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

[michaelp]

Benadam:

is that an infallible claim?

Yes. I recieved a word from my Charismatic brother that it was.

Michael

 

[Benadam]

michaelp:

Yes. I recieved a word from my Charismatic brother that it was.

Michael

that was sneaky… what about Moses’ allowing adultery? Since he allowed it by his authority and it is written we can assume a mutual agreement in that an infallible authority can allow sin in certain circumstances?

in regards of the Holy Scriptures, on what authority do you claim they are infallibly God breathed? Oh, I forgot about the Charismatic brother. Does he have a Charismatic brother too? If we take that to it’s logical conclusion though we’ll find it’s source is fallible because we would find disagreement on essential points somewhere down the line and about 5 or 600 years down the line every brother would be agreeing with me about this…

 

[Pax]

michaelp:

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

Michael,

Peter was infallible and Paul never corrected Peter on doctrinal teaching. Paul got in Peter’s face when Peter acted hypocritically in the presence of the Judaizers. There is a difference between infallibility and impeccability. Peter had the charism of the former but no one has the latter.

 

[dcdurel]

michaelp:

I am not coming at this as a Protestant Polemicist as if I am doing this to make a case for Protestantism. The fact of the case is that most all of Church history prior to Anselm held to some form of the Ransom to Satan theory. I do agree that there were seeds of the satisfation and substitution theories, but there are seed of all true doctine throughout the Church.

My basic point is still the same if you back up and look at it. Church history has not been as united as you seem to require an some MAJOR issues.

There are many more.

Michael

I don’t think you understand the difference between opinions and the word of God. The apostles handed down everything they learned from Jesus and the Holy Spirit in apostolic Tradition. Thus, all of God’s teachings were handed down in apostolic Tradition.
** BUT, only part of those teachings were clear and explicit. The very basic foundational teachings were clear and explicit. **
For example, the basic teachings on baptism, the mass, the eucharist, confession, original sin, mortal sin, venial sin, salvation, etc. were clear and explicit. But, ** large amounts of apostolic Tradition** **were NOT clear and explicit. ** Thus, on these matters the fathers of the Church were free to give their own opinions and speculations, until the Church authorities, (Pope and bishops) proposed a clear and explicit teaching on the matter. Thus, with all the Church fathers we will find errors which the Church condemns today as false. But, the fathers were not taught false doctrine by the apostles. The teachings simply were not clear and explicit yet.
You can tell the difference when a false teaching arouses universal oppostition. For example, when some began to deny purgatory, St. Augustine names all the fathers before him who taught purgatory as a teaching coming down from the apostles. He does not let it ride, and accept that denial as another opinion.
When some tried to deny that the conscrated bread and wine became the true body and blood of Jesus you will find UNIVERSAL opposition. You won’t find some saying yes, and some saying no, and tolerating different opinions. Thus, that was a clear explicit apostolic teaching handed down by the apostles. The same thing on the perpetual virginity of Mary, etc.

Thus, not all of God’s word is clear and explicit. Much is still implicit and hidden.
The difference is that in scripture NONE of the teachings are clear and explicit. The proof is the good, holy, prayerful, intelligent Protestants cannot agree on a single teaching of scripture. There is no teaching all Protestant denominations agree upon.
But in apostolic Tradition there ARE some basic teachings that are clear and explicit. That is why on basic teachings there was always agreement.
Now, you may want to classify some teachings as MAJOR, which were not explicit back then. But, just because you think it was major back then, does not make it so. If Jesus wanted to make that teaching clear and explicit when given to the apostles, He certainly could have done so. But, he didn’t and instead gave His Church teaching authority to make that decision later.
Thus, we see the need for all three authorities that Jesus gave us. The

1. teaching and governing authority of His Church, which presents the teachings of Jesus , and tells us the sources of those teachings (2 apostolic Tradition, 3. scripture)

That teaching authority also then draws on what is hidden and, implicit in aspostolic tradition and scripture, and proposes clearer teachings which all Christians must believe.

After all, there are no teachings of Jesus where He specifically condemns owning slaves. People just saw slavery as part of one’s position in life, some were kings, some were slaves. The bible seems to be very ambigous toward slavery. That is why the Southern Baptist religion endorsed slavery at one time.
But when slavery arose again with the discovery of the new world in the 1500’s, the Popes wrote 9 encyclicals condemning slavery and the slave trade, and drew upon God’s word in scripture and apostolic Tradition as source of that teaching.

Thus, the Church is not a dead teaching authority, teaching only what was explicit in the past, but magisterium is a living teaching authority, constantly guided by the Holy Spirit to draw upon God’s word in apostolic Tradition and scripture in presenting teachings that are needed to live during this day and time.

 

[The_Dead_Bishop]

Please note: I voted the Church… not the anti-church…

 

[Pax]

Michael,

Subsequent to Pentecost, no “apostle” taught errors in the area of faith or morals. The NT wasn’t written down until after many were dead. The fact that they probably spoke on a great many things not recorded in the NT does not raise even the slightest possibility that they taught errors. The NT recorded things but not all things. The NT documents were not written to record only their infallible teachings and by design edited out their errors. There is simply nothing in scripture to suggest such a hypothesis. They spoke first, and taught first and they did so infallibly. A synopsis of what they said and did is recorded in scripture. The fact that it is in scripture gives us confidence that it is inerrant.

It is important to understand that if the apostle John spoke to you directly in answering your questions about “the real presence” in the Eucharist(assuming you were a contemporary of his)you would be hearing the infallible teaching whether your questions and the answers were recorded in scripture. This is why first century writings by people like Ignatius of Antioch are so important to understanding scripture. Such things give us greater understanding into exactly what the sacred authors taught and how scripture is to be understood.

 

[Pax]

michaelp:

…
… 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.”

This is a worthy prayer on your part, but when we examine the landscape before us we find that a great many differences exist in doctrine and belief. Teachings by effective teachers with attentive listeners are like those songs and tunes you can’t get out of your head. We know from scripture that people are brought to the faith and discipled through preaching. It is by “hearing” the word that people are brought to faith and salvation. We can not afford to get it wrong.

Concerning the differences on the “once saved always saved” doctrine you responded:

michaelp:

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.

I strongly disagree here. God does not will disunity in doctrine for any reason. Scripture speaks too strongly on this issue for anything to the contrary to be true.

Please consider the following:
John 17: 20-23
"I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, **that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me. **

In addition to this, the NT has the following to say about teaching and doctrine:
Romans 6: 17-18
But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness.

Romans 16: 17-18
I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by fair and flattering words they deceive the hearts of the simple-minded.

Ephesians 4: 13-14
…until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles.

1 Timothy 1: 3
As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine,

1Timothy 4: 1
Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,

1 Timothy 4: 6-8
If you put these instructions before the brethren, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished on the words of the faith and of the good doctrine which you have followed. Have nothing to do with godless and silly myths. Train yourself in godliness;
for while bodily training is of some value, godliness is of value in every way, as it holds promise for the present life and also for the life to come.

 

[michaelp]

This is a worthy prayer on your part, but when we examine the landscape before us we find that a great many differences exist in doctrine and belief. Teachings by effective teachers with attentive listeners are like those songs and tunes you can’t get out of your head. We know from scripture that people are brought to the faith and discipled through preaching. It is by “hearing” the word that people are brought to faith and salvation. We can not afford to get it wrong.

I agree to a point. But are there two wills in God? I believe so:

1. Sovereign
2. Allowing will

Both are there to fulfill His purpose.

You ought to read this article. It makes alot of sense.

desiringgod.org/library/topics/doctrines_grace/2wills.html

 

[michaelp]

Subsequent to Pentecost, no “apostle” taught errors in the area of faith or morals.

I know you believe this. But this is a necessary assumption of your system that may or may not be. I just don’t know. Peter did seem to be wrong, but I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Michael

 

[Pax]

Michael,

You are right…God allows many things, but I think that may be something different from what we were driving at.

 

[michaelp]

dcdurel:

I don’t think you understand the difference between opinions and the word of God. The apostles handed down everything they learned from Jesus and the Holy Spirit in apostolic Tradition. Thus, all of God’s teachings were handed down in apostolic Tradition.
BUT, only part of those teachings were clear and explicit. The very basic foundational teachings were clear and explicit.
For example, the basic teachings on baptism, the mass, the eucharist, confession, original sin, mortal sin, venial sin, salvation, etc. were clear and explicit. But, large amounts of apostolic Tradition **were NOT clear and explicit. **Thus, on these matters the fathers of the Church were free to give their own opinions and speculations, until the Church authorities, (Pope and bishops) proposed a clear and explicit teaching on the matter. Thus, with all the Church fathers we will find errors which the Church condemns today as false. But, the fathers were not taught false doctrine by the apostles. The teachings simply were not clear and explicit yet.
You can tell the difference when a false teaching arouses universal oppostition. For example, when some began to deny purgatory, St. Augustine names all the fathers before him who taught purgatory as a teaching coming down from the apostles. He does not let it ride, and accept that denial as another opinion.
When some tried to deny that the conscrated bread and wine became the true body and blood of Jesus you will find UNIVERSAL opposition. You won’t find some saying yes, and some saying no, and tolerating different opinions. Thus, that was a clear explicit apostolic teaching handed down by the apostles. The same thing on the perpetual virginity of Mary, etc.

Thus, not all of God’s word is clear and explicit. Much is still implicit and hidden.
The difference is that in scripture NONE of the teachings are clear and explicit. The proof is the good, holy, prayerful, intelligent Protestants cannot agree on a single teaching of scripture. There is no teaching all Protestant denominations agree upon.
But in apostolic Tradition there ARE some basic teachings that are clear and explicit. That is why on basic teachings there was always agreement.
Now, you may want to classify some teachings as MAJOR, which were not explicit back then. But, just because you think it was major back then, does not make it so. If Jesus wanted to make that teaching clear and explicit when given to the apostles, He certainly could have done so. But, he didn’t and instead gave His Church teaching authority to make that decision later.
Thus, we see the need for all three authorities that Jesus gave us. The

1. teaching and governing authority of His Church, which presents the teachings of Jesus , and tells us the sources of those teachings (2 apostolic Tradition, 3. scripture)

That teaching authority also then draws on what is hidden and, implicit in aspostolic tradition and scripture, and proposes clearer teachings which all Christians must believe.

After all, there are no teachings of Jesus where He specifically condemns owning slaves. People just saw slavery as part of one’s position in life, some were kings, some were slaves. The bible seems to be very ambigous toward slavery. That is why the Southern Baptist religion endorsed slavery at one time.
But when slavery arose again with the discovery of the new world in the 1500’s, the Popes wrote 9 encyclicals condemning slavery and the slave trade, and drew upon God’s word in scripture and apostolic Tradition as source of that teaching.

Thus, the Church is not a dead teaching authority, teaching only what was explicit in the past, but magisterium is a living teaching authority, constantly guided by the Holy Spirit to draw upon God’s word in apostolic Tradition and scripture in presenting teachings that are needed to live during this day and time.

Thanks for your contribution. I will have to think about it.

Let me ask you a question. Has the Church taken a position on evolution or the new or young earth theory yet?

 

[Pax]

michaelp:

I know you believe this. But this is a necessary assumption of your system that may or may not be. I just don’t know. Peter did seem to be wrong, but I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Michael

Please show me where Peter’s teaching was wrong. This intrigues me…I was named after him.

 

[michaelp]

Pax:

Please show me where Peter’s teaching was wrong. This intrigues me…I was named after him.

Gal. 2:14: Paul speaking about Peter and Barnabas

"But when I saw that they were deviating from the truth of the gospel, I told Cephas in front of everyone, “If you, who are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel Gentiles to live like Jews?”

 

[Pax]

Michael,

The Church allows latitude on evolution and young earth theory. The Church believes and teaches that all “truth” comes from God. Since God is the creator, all things are part of his plan and design. Genuine scientific truth coincides with and complements spiritual truth. Sometimes we do not always see this because we do not have adequate scientific understanding, or spiritual understanding, or maybe both.

God may or may not have used evolution as part of His creative process. Genesis is written in such a way that it could support an understanding of spontaneous generation or some form of evolution. The Catholic Church has no problem with sound and ethical scientific-investigation that pertains to the mechanisms God may have set in motion for the creation of planets and creatures.

The Church takes immediate exception to evolutionary theory, however, when it attempts to take the Creator out of the process. Unfortunately, evolutionary theorists state their case as if it were scientific fact and they almost universally object to a Supreme Being that created all things.

The Church is careful not to engage itself in scientific debate. The Church has no infallibility in this area. The Church leaders might have personal opinions but they are not put forth as any kind of official teaching. Evolution and young earth positions are allowed just as Creationism is. I personally find macro evolution to be a mere theory. I also believe that the theory of intelligent design has considerably more scientific credibility than current evolutionary thinking. I do not find the young earth theory to have nearly the scientific credibility as the old earth theory. I do not believe that you need to believe the former to defeat arguments that support current evolutionary theory.

I have given you some of my own summarized opinions to give you a little better picture of the flexibility in Catholic teaching in this area. The Church doesn’t need to argue with scientific “facts” and doesn’t need to argue with scientific theories except where the theories contradict theological truths or erode the moral code.

 

[michaelp]

Pax:

Michael,

The Church allows latitude on evolution and young earth theory. The Church believes and teaches that all “truth” comes from God. Since God is the creator, all things are part of his plan and design. Genuine scientific truth coincides with and complements spiritual truth. Sometimes we do not always see this because we do not have adequate scientific understanding, or spiritual understanding, or maybe both.

God may or may not have used evolution as part of His creative process. Genesis is written in such a way that it could support an understanding of spontaneous generation or some form of evolution. The Catholic Church has no problem with sound and ethical scientific-investigation that pertains to the mechanisms God may have set in motion for the creation of planets and creatures.

The Church takes immediate exception to evolutionary theory, however, when it attempts to take the Creator out of the process. Unfortunately, evolutionary theorists state their case as if it were scientific fact and they almost universally object to a Supreme Being that created all things.

The Church is careful not to engage itself in scientific debate. The Church has no infallibility in this area. The Church leaders might have personal opinions but they are not put forth as any kind of official teaching. Evolution and young earth positions are allowed just as Creationism is. I personally find macro evolution to be a mere theory. I also believe that the theory of intelligent design has considerably more scientific credibility than current evolutionary thinking. I do not find the young earth theory to have nearly the scientific credibility as the old earth theory. I do not believe that you need to believe the former to defeat arguments that support current evolutionary theory.

I have given you some of my own summarized opinions to give you a little better picture of the flexibility in Catholic teaching in this area. The Church doesn’t need to argue with scientific “facts” and doesn’t need to argue with scientific theories except where the theories contradict theological truths or erode the moral code.

Can the Church tell us the interpretation of Gen 1, whether the “days” were literal of figurative since this is such a hermeneutical point of division and major contention?

 

[Pax]

michaelp:

Gal. 2:14: Paul speaking about Peter and Barnabas

"But when I saw that they were deviating from the truth of the gospel, I told Cephas in front of everyone, “If you, who are a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel Gentiles to live like Jews?”

This is not a teaching issue nor one of doctrine. Remember, it was Peter at the Council of Jerusalem that settled the issue of circumcision of gentiles. What Peter did was to behave hypocritically. This was sinful behavior and Paul refers to it in verse 13 this way: " And with him the rest of the Jews acted insincerely, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their insincerity." Notice that they were “insincere.” Peter knew better but was intimidated by the circumcision party and did not stand up for the truth as he knew it. Neither circumcision of the gentiles nor hypocrisy were ever part of Peter’s official teaching. Peter was a sinner, which is seen in other passages of scripture as well, but he still wrote two encyclicals (epistles) which every Christian believes to be free of error.

 

[michaelp]

Pax:

This is not a teaching issue nor one of doctrine. Remember, it was Peter at the Council of Jerusalem that settled the issue of circumcision of gentiles. What Peter did was to behave hypocritically. This was sinful behavior and Paul refers to it in verse 13 this way: " And with him the rest of the Jews acted insincerely, so that even Barnabas was carried away by their insincerity." Notice that they were “insincere.” Peter knew better but was intimidated by the circumcision party and did not stand up for the truth as he knew it. Neither circumcision of the gentiles nor hypocrisy were ever part of Peter’s official teaching. Peter was a sinner, which is seen in other passages of scripture as well, but he still wrote two encyclicals (epistles) which every Christian believes to be free of error.

You may be right Pax, but Paul did say that he was departing from the truth of the Gospel. Example is more powerful and effective than words when communicating truth. Although it seems that his words must have been hypocritical and therefore false in order to lead the people astray. Whatever the case (by words or example), Peter was teaching (communicating to) them error–and a very serious one at that.

Michael

 

[Pax]

michaelp:

Can the Church tell us the interpretation of Gen 1, whether the “days” were literal of figurative since this is such a hermeneutical point of division and major contention?

The Church, once again, allows some freedom of interpretation for certain things in Genesis. The Church looks at Genesis in a way that searches for the intent and message. Clearly, we can all agree that Genesis reveals that God exists prior to all created things and that He alone is the source of all created things. Genesis tells us something about God’s creation and process but it does not do so in a scientific way. Notice the interesting and beautiful way that Genesis speaks of creation. It is almost poetic but it is in no way scientific. The days can be interpreted as literal or figurative, without going outside the bounds of Catholic teaching.

For the Church it isn’t the details of the process nor the lack thereof, that are important in Genesis. Instead it is all about the Creator being revealed to us in all His power, glory, and majesty. His creation is good, it is beautiful, and it is bears witness to His glory. It is a demonstration of His infinite love as well. These are the kinds of things that the Church takes from Genesis 1. Whether the inspired words concerning “days” is to be taken literally or figuratively is secondary and is not sufficiently clear from the text to be easily defined. Since neither view is inconsistent with the message of Genesis we are free to believe either position.

 

[michaelp]

The Church, once again, allows some freedom of interpretation for certain things in Genesis. The Church looks at Genesis in a way that searches for the intent and message. Clearly, we can all agree that Genesis reveals that God exists prior to all created things and that He alone is the source of all created things. Genesis tells us something about God’s creation and process but it does not do so in a scientific way. Notice the interesting and beautiful way that Genesis speaks of creation. It is almost poetic but it is in no way scientific. The days can be interpreted as literal or figurative, without going outside the bounds of Catholic teaching.

For the Church it isn’t the details of the process nor the lack thereof, that are important in Genesis. Instead it is all about the Creator being revealed to us in all His power, glory, and majesty. His creation is good, it is beautiful, and it is bears witness to His glory. It is a demonstration of His infinite love as well. These are the kinds of things that the Church takes from Genesis 1. Whether the inspired words concerning “days” is to be taken literally or figuratively is secondary and is not sufficiently clear from the text to be easily defined. Since neither view is inconsistent with the message of Genesis we are free to believe either position.
But if the Church is there to interpret Scripture and to insure unity, why doesn’t it speak about the interpretation of “day” in Genesis 1? People have fought and divided over this for years. It is a MAJOR point of contention. Does the Church know the answer to this question?

 

[Pax]

michaelp:

You may be right Pax, but Paul did say that he was departing from the truth of the Gospel. Example is more powerful and effective than words when communicating truth. Although it seems that his words must have been hypocritical and therefore false in order to lead the people astray. Whatever the case (by words or example), Peter was teaching (communicating to) them error–and a very serious one at that.

Michael

Michael,

You are certainly right when you point out the seriousness of bad example. Scandalous behavior has its negative influences, and in “that sense” it sends a signal that can confuse and lead others astray. Clearly, this is one of the reasons our behavior is important. But let’s be clear about this. Sinful behavior and hypocrisy are not official teaching, and the two cannot reasonably be confused. We can know this by looking at more extreme examples.

While the Catholic priest sex abuse-scandal represents a pretty ugly set of incidents and is clearly sinful behavior, it is not, however, a reflection of Catholic teaching. If anything, it is an example of something that Catholic teaching clearly condemns. The same is true for Evangelical Christianity. When Jimmy Swaggart and others had their public scandals, no one could rightly say that this was a reflection of Evangelical teaching or doctrine. Once again, these transgressions are clearly condemned by Evangelical Christian doctrine. Human beings are weakened from the fall and they will sometimes sin. In fact sometimes we sin frequently and seriously.

Sinfulness has not stopped God from giving us spiritual gifts. Look at all that was showered upon the apostles even though they sinned. Look what gifts of healing, prophecy, teaching, and tongues etc. have been given to Christian peoples throughout the ages even though they sinned.

Look in the OT. Isaiah was given a heavenly vision of the Lord upon the throne. In Isaiah 6:5-7 the prophet says, “Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!” Then flew one of the seraphim to me, having in his hand a burning coal which he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth, and said: “Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin is forgiven.” Now Isaiah is given an incredible privelege even though he is a man of unclean lips. He is purified by the burning coal of the angel so that he could be in the presence of God, but he was a sinner. God gave him this anointing. God gave Peter an annointing as well. Peter sinned but he did not officially teach any error. The sin may be bad example but it is not an official teaching. Fortunately, Paul was wise enough to recognize the damage the bad example could cause and he made a proper public objection to protect Peter’s own teaching as declared at the Council of Jerusalem. Notice that even the sinful behavior was not allowed to ultimately corrupt the teaching.