Who Has Authority?

[ALLFORHIM]

You haven’t offered any proof here. You initally said that the Church was not infallible, therefore the reformers broke away. I pointed out the falsity of that assumption by showing how OT personalities rejected God directly. You then came back and just reasserted that the Church is not infallible. I agree that a person’s commentary on the Bible is not automatically correct, unless that person’s teaching satisfies the requirements of papal infallibility.
So, you have said that “all other sources are written and interpreted by fallible people.” Are you one of those fallible ones? If so, you are abdicating your claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit. In fact, you are saying that NO ONE is guided by the Holy Spirit. If you are not one of those fallible sources, then you must be infallible, and we should all listen to you.

No one is infallible mot even when they have the HS in them. We have all fallen short of the Glory of God. The only infallible human(so to speak)was Christ. Even though a person might have the HS in them they still have their old nature as well–which makes them fallible. I am fallible, so no rest assured you dont have to follow me But, I do have the HS Spirit guiding me so I am able to fight off my sinful nature(not all the times )but I have the power not to sin.

 

[Spirithound]

No one is infallible not even when they have the HS in them. We have all fallen short of the Glory of God. The only infallible human(so to speak)was Christ. Even though a person might have the HS in them they still have their old nature as well–which makes them fallible. I am fallible, so no rest assured you dont have to follow me But, I do have the HS Spirit guiding me so I am able to fight off my sinful nature(not all the times )but I have the power not to sin.

Infallible - able to teach without error
Impeccable - without sin
Now that we have that out of the way, you seem to be contradicting yourself. You said in this post that you do not possess the charism of infallibility…so, maybe you’re saying that even though you’re fallible, the Holy Spirit will still allow you to discern the true meaning of Scripture? This puts us at the point i’m tryng to show you. Why you, in opposition to all the other denominations (however many there are)?

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Infallible - able to teach without error
Impeccable - without sin
Now that we have that out of the way, you seem to be contradicting yourself. You said in this post that you do not possess the charism of infallibility…so, maybe you’re saying that even though you’re fallible, the Holy Spirit will still allow you to discern the true meaning of Scripture? This puts us at the point i’m tryng to show you. Why you, in opposition to all the other denominations (however many there are)?

How so?

 

[MariaG]

And does God really expect all of us to be well enough acqainted with the Bible to do that? Especially people of centuries past that had no access to the Bible except in their church?

So far yes:thumbsup:
Probably not because we are human and cant possibly know all that is in the bible ever. But He does expect us to search and study Scriptures so when we here false prophecy we will know.

Okay so let’s look at scripture. Clearly there is scripture that talks of adults believing and repenting. But what else does it say.

You say you start with John.

So let’s look at John.

:bible1: John 3:5Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

So NO ONE can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born again. Doesn’t say no adults. It says no one. Where in scripture does it give babies and children a pass on being born again?

:bible1:1Cor 15:21-22For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.

So we are made alive in Christ. How? By being born again we would both agree. But How is a person born again?

Col 2:11-12 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ;
12] and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Through Baptism. Not a symbolic act, but an act in which GOD cleanses us from all sin. We are born again, clean and spotless.

And again, in first first 2 centuries, this was written about. Not until 1600 years later, did the any Christian ever interpet scripture as to be a believer ONLY baptism.

Paul CLEARLY compares circumcision to baptism. Circumcision was not NORMALLY done to adults, but to infants. Why would God allow Paul to record these words and cause confusion that God KNEW would last for 1800 years? Isn’t it actully more likely that this interpretation of scripture, not written about or seen in Christian writings for 1800 years is actually what scripture warns about, false teachings that will “come along”?

 

[MariaG]

Hi,

I have actually never left a church because of doctrinal differences. But if I do disagree with what they are teaching I should go to the leaders and sit down and discuss why I believe what I do and vice versa and then we take it to the bible and which ever one of us is proven wrong by the Scriptures must then submit to what the Word of God says. That is how it should work, sadly you are right though people just leave,just like it is way to easy to get a divorce.

Which is why God does not fault you because you actually follow scripture when you “take it to the church” the only Church you have known.

But look at the history of your church. When did that denomination begin? If you don’t see it in history, where was it and how do you know it is not the church that has “come along” as scripture warns us?

 

[ALLFORHIM]

But look at the history of your church. When did that denomination begin? If you don’t see it in history, where was it and how do you know it is not the church that has “come along” as scripture warns us?

Hi,

History is a great thing and I actually like to study it now(unlike when I was in school ) But it is not necessary for a church to have a physical history such as the CC claims. The only thing a church needs is to follow the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. My local church does a fantastic job of this. I study the Scriptures and to date my church has not taught anything that goes against biblical principles. They also do a fantastic job at keeping us believers accountable and being a family. We are to put our brothers and sisters in Christ first(Im not sure first is the word used in the bible) and treat each other with love so the rest of the world now we are christians. My church does this.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

:bible1: John 3:5Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

I do understand why the CC believes that baptism saves, however if that is what this verse truly meant it would contradict the rest of the bible which talks of salvation being by the faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Baptism is then for people who have already been saved. not as a means of salvation. This verse most likely refers to water meaning our physical birth and then the Spirit is obviously our accepting the gospel message of Christ.

bible1:1Cor 15:21-22For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ.

The key phrases to note here are IN ADAM and IN CHRIST. Those who are descended from ADAm will die physically(which is ALL of us). Those who are IN CHRIST shall be made alive. IN CHRIST means those who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. That implys one has to have the capacity to believe. With that said I do think God takes babies to heaven because I do believe in age of accountability, but it is God’s Will and I believe him to be merciful.
]

So we are made alive in Christ. How? By being born again we would both agree.

YES:thumbsup: 2]

Col 2:11-12 In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of flesh in the circumcision of Christ;
12] and you were buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

Circumcision, as we know was done by Jews to infants to signify the death to flesh spiritually. In this verse it is talking about spiritual circumcision which is true of everyone who has put their faith in Christ. What this verse is teaching is that everyone who believes is circumcised by the circumcision of Christ, which refers to His death on the Cross at Calvary. The thought here is that when Jesus died we died with Him(those who believed)

Through Baptism. Not a symbolic act, but an act in which GOD cleanses us from all sin. We are born again, clean and spotless.

What verse 12 is teaching here is that we have not only died with Christ but we have been buried with Him as well. This was shown at our baptism, which took place at our conversion, done in public. Baptism is a burial, the burial of all we were as children of Adam(sin). Beign baptised we acknowledge that nothing in us could ever please God, so we are putting our flesh out of God’s sight forever. Not only have we been crucified and buried with Christ, we have also risen with Him to walk in a new life. All of this takes place at conversion.

Paul CLEARLY compares circumcision to baptism. Circumcision was not NORMALLY done to adults, but to infants.

Not in the bible it wasnt. Obviously it turned into that but that is not what it says in the bible.

Why would God allow Paul to record these words and cause confusion that God KNEW would last for 1800 years? Isn’t it actully more likely that this interpretation of scripture, not written about or seen in Christian writings for 1800 years is actually what scripture warns about, false teachings that will “come along”?

Just people along time ago misintrepreting Scripture. Which happened in the OT as well.

 

[MariaG]

Hi,

History is a great thing and I actually like to study it now(unlike when I was in school ) But it is not necessary for a church to have a physical history such as the CC claims. The only thing a church needs is to follow the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. My local church does a fantastic job of this. I study the Scriptures and to date my church has not taught anything that goes against biblical principles. They also do a fantastic job at keeping us believers accountable and being a family. We are to put our brothers and sisters in Christ first(Im not sure first is the word used in the bible) and treat each other with love so the rest of the world now we are christians. My church does this.

So what does scripture mean when it warns us of false teachers that will come along as well as scripture that tells us to take it to the Church?

What about the scripture that tells us the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth? Is is not necessary to know which Church this is either? No historical Church needed because why?

 

[MariaG]

I do understand why the CC believes that baptism saves, however if that is what this verse truly meant it would contradict the rest of the bible which talks of salvation being by the faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Baptism is then for people who have already been saved. not as a means of salvation. This verse most likely refers to water meaning our physical birth and then the Spirit is obviously our accepting the gospel message of Christ.

Jn3:5

No, it would only contradict your interpretation of Scripture. But you did not answer where in scripture it tells us that infants and children get a free pass into heaven? This verse tells us that NO ONE will enter the kingdom of heaven unless they are born again.

So what happens to infants and children who die before they become believers and where is this in scripture?

 

[MariaG]

Also it does not address the fact that we can see in scripture that infants ARE in fact aware of our Lord. Elizabeth, John the Baptist lept in the womb because he recognized that Mary carried His savior. Faith of the innocent shown to us in scripture.

 

[jmcrae]

We had a baby baptized at Mass this morning, and the baby was certainly quite aware of what was going on.

 

[MariaG]

We had a baby baptized at Mass this morning, and the baby was certainly quite aware of what was going on.

It is beautiful Sometimes, I think I can see God’s glory just shining from these babies. Made clean and spotless by God:thumbsup:

 

[jmcrae]

Just people along time ago misintrepreting Scripture.

Everybody, all over the whole world, was interpreting it that way. Up until John Smyth gets excommunicated from the Anglican Church, ends up in Holland looking for work, and gets together with a group of recovering alcoholics for a Bible study - keep in mind, these guys had never opened a Bible in their whole lives before - and they somehow come up with the idea that infant baptism is bad, and that only believers should be baptized, and they all leave their churches (mostly Calvinist) which they weren’t attending all that regularly anyways - and they invent their own church, which we today call the Baptist Church. They get kicked out of Holland, and kicked out of everywhere they go until eventually they end up in the USA.

I once was corresponding with a Protestant from Europe, and I asked him about adults-only baptism, and he had never heard of such a thing - he said, “Anybody who doesn’t baptise their child as soon as there is water available to do so hates their child and wants him to go to Hell.”

Our salvation is in Christ, and Baptism is how we get in Christ. Not by reading about it, and not by wishing for it.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

So what does scripture mean when it warns us of false teachers that will come along as well as scripture that tells us to take it to the Church?

I think you know the answer to that:thumbsup:

What about the scripture that tells us the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth? Is is not necessary to know which Church this is either? No historical Church needed because why?

Because the bible did not insist on a hystorical church. The bible refers to all the local church not just one big organizational church based in Rome.

 

[jmcrae]

Hi,
The only people who taught infallibly were the 40 men who wrote the Scriptures and Christ/God.

One of those 40 people was St. Peter (who wrote I and II Peter) who passed his authority on to St. Linus: not to the Bible. At the time of his death in 67 AD, not all of the books of the Bible had even been written down, yet.

 

[jmcrae]

Because the bible did not insist on a hystorical church. The bible refers to all the local church not just one big organizational church based in Rome.

Sure it did. Haven’t you read Acts 15? When they had a dispute over the kosher laws, they didn’t take it to their local congregation. They took it directly to the Apostles, who at that time were in Jerusalem. Peter made the final ruling, James closed the meeting, and letters were sent to all of the local churches everywhere letting them know of the final decision, which became binding on all Christians everywhere; not just on the people who had asked the question.

 

[jmcrae]

Originally Posted by MariaG View Post
So what does scripture mean when it warns us of false teachers that will come along as well as scripture that tells us to take it to the Church?

Yep - Luther and the Protestants were the false church that came along later. Just checking to make sure that you knew that, too.

 

[MariaG]

So what does scripture mean when it warns us of false teachers that will come along as well as scripture that tells us to take it to the Church?

I think you know the answer to that:thumbsup:

No, I truly don’t. I don’t understand your thinking on this. I know you hold scripture to be God’s inspired word 100% but I do not see how you can disregard His warnings and choose to believe that the Church was in error in 200AD and those who came along in 1800AD are the true teachers. NO WHERE in Christian history is a believers only baptism ever talked about in all of Christian history until 1800AD.

What about the scripture that tells us the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth? Is is not necessary to know which Church this is either? No historical Church needed because why?

Because the bible did not insist on a hystorical church. The bible refers to all the local church not just one big organizational church based in Rome.

And ALL local churches for over 1000 years were Catholic and practiced infant baptism.

All Christians up to a few hundred years ago, would have called your practices of denying infants and children baptism to be unbiblical and unChristian. All Christian Churches. Every one. So those many local churches whom you could have “taken it to the Church” all would have found your belief in a believers only baptism to be wrong.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Again, my apologies for taking so much time to get back to this, but my kid is still working on the science project.

AFH, I asked you, “Are you well enough acquainted with the Bible to see if their doctrine matches the Bible?”
You answered:

So far yes:thumbsup:

This tells me a lot. It tells me you’re giving it your best guess.

AFH, salvation is far too important for you to give it your best guess.

Probably not because we are human and cant possibly know all that is in the bible ever. But He does expect us to search and study Scriptures so when we here false prophecy we will know.

That might prove difficult if you don’t have a Bible to consult, which is the way it was for almost all individuals before the advent of the printing press. How on earth could that be God’s plan if people for one and a half millenia were incapable of carrying it out?

Well I think it is absolute if we listen to what God is trying to tell us. But we still have our sin nature and constantly struggle between our sin nature and the HS.

The difference between infallibility and impeccibility has already been pointed out to you.

Well if the CC was the infallible authority we wouldnt have all splintered away in the first place—right? That is a weak argument

Actually, it’s your argument that is weak. By the same token if God is an infallible authority, we wouldn’t have splintered away from Him either. Have you ever sinned? Does that mean God is suddenly not an infallible authority? Defiance of an authority in no way lessens that authority.

 

[ALLFORHIM]

One of those 40 people was St. Peter (who wrote I and II Peter)

Interesting theory