The understanding of “Church” and “church” is different between Catholics, high-church protestants (Anglicans, Episcopals, Lutherans etc.) , and fundamental protestants (Presbyterians, Baptists, Pentecostals, etc). High-church protestants tend to view the Church more in terms of the eastern Orthodox understanding. Fundamental protestants tend to view the Church as all believers who have “been saved”. Fundamentalists believe that doctrines not immediately pertaining to salvation (believing that Christ is your personal Lord and savior) are up to personal interpretation because they do not necessarily interfere with one’s salvation.
Out of curiosity, how many verses of the Bible has the Roman Catholic Church claimed to interpret?
This is what I wanted to say
The CHURCH has only interpreted a very very few verses.
Fair enough, Loboto. However, I fail to see the difference between following the particular traditions of the Roman Catholic Church as a guide to understanding Scripture, and a Lutheran or Baptist who understands Scripture within the confines of their own tradition. Both allow for a personal understanding of the text of Scripture within the tenets of the stated beliefs of the tradition. Granted, the Roman Catholic Church claims that its tradition is the word of God and was handed on by the apostles. So you, as a Roman Catholic, believe those claims and believe that the Magisterium has been protected from having false traditions. But that is a presuppositional claim. That is, it is assumed.This is what I wanted to say
But we must remember that Holy Tradition came before the Church, and the Church knows how to interpret the book that it authored. By this I mean to say that She has always taught us how the books are to read and understood, although we are free to take away personal thoughts as long as it is in line with what the Apostles and Disciples understood it all.
Ack… More mud! Sorry
Do you honestly think that we base our faith on protesting something? I assure you, I believe what I believe without any reference to what the Roman Catholic Church teaches or doesn’t teach.
But don’t you still have a presuppositional claim that the bible is true?
No.
I do accept that the Church (by that being the prophets and apostles) were the agents by which the Holy Spirit inspired Scripture. I don’t have any evidence either from Scripture, or from history, that the subsequent generations of church leadership received any charism of infallible interpretation.
I don’t deny indebtedness. That isn’t what I meant by my statement. What I meant was, I don’t believe as I do simply because I’m protesting Roman Catholicism.
Every last one. That’s no claim. That’s a fact.
The Claims of Apostolic are well founded and you can see it’s biblical support in St. Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus.
Because the Bible doesn’t require it. It requires the Apostles to have been given revelation which was written down. The Israelites did not have an infallible magisterium with divine succession, and yet they received the Scriptures.
By pointing to the empty tomb, which verifies Jesus’ claim to deity, which verifies that the Scriptures are the word of God, because He said they were. I can approach the Scriptures as a normal written work of literature that is generally reliable as history. If He rose, then they are something more.
Israel’s Levitical Priesthood was entrusted to keep the word of God
Because there is no scriptural reason to. Would you seriously argue that the Sanhedrin were infallible in their understanding of Scripture? That is, its interpretation? I would hope you don’t think the Gospels bear this out. Because they sure as heck missed the mark on the question of the Son of God!
Why must I infallibly know them in order to trust that they are accurately called the word of God? To demand an infallible certainty is to set up a Cartesian reality where we can only act upon and/or believe upon those things we know infallibly. There is only one Person in the universe who is possessed of infallible knowledge, and that is God Himself. If you want to set up a litmus test of infallible knowledge for certainty, then I would be forced to ask how you infallibly know that the Magisterium is infallible? After all, you have made the decision to believe that the Magisterium is infallible. Why should I trust your fallible decision?
No, That is not what i was trying to say. What I was getting at was, God had set up this modus operandi to compile scriptures over the ages, there were many apocryphal writings in Judaism as well.
I’m not saying the Jewish authorities were infallible, I’m trying to make the point that we each accept things that are handed down and cannot Infallibly know anything, but we can see a mosaic, and in that we can recognize infallibility. With the information we have in this present reality, in light of the Word of God we have received is it not plausible that an Infallible, Omniscient, God would complete the past ordained governing body infallibly?
I don’t believe one must be infallible to recognize infallibility, at least in regards to scripture. I think they are an infallible collection of books. I also think that if you have an infallible collection of books, it would logically lead to having them infallibly compiled by an infallible source, the Holy Spirit, delivering them through an infallible council, the Catholic Church. Otherwise if they are only a fallible collection of infallible books then why should I believe the books are infallible if the modus operandi of there discerning was fallible?
I can recognize that I am fallible, but can one recognize infallibility? If you say that God is infallible, would you say His word is too? That was my whole point. I may not be infallible but I believe it can be recognized without being infallible?