love and in whom we are placing our trust. That in itself should give us tremendous confidence. The problem is that “For now we see in a mirror dimly.” We can trust God, but we cannot trust ourselves. As Catholics we trust God completely. Our faith helps us to accept scripture’s testimony concerning the Church. In faith we submit fully to the body of Christ which is His bride. There is but one church and it is a visible church.

Yes, Christ said that the Church would be visible in its actions, belief, and love. The history of the Church (protestant and Roman Catholic) has not set a great example in any of these. I believe that actions speak louder than words, and if someone were to use Christ’s standard of actions being the sign of the visible Church (not merely profession of belief), would the Church seem unified and strong? No . . . but it continues nontheless because the gates of hell cannot prevail against it. You see, belief, while important, is not an end, but a means to an end–loving God and loving each other is the end. This is evidenced through good works motivated not by law, but by grace (unmerited favor). Does the Catholic church do this perfectly? No. Does the Protestant Church do this perfectly? No. Therefore, to claim that one Church (RC) has the claim to the true Church does not seem evidenced in the works.

 

[michaelp]

As a pastor you are the authority. You stated that you are a teacher, a bishop, of sorts. In your church you are, indeed, the bishop. In fact you are the “ultimate” authority.

But I am not the ultimate authority. Someone can be an authority without being the “ultimate” authority. I don’t think that anyone has to have ultimate authority. Why would you think that they do? God is the only ultimate authority.

You settle disputes and you are the chief interpreter of scripture. Part of this comes from having been trained in seminary and from a lot of courses in scripture. Part of it comes from the office of pastor, and part of it comes from your superior knowledge in religious matters over the average church member. This gives you a position within your church that has no peer. If you are the pastor of an independent church you are the shepherd of that particular flock and there is no one else above you. You are in effect the pope of that church.

No, I am not the pope since I do not claim ultimate authority. I am a shepherd, guide, teacher, counselor, but not an infallible authority. There is a BIG difference. I let my people know when I speak with an assurance on the matter (e.g. God loves you), and when I am not quit so sure (e.g. you should not marry). This is the responsiblility of every pastor.

Your own system denies the possibility, but often quietly operates in a fashion that “resembles” a level of teaching authority and authenticity that begins to approximate infallibilty.

Believe me. My people never get this impression. They sit before me with Scripture open, and I explain to them my understanding. Most of my exhortations come straight from Scripture and need very little amount of intermediary interpretation. I give examples, I give the history of the Church, I give application, I give theology, and I give opinion. There does not need to be infalliblity since the Scripture speaks so plainly about so many things. (I know I have already discussed this on another thread).

But let me assure you. I do not claim infallitability and my people do not think I am infallible.

You are here exhorting me, hoping that it is effective and the Holy Spirit leads me, but you do not think that you are infallible do you? You think that you are right don’t you? You think that you are rightly interpreting history, the Church, the Magisterium, and the Scriptures, don’t you? Are you infallible?

It is the same thing with the bishop, presbyters, pastors, etc. They can be effective without being infallible.

I mean no offense in this but I believe that there exists a high wall in this area that our non-Catholic brothers and sisters cannot see over. I believe that the traditional teaching within non-Catholic circles makes the whole idea of papal infallibility anethema to them.

It is not anathema to me. It is just thus far unjustified.

This is a tradition that runs very deep and builds a bias that is not easily overcome. I believe that your confidence in your interpretation of the keys vs. our more congruent explanation attests to this difficulty. The keys are juridical. The keys are associated with authority. The keys are associated with the prime minister in a kingdom. The keys are associated with binding and loosening.

I agree, they are just not passed on from anything that I can see.

The keys are not associated biblically with opening up the kingdom to the gentiles and others.

How do you KNOW? Seriously?

 

[Benadam]

michaelp:

Benedam, God give authority to parents (Eph 5) and to government (Rom 13). Is this authority? It it infallible?

I’ll answer that if you answer my original question to you.

Was Moses’ authority fallible?

 

[michaelp]

Benadam:

I’ll answer that if you answer my original question to you.

Was Moses’ authority fallible?

His written words were. That is all I can say definitely.

Michael

 

[Pax]

michaelp:

But I am not the ultimate authority. Someone can be an authority without being the “ultimate” authority. I don’t think that anyone has to have ultimate authority. Why would you think that they do? God is the only ultimate authority.

We agree that God is the “ultimate” authority in all things. In the context of pastoring and teaching within your church, however, you are the ultimate human authority. While you may take a cautious and humble approach in teaching you are, nevertheless, the authority in your church when it comes to teaching.

michaelp:

No, I am not the pope since I do not claim ultimate authority. I am a shepherd, guide, teacher, counselor, but not an infallible authority. There is a BIG difference. I let my people know when I speak with an assurance on the matter (e.g. God loves you), and when I am not quit so sure (e.g. you should not marry). This is the responsiblility of every pastor.

When you disagree with a particular interpretation of scripture such as what we have presented concerning the keys then you have placed your interpretation above ours. Let’s assume that you give a teaching in your church concerning Jesus, Peter, and the keys. Do most pastors explore even handedly the opposing interpretations such as what we have presented? I do not believe this happens. I do not believe a pastor can afford to do this because he is likely to lose members that find the competing interpretation persuasive. If a pastor steers his teaching according to his interpretation and doesn’t even handedly present competing interpretations, then he begins to exercise teaching authority. If he elevates his interpretation over “reasonable” competing interpretations he is quietly exercising a claim that may in fact approximate infallibility. Afterall, it is only his claim against anothers by way of exegesis and interpretation.

michaelp:

Believe me. My people never get this impression. They sit before me with Scripture open, and I explain to them my understanding. Most of my exhortations come straight from Scripture and need very little amount of intermediary interpretation. I give examples, I give the history of the Church, I give application, I give theology, and I give opinion. There does not need to be infalliblity since the Scripture speaks so plainly about so many things. (I know I have already discussed this on another thread).

I am confident that you always give your teaching and study efforts your very best in all respects. I imagine, however, that your humility and methods may actually increase your credibility within your congregation. Because of this, you might sincerely teach an error and it will be more easily believed. Morevover, you are a gifted debater and have a confident and persuasive edge in your method and presentation.

michaelp:

But let me assure you. I do not claim infallitability and my people do not think I am infallible.

I know you do not claim it and I’m sure your congregation would affirm that. Moreover, they may intellectually be convicted that they do not believe that you are infallible. My point is a practical one. In practice, unless you go off the deep end on the obvious, they will accept your teaching. The more difficult the passages of scripture and the deeper the theological difficulties become, the more dependent your flock becomes on you. In those cases you are the last word. The more trustworthy you appear in smaller matters the more likely you are to be trusted in more complex things. When your flock is clearly out of their depth in a scriptural or theological matter the more likely it is that your opinion is accepted as “the truth.” Even when cautiously presented it becomes accepted. Examine the controversial teaching of “once saved always saved” within non-Catholic circles. Some believe this to be an absolutely true doctrine while others believe it to be a false doctrine. Both sides point to scripture for their support. Both sides cannot be right, but both claim a level of certitude that in practical terms amount to an infallible teaching within their respective circles.

cont. on next post

 

[Pax]

cont. from prior post

michaelp:

You are here exhorting me, hoping that it is effective and the Holy Spirit leads me, but you do not think that you are infallible do you? You think that you are right don’t you? You think that you are rightly interpreting history, the Church, the Magisterium, and the Scriptures, don’t you? Are you infallible?

No I am not infallible. I have at times held my own opinions in sufficiently high esteem that more than a few people had to remind me that I am not infallible. I no longer have much confidence in my own opinions. I have discovered after some humbling study and reflection that my opinions were like straw compared to the 2000 years of Christian wisdom within the Church.

michaelp:

It is the same thing with the bishop, presbyters, pastors, etc. They can be effective without being infallible.

They can certainly be effective to some degree or another without being infallible. They are much more effective, however, when they rely upon the infallible teachings of the church in matters of faith and morals.

 

[Pax]

Michael,

Concerning Moses and infallibility you responded with the following:

michaelp:

His written words were. That is all I can say definitely.

Michael

Think about this. Are the words spoken by Moses in the OT infallible because they were written down in scripture, or were his words infallible and then recorded in scripture? Did the apostles always teach infallibly or only when it was recorded into scripture? We know that at least one or two letters sent by Paul were lost and there are no copies in existence. Were the teachings of Paul in these letters infallible? Did Moses only teach the Israelites the words written in the OT or did he [most likely] say other infallible things that were not recorded? We know Jesus said and did many things that are not recorded and that the apostle John says that “were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”[John 21:25] We know that the apostles said more in their teaching than only what is recorded in scripture. We know this because there are a couple of lost letters of Paul. We also know this because John says that he has much to write but that he would rather talk with the members face to face.[John 1:13-14] Paul says similar things and discusses briefly some of the places he has preached to without going into detail.

Clearly, the apostles said much more than was recorded just as Jesus said and did much more than was recorded in scripture. What the apostles said and taught was infallible even though it is not necessarily found in scripture. Much of this teaching has been handed down and protected in the apostolic traditions of the Church, and if the traditions come from the apostles they are infallible.

The Church declared the canon of scripture and meticulously translated and copied the scriptures as well as protected the scriptures from being destroyed. The Church knows her book. The Church knows better than anyone else what the scriptures mean. The Church is the highest authority in interpreting the scriptures. The Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. The keys given to the head of this Church are passed on to successors. The keys were passed on by the king to one prime minister and then another in the OT and this continued in the Davidic line of kings for generations. This is the model Jesus used when patterning his words on Isaiah 22 in granting Peter the keys. There are succeeding prime ministers and they possess the keys just as Peter did. It is with the keys that the power to bind and loose on earth and “in heaven” is handed down to the successors to the bishop of Rome.

 

[Benadam]

michaelp:

His written words were. That is all I can say definitely.

Michael

is that an infallible claim?

 

[michaelp]

Pax, let me say that I really appreciate your answers here. I think that they are not only honest and reasonable, but they also show me that we are closer in our approach than I previously thought. That is nice to see.

We agree that God is the “ultimate” authority in all things. In the context of pastoring and teaching within your church, however, you are the ultimate human authority. While you may take a cautious and humble approach in teaching you are, nevertheless, the authority in your church when it comes to teaching.

I agree, they do look to me as an authority. But I push them back to the Scriptures and continually confess my prejudice.

Do most pastors explore even handedly the opposing interpretations such as what we have presented? I do not believe this happens. I do not believe a pastor can afford to do this because he is likely to lose members that find the competing interpretation persuasive.

I do agree that most pastors (Catholic and Protestant) do not do this. All presentations are rather one sided. This is something that I hope to overcome every time that I teach. I learned it from a professor at seminary when he was referring to the heretic Eutchyus (at least I think that was his name). He taught in such a way that empathized with his plight (not having history as we do) and said that “he loved Christ and was doing the best that he could”. This irenic approach has stuck with me. The “either you join us or you don’t really love God” approach was one I used to live by (to my shame). God has taught me through the years that I need to hold on to some beliefs loosely and some tightly. Those that are tight, I must die for. Those that are loose, I give latitude thinking that I might be wrong. I teach in such a way that if there is any credible position that the history of the Church has held, I had better give it a good defense and let the people make up their own mind.

You can view an introduction to this method in class on of Introduction to Theology (www.thetheologyprogram.com).

In all honesty, that is one of the reasons that I am here. I want to understand RC not from a fundementalistic protestant who just wants you head on a platter, but from the way Catholics themselves see their faith. I also come here with an open mind believing that if God wants to expand my thinking, I will allow Him to do so.

If a pastor steers his teaching according to his interpretation and doesn’t even handedly present competing interpretations, then he begins to exercise teaching authority.

I would call this the “power of the pulpit.” I think that this power is abused when staw men arguements are put forth and dogmatism is taught about every issue.

I am confident that you always give your teaching and study efforts your very best in all respects. I imagine, however, that your humility and methods may actually increase your credibility within your congregation. Because of this, you might sincerely teach an error and it will be more easily believed.

You are correct. I do live with this fear. I do pray that God keeps me in fear of this. I say to the Lord (expecially in cases that are very difficult and contain much potential for life change like the doctrine of Predestination), “Lord, if I have taught truth, please let them never forget it. If error, let them forget it right now.”

I am sure that RC Preists must think the same when they teach on something or give advice when the Magisterium has not yet spoken to that issue.

I know you do not claim it and I’m sure your congregation would affirm that. Moreover, they may intellectually be convicted that they do not believe that you are infallible. My point is a practical one. In practice, unless you go off the deep end on the obvious, they will accept your teaching.

I think you are right. It is sometimes scary. No matter how irenic I am, people respect when you present other opinions clearly and yet are convinced of another. I do the same, so do you. That is why we are all so impressed with converts and they hold so much sway. They have seen the other side, and they did not stay.

Examine the controversial teaching of “once saved always saved” within non-Catholic circles. Some believe this to be an absolutely true doctrine while others believe it to be a false doctrine. Both sides point to scripture for their support. Both sides cannot be right, but both claim a level of certitude that in practical terms amount to an infallible teaching within their respective circles.

You are right, both sides cannot be right. But the struggle is healthy and makes people think more. Sometimes I think that God allows and even wills competing theories on important matters so that we stay sharp and understand more deeply. The struggle makes us strong.

 

[michaelp]

Pax:

cont. from prior post

No I am not infallible. I have at times held my own opinions in sufficiently high esteem that more than a few people had to remind me that I am not infallible. I no longer have much confidence in my own opinions. I have discovered after some humbling study and reflection that my opinions were like straw compared to the 2000 years of Christian wisdom within the Church.

I agree. Expecially with that last statement. That is why I persued Church history to such a strong degree in seminary. It really makes you struggle through some issues. I have often struggled with the fact that baptismal regeneration seems to have been believed in varying degrees for the first 1500 years of Church history. This is something a fundementalist must struggle with. I present this to my fundementalist students and ask, “was everyone before 1500 lost? Or are you going to do a random search throughout Church history and rewrite it so that you think that there were only a few “true believers” that did not believe this and held on to the true Church?” I believe that many do do this. I believe that Protestants are among the worst thinkers today. They blindly accept whatever comes from the pulpit and disregard the struggles of the Church while, unknowing to them, stand on their shoulders when it comes to the doctrine of the Trinity, Christ, and others.

They can certainly be effective to some degree or another without being infallible. They are much more effective, however, when they rely upon the infallible teachings of the church in matters of faith and morals.

Remove “infallible” and I would agree .

 

[michaelp]

Think about this. Are the words spoken by Moses in the OT infallible because they were written down in scripture, or were his words infallible and then recorded in scripture? Did the apostles always teach infallibly or only when it was recorded into scripture? We know that at least one or two letters sent by Paul were lost and there are no copies in existence. Were the teachings of Paul in these letters infallible? Did Moses only teach the Israelites the words written in the OT or did he [most likely] say other infallible things that were not recorded? We know Jesus said and did many things that are not recorded and that the apostle John says that “were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”[John 21:25] We know that the apostles said more in their teaching than only what is recorded in scripture. We know this because there are a couple of lost letters of Paul. We also know this because John says that he has much to write but that he would rather talk with the members face to face.[John 1:13-14] Paul says similar things and discusses briefly some of the places he has preached to without going into detail.

Clearly, the apostles said much more than was recorded just as Jesus said and did much more than was recorded in scripture. What the apostles said and taught was infallible even though it is not necessarily found in scripture. Much of this teaching has been handed down and protected in the apostolic traditions of the Church, and if the traditions come from the apostles they are infallible.

The Church declared the canon of scripture and meticulously translated and copied the scriptures as well as protected the scriptures from being destroyed. The Church knows her book. The Church knows better than anyone else what the scriptures mean. The Church is the highest authority in interpreting the scriptures. The Church is the pillar and bulwark of the truth. The keys given to the head of this Church are passed on to successors. The keys were passed on by the king to one prime minister and then another in the OT and this continued in the Davidic line of kings for generations. This is the model Jesus used when patterning his words on Isaiah 22 in granting Peter the keys. There are succeeding prime ministers and they possess the keys just as Peter did. It is with the keys that the power to bind and loose on earth and “in heaven” is handed down to the successors to the bishop of Rome.

I have no way of knowing about any of their “infallibility” outside of that of Scripture. It is the only thing that is said explicitly to be “God breathed.” I know that Christ was necessarily infallible in all that He said. I know that Peter was fallible in teaching on doctrine since Paul corrected him. In theory, Peter could have written a letter that contained his errent understanding and that is what Paul was referring to. In letter or in word, he still was infallible. This fallibile doctrine did not make it into Scripture except in a infallible condemnation. I am glad that it did not. So, the real 1 Cor and the real 3 Cor could have contained error. I just don’t know.

Michael