Infallible Authority Of The Church.

[IcyChain]

Records? I follow God's word. A am a letter written by God's own hand.

2 Corinthians 3:1 Do we begin again to commend ourselves? Or do we need, as some others, epistles of commendation to you or letters of commendation from you? 2 You are our epistle written in our hearts, known and read by all men; 3 clearly you are an epistle of Christ, ministered by us, written not with ink but by the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of flesh, that is, of the heart.

The Spirit, Not the Letter
4 And we have such trust through Christ toward God. 5 Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think of anything as being from ourselves, but our sufficiency is from God, 6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the [a]Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

I think it is a great thing that you follow Sacred Scripture.

I think that if you conduct a careful study of Sacred Scripture, however, you will rightly note that the word of God is not limited to Sacred Scripture.

 

[IcyChain]

multiple popes at the same time - elected by the same group of Cardinals, Papal armies fighting each other to find out who will be the surviving pope... So there is an example of the sort of thing we don't see in the actual NT, among many many other examples.

Yeah, I would say that there are much stronger historical arguments that can be made for the Catholic Church than those, for sure.

 

[IcyChain]

The difficulty I have with the infallibility of the Church is that it seems to imply some affirmation of perfection or a particular sense of divine approval. This was how many of the ancient people of Israel understood the covenant with Israel. Yet it is clear in the cases of both Israel and the Church that History suggests otherwise. The Church is not perfect, and If it was I couldn't be part of it, as I am not perfect.

What are the particular doctrines that your church holds that are incorrect?

 

[AlightSeeker]

The difficulty I have with the infallibility of the Church is that it seems to imply some affirmation of perfection or a particular sense of divine approval. This was how many of the ancient people of Israel understood the covenant with Israel. Yet it is clear in the cases of both Israel and the Church that History suggests otherwise. The Church is not perfect, and If it was I couldn't be part of it, as I am not perfect.

I agree. God is showing us something if we dont turn our eyes away. It's a good thing too. Lets look at it and see what he's showing us.

 

[AlightSeeker]

Yeah, I would say that there are much stronger historical arguments that can be made for the Catholic Church than those, for sure.

History shows us something perhaps but not what we think necessarily. Scripture says all creation declares the glory of God. That is what I see in all this history

 

[AlightSeeker]

I think it is a great thing that you follow Sacred Scripture.

I think that if you conduct a careful study of Sacred Scripture, however, you will rightly note that the word of God is not limited to Sacred Scripture.

I agree. It's what I've been saying. However it's not what are saying necessarily

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:
multiple popes at the same time - elected by the same group of Cardinals, Papal armies fighting each other to find out who will be the surviving pope... So there is an example of the sort of thing we don't see in the actual NT, among many many other examples.

Yeah, I would say that there are much stronger historical arguments that can be made for the Catholic Church than those, for sure.

In fact I would say that the point I make above is precisely what is not wished for by the one trying to promote an argument in favor of the Catholic Church as being a kind of first century NT Christian church organization

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The Church is not perfect, and If it was I couldn't be part of it, as I am not perfect.

That reads like a misunderstanding of "perfect", "church", and "I"

Take some time to read the Apocalypse and see how the Church is described.

 

[BobRyan]

I think it is a great thing that you follow Sacred Scripture.

I think that if you conduct a careful study of Sacred Scripture, however, you will rightly note that the word of God is not limited to Sacred Scripture.

No doubt God is fully capable of the 1 Cor 12 gift of prophecy and in 1 Cor 14 when they meet "each one has a revelation" that is from God as the chapter says.

But they are still all tested "sola scriptura" including Paul himself in Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things taught by the Apostle Paul - WERE SO" -

(the very thing - so many refuse to do)

A practice Paul approves of in Gal 1:6-9 "though WE (Apostles) or an ANGEL from heaven should come to you bringing a different doctrine - let him be accursed" -- so then "rank" in the church means nothing if the one with rank teaches contrary to scripture.

The "protesting Catholics" of Luther's day made some of these same arguments.

====================== Jesus makes the sola scriptura testing process very very obvious and easy to follow in Mark 7

Mark 7:
6 But He said to them, “Rightly did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written:
‘This people honors Me with their lips,
But their heart is far away from Me.
7 And in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’

8 Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.”

9 He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. 10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘The one who speaks evil of father or mother, is certainly to be put to death’; 11 but you say, ‘If a person says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is, given to God),’ 12 you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother; 13 thereby invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”

 

[IcyChain]

BobRyan said:
multiple popes at the same time - elected by the same group of Cardinals, Papal armies fighting each other to find out who will be the surviving pope... So there is an example of the sort of thing we don't see in the actual NT, among many many other examples.


In fact I would say that the point I make above is precisely what is not wished for by the one trying to promote an argument in favor of the Catholic Church as being a kind of first century NT Christian church organization

Sorry. I'm having a little difficulty understanding this last post of yours. Could you restate your point in a different way?

 

[IcyChain]

No doubt God is fully capable of the 1 Cor 12 gift of prophecy and in 1 Cor 14 when they meet "each one has a revelation" that is from God as the chapter says.

But they are still all tested "sola scriptura" including Paul himself in Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things taught by the Apostle Paul - WERE SO" -

A practice Paul approves of in Gal 1:6-9 "though WE (Apostles) or an ANGEL from heaven should come to you bringing a different doctrine - let him be accursed" -- so then "rank" in the church means nothing if the one with rank teaches contrary to scripture.

The "protesting Catholics" of Luther's day made some of these same arguments.

LOL. I'm not going down the sola-scriptura rabbit-hole with you. You believe it, I reject it. We could debate that for 37 more pages of this thread with a 99.99% percent certainty that neither one of us will have changed our minds at the end of it. . .

 

[BobRyan]

No doubt God is fully capable of the 1 Cor 12 gift of prophecy and in 1 Cor 14 when they meet "each one has a revelation" that is from God as the chapter says.

But they are still all tested "sola scriptura" including Paul himself in Acts 17:11 "they studied the scriptures daily to SEE IF those things taught by the Apostle Paul - WERE SO" -

A practice Paul approves of in Gal 1:6-9 "though WE (Apostles) or an ANGEL from heaven should come to you bringing a different doctrine - let him be accursed" -- so then "rank" in the church means nothing if the one with rank teaches contrary to scripture.

The "protesting Catholics" of Luther's day made some of these same arguments.

LOL. I'm not going down the sola-scriptura rabbit-hole with you.

LOL - first question - do you even know what it is?
You have to read those texts to know - so my question for you is do you know what it is -
and my second question is - if you do - then why object to what those texts teach?

You believe it, I reject it.

Step one - show that you have read enough from those texts to state exactly what you object to.

We could debate that for 37 more pages of this thread with a 99.99% percent certainty that neither one of us will have changed our minds

You could debate people living at the time of Noah just before the flood and they would still refuse to accept what the Word of God said about the coming flood.

It is not logical to argue that "if someone refuses to agree to something then whatever they refuse to agree with - must be wrong".

It is also not logical to argue against the Bible -

If we all stopped our discussion as soon as we found out that the other guy does not agree with something we are saying - this forum would have zero discussions on the part of the web site you are currently posting in.

I don't find solutions of that form to be compelling because you contradict support for your own act of posting on this thread.

My proposal here -- is to offer logic, reason. But you have free will -- and can reject all you wish.

 

[IcyChain]

LOL - first question - do you even know what it is?
You have to read those texts to know - so my question for you is do you know what it is -
and my second question is - if you do - then why object to what those texts teach?


Step one - show that you have read enough from those texts to state exactly what you object to.

You could debate people living at the time of Noah just before the flood and they would still refuse to accept what the Word of God said about the coming flood.

It is not logical to argue that "if someone refuses to agree to something then whatever they refuse to agree with - must be wrong".

It is also not logical to argue against the Bible -

If we all stopped our discussion as soon as we found out that the other guy does not agree with something we are saying - this forum would have zero discussions on the part of the web site you are currently posting in.

I don't find solutions of that form to be compelling because you contradict support for your own act of posting on this thread.

Sorry friend. As I wrote, I'm not going down that rabbit hole. I have been down that rabbit-hole with Protestants plenty of times. There are plenty of hours-long debates on the topic on YouTube, this forum, elsewhere, and I like to think that I'm at least a little familiar with the doctrine having been a card-carrying Protestant myself for over 30 years.

You would have to pay me a handsome fee to engage in that debate, to be honest. But please continue to pray for me, and I'll do the same for you.

There are plenty of discussions that I would like to have here on this forum, and that I will have, but Sola Scriptura simply ain't one of them. But if you want to put up YOUR definition of Sola Scriptura and your arguments for them, I'll have a quick look at them, without debating them. I would bet with 99% confidence that I've already seen them, though.

 

[BobRyan]

I don't find solutions of that form to be compelling because you contradict support for your own act of posting on this thread.

My proposal here -- is to offer logic, reason. But you have free will -- and can reject all you wish.

Sorry friend. As I wrote, I'm not going down that rabbit hole.

As noted above - I offer that exit for your response as "a given". I have no objection to it.

There are plenty of hours-long debates on the topic on YouTube,

There are plenty of hours-long posts on every topic-- including the authority of the Catholic Church. If that is the criteria for not posting on a thread - then your logic undermines your own participation on a thread such as this one... as already noted in the post you are apparently ignoring.

I like to think that I'm at least a little familiar with the doctrine having been a card-carrying Protestant myself for over 30 years.

That is not proof of anything when it comes to the very specific question I asked in my post since protestants also have differing views on this topic. I was very specific. Simply "having been a protestant for 30 years" does not address the very specific point raised.

You would have to pay me a handsome fee to engage in that debate,

Not offering to - and not saying that you do not have the free will to ignore whatever you wish.

But if you want to put up YOUR definition of Sola Scriptura and your arguments for them, I'll have a quick look at them, without debating them. I would bet with 99% confidence that I've already seen them, though.

I you look at my post - I did that.

We can both see Christ's example of it in Mark 7:7-13 as well as the one used on Paul in Acts 17:11

What I don't claim is that written scripture is the only thing that is true or that it is the only text inspired by God.

 

[IcyChain]

As noted above - I offer that exit for your response as "a given". I have no objection to it.


There are plenty of hours-long posts on every topic-- including the authority of the Catholic Church. If that is the criteria for not posting on a thread - then your logic undermines your own participation on a thread such as this one... as already noted in the post you are apparently ignoring.

That is not proof of anything when it comes to the very specific question I asked in my post since protestants also have differing views on this topic. I was very specific. Simply "having been a protestant for 30 years" does not address the very specific point raised.

Not offering to - and not saying that you do not have the free will to ignore whatever you wish.

I you look at my post - I did that.

We can both see Christ's example of it in Mark 7:7-13 as well as the one used on Paul in Acts 17:11

What I don't claim is that written scripture is the only thing that is true or that it is the only text inspired by God.

Well, as I wrote I am generally uninterested in having this debate, but one thing that you wrote at the end I would like to ask for your opinion on. Other than Sacred Scripture, what are the texts that you would say are inspired by God?

 

[Philip_B]

That reads like a misunderstanding of "perfect", "church", and "I"

Take some time to read the Apocalypse and see how the Church is described.

Yes, there is a vision of those who have washed themselves in the blood of the lamb, and it is largely an eschatological vision.

Cadaver Synod - Wikipedia

The Cadaver Synod (also called the Cadaver Trial; Latin: Synodus Horrenda) is the name commonly given to the ecclesiastical trial of Pope Formosus, who had been dead for about seven months, in the Basilica of St. John Lateran in Rome during January 897. The trial was conducted by Pope Stephen VI, the successor to Formosus' successor, Pope Boniface VI. Stephen had Formosus' corpse exhumed and brought to the papal court for judgment. He accused Formosus of perjury, of having acceded to the papacy illegally, and illegally presiding over more than one diocese at the same time. At the end of the trial, Formosus was pronounced guilty, and his papacy was retroactively declared null.​

I do not have a problem with the idea that the Church has, and indeed must have authority, Yet I also have to deal with history, how we got here, and some parts of our history are a bit lacklustre. This is why I don't think I can read the Church as having infallible authority. The authority of the Church must be seen in context, and part of that context is the new Israel. The Old Testament reads as a narrative of the people of God falling short, returning, and falling short again, to return again. This is a vision of the Church we see continued in the post-Apostolic Church, even to this day.

 

[ozso]

The few minor disciplines are hardly "fine print" that are difficult to handle. If you are supposed to not eat meat on a day and forget then there is no sin. Sin would be in defying Christ and His Church, saying I don't care that Jesus gave the keys to Peter or care what he or any successor says. Also you appear not to grasp the concept of papal infallibility. There has not been ex cathedra statement by a pope since 1950.

There's seval differences between what Christ taught and commanded and what people came up on their own centuries later. There's 1050 things Christ taught and commanded which should be more than enough to keep us in God's will. But like with the Law God established with Israel, man decided a whole bunch more needed to be added onto it. And they used the same logic that since they were the Levitical line of priesthood that started with Aaron they had that authority.

 

[AlightSeeker]

LOL. I'm not going down the sola-scriptura rabbit-hole with you. You believe it, I reject it. We could debate that for 37 more pages of this thread with a 99.99% percent certainty that neither one of us will have changed our minds at the end of it. . .

I dont know your opinion but let me ahare my mine. Thanks. Saying scripture isn't sufficient to train us contradicts scripture. I wouldn't want to contradict John 14 for example.

 

[Valletta]

There's seval differences between what Christ taught and commanded and what people came up on their own centuries later. There's 1050 things Christ taught and commanded which should be more than enough to keep us in God's will. But like with the Law God established with Israel, man decided a whole bunch more needed to be added onto it. And they used the same logic that since they were the Levitical line of priesthood that started with Aaron they had that authority.

Actually Jesus did not write anything down for the Apostles to pass on. Jesus, in words paralleling Isaiah 22, gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter, leaving Peter with the support of the other Apostles to work out the details. As in Isaiah, the king gives the keys to the kingdom to the prime minister as a sign of authority, the prime minister has authority when the king is away. Sunday was set as a day of worship, it was decided Baptism replaced circumcision, etc. and later the Church decided upon things like compiling the 73 books of the Bible. Today's priesthood is of the order of Melchizedek. Recall Melchizedek was the king of Salem, which later was called Jerusalem. Melchizedek offered mere bread and wine, while Jesus consecrated bread and wine to become His Body and His Blood, our "New Covenant" or "New Testament."

Assurance of Victory for God’s Priest-King ​

A Psalm of David.​

110 [a]The Lord says to my lord:
“Sit at my right hand,
till I make your enemies your footstool.”

2 The Lord sends forth from Zion
your mighty scepter.
Rule in the midst of your foes!
3 Your people will offer themselves freely
on the day you lead your host
upon the holy mountains.[b]
From the womb of the morning
like dew your youth[c] will come to you.
4 The Lord has sworn
and will not change his mind,
“You are a priest for ever
after the order of Melchiz′edek.” RSVCE

 

[AlightSeeker]

Actually Jesus did not write anything down for the Apostles to pass on. Jesus, in words paralleling Isaiah 22, gave the keys to the kingdom to Peter, leaving Peter with the support of the other Apostles to work out the details. As in Isaiah, the king gives the keys to the kingdom to the prime minister as a sign of authority, the prime minister has authority when the king is away. Sunday was set as a day of worship, it was decided Baptism replaced circumcision, etc. and later the Church decided upon things like compiling the 73 books of the Bible. Today's priesthood is of the order of Melchizedek. Recall Melchizedek was the king of Salem, which later was called Jerusalem. Melchizedek offered mere bread and wine, while Jesus consecrated bread and wine to become His Body and His Blood, our "New Covenant" or "New Testament."

Jesus wrote 7 letters to the churches. All his apostles words are scripture. God gave us that. I follow the apostles not men who claim to be their successors. Paul said to follow his example and those who walk like him. He didn't say follow people who claim to be his followers.