Truth be known, I suspect that within the next 50 years most of Protestantism will return to Rome.
What do you think will be the driving forces behind this reversal? What do you think will cause the current growth of some sections of Protestantism to fail?
Galatians 2:11. Paul tells us that Peter stood condemned. How can the Pope be infalliable when Paul, the most prolific writer in the New Testament, tells us that he was not. (notably, this is after Pentacost)
Mark 8:32. Peter rebukes Jesus! As Rove once put it, What The?!
Mark 14:72. Peter realises that, without compulsion, he denied Jesus three times.
Peter was indeed a pillar of the early church. But to try and claim that he is infalliable is to claim he is the same as Jesus - God - and it can be plainly shown that he fails just like the rest of us. Jesus didn’t come to establish a replacement for the Levites, he came to do away with them altogether.
I referenced the Council of Trent because that is a BINDING and easily sourced explanation of the Gospel according to the Roman Catholic Church. I personally don’t have a problem with the wine being Jesus’ blood and the bread being his body, but when you worship the bread and the wine (aka idolatry), then that’s taking the wonderful symbolism of the communion and turning it into a heresy. God is quite clear that we worship an invisible god, and that we don’t need earthly things to worship. It should be clear from Luke 22 that Communion is an act to remember Jesus, not to sacrifice him again.
I can’t hold back with this stuff, because it is plain what God demands from us. It is impossible to add to this, Galatians makes it clear just what happens when we add anything, however well intentioned it might be.
Galatians 2:11. Paul tells us that Peter stood condemned. How can the Pope be infalliable when Paul, the most prolific writer in the New Testament, tells us that he was not. (notably, this is after Pentacost)
Mark 8:32. Peter rebukes Jesus! As Rove once put it, What The?!
Mark 14:72. Peter realises that, without compulsion, he denied Jesus three times.
Peter was indeed a pillar of the early church. But to try and claim that he is infalliable is to claim he is the same as Jesus - God - and it can be plainly shown that he fails just like the rest of us. Jesus didn’t come to establish a replacement for the Levites, he came to do away with them altogether.
Hi again Leigh. Perhaps you didn’t follow some of threads a few weeks back when Papal infallibility was explained? Anyway, Catholics do not believe that Joseph Ratzinger is infallible. The notion of papal infallibility is actually highly prescribed. I’m sure if you were prepared to look past your prejudice, Leigh, you could easily find out exactly the who, what, where, when, how and why of this notion. You may then still chose to disagree, but you will be disagreeing with something actual than with a figment of imagination.
Kindly,
Eric.
As an afterthought to my previous post, and not specifically directed to Leigh, while I have my own difficulties with the notion of infallibility regarding anything outside my knowing my own immediate experiencing, I find it somewhat strange to hear some believers claim trust in the Holy Spirit to underwrite their own, individual praxis, but have no trust in the Spirit to underwrite the praxis of the body of Christ as a whole!
Eric.
Leigh
If you believe that the scriptures are the infallible word of God, written by fallible men, then the notion of someone seating on a chair speaking infallibly, should not be that extreme after all. The Church gave you the bible. How do you know that the Epistle of Barnabas should not be in the canon of scripture, or other letters that Paul wrote for that matter?
You take too much for granted, lay claims that are false, then ‘pontificate’ yourself about truth.
Having studied the bible and having attended endless sermons analysing the bible for over 22 years. And having read the New Testament many times before that 22 years, I see a pattern presented in the whole Bible.
And as I have looked at scripture I see the message being God’s message, which is presented via the Prophets in the Old Testament, and the followers of Jesus in the New Testament.
Now, when I hear something from some alternate ‘Christian’ denominations which does not gel with Scripture, it really stands out. It jars with scripture.
I have read some of the ideas of the Gnostic ‘scripture’, and it really would have no place in the context of the message of the Bible as we have it today. It does contradict the bible message in many ways.
I see that all denomations which are not bible focused, but which adhere to traditions, charismatic leaders etc., may not see that clearly. I am not criticising such people, because they come from a different mindset due to the teaching they have received from others.
Someone from another religion, denomination or sect which is not bible focused, does not clearly see something which is out of synch. I guess that is why we argue - like we are doing here. I am not trying to be condescending but I understand that people are coming from a different angle sometimes.
The problem with your view, Ken, is that a lot of people from many different flavours of Christianity could report exactly the same. I, for instance, first read the bible as a teenager back in 1970, and, clearly, have arrived at different conclusions, on the basis of my sense of the message of Scripture. So, I don’t see how the logic of your argument holds.
On some of these threads, we talk a lot about faithfulness to certain beliefs; but is that emphasis itself faithful to Christ and his teachings? Where is Christian practise in all of this? Surely, our beliefs need to be assessed by the quality of the practise they engender.
Kindly,
Eric.
Someone from another religion, denomination or sect which is not bible focused, does not clearly see something which is out of synch. I guess that is why we argue - like we are doing here. I am not trying to be condescending but I understand that people are coming from a different angle sometimes.
With respect Ken, that does sound very patronising.
We need to remain humble and open to the possibility that our own reading, of seeing something as being “in synch” is influenced by the teaching we’ve been exposed to over the years, the seminars and sermons we’ve heard all influence the patterns we see in scripture. It may be possible that other CHristians have studied the bible as diligently as you but may see other patterns and reach different conclusions, eg some of the issues that the GAFCON group disagree on.
We also need to remain open to the notion that in some instances that what jars is not something counter to Christianity but something that runs counter to our own prejudices eg the Christians who used the bible to justify their opposition to the abolition of slavery or movements to do away with racial segregation were really reading the text to “fit” their notions of hte way the world should be.
Leigh
If you believe that the scriptures are the infallible word of God, written by fallible men, then the notion of someone seating on a chair speaking infallibly, should not be that extreme after all. The Church gave you the bible. How do you know that the Epistle of Barnabas should not be in the canon of scripture, or other letters that Paul wrote for that matter?
You take too much for granted, lay claims that are false, then ‘pontificate’ yourself about truth.
Nice side track Leigh...but ou do not face the reality..how do you know that the Bible has the correct books in it......you needed an infallible Church to tell you so. Come on tackle the question.
Nice side track Leigh...but ou do not face the reality..how do you know that the Bible has the correct books in it......you needed an infallible Church to tell you so. Come on tackle the question.
I believe he already has
I have read some of the ideas of the Gnostic ‘scripture’, and it really would have no place in the context of the message of the Bible as we have it today. It does contradict the bible message in many ways.
Personally, I do not need my church, my scriptures or my own judgement to be infallible. I do, however, desire a reasonable degree of reliability and verisimilitude.
The work of compiling a definitive text from a set of works will frequently be inexact around the edges but solid in the centre, and require some compromise. This was the process when we Christians initially compiled our Scriptures, and, with the issue of the Apocryphal / deutero-canonical texts, the result did not eventuate in a universal consensus (also recall Luther’s textual qualms).
So, if we drop our infallibility needs, then Leigh’s thematic approach makes good sense and, indeed, was, I believe, one of the criteria used by the original compilers of our Scripture. If, however, we insist on infallibility, then it seems to me that Donna and Robert’s arguments start to bite.
You see Ken, you also take a lot for granted. When you were handed the bible over 20 years ago, you accepted for truth that those books were the infallible of God. You took for granted that it was so, without really knowing the hows and whys as to why it is the Word of God. The scriptures themselves do not self-authenticate. In fact, no book of the bible tells us that it is inspired. Determination of inspiration is not determined by an individual. When I read the Didache, I can see no reason why some of those writings could not be included in the canon of scripture. What is so ‘inspirational’ about the book of Philemon as compared to any of Clement’s letters? The fact is that the only reason you and I have the New Testament canon is because of the teaching authority of the Church. As Augustine said: “I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church”. Whether you it admit it or not, you have the bible because the Catholic Church made the decision in the 4th century to determine the canon. You accept the books of the bible because they were handed on to you. This means you accept the canon because of Tradition, because that is how it is handed on to us all.
So the bible-based church mantra stands on shaky ground if you cannot recognise first the authority that gave it to you in the first place.
Donna, you said that “The scriptures themselves do not self-authenticate.”
I’m not sure you are completely correct here since ...
Revelation 1:1 claims to be Scripture: “The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants”
Deuteronomy 30:10 also claims to be Scripture: “to keep his commandments and his statutes that are written in this Book of the Law”
Much of the prophets claim to be direct words of God.
Also what about 2 Peter 3:16 “as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.” Peter seems to equate Paul’s letter’s with Scripture.
And also didn’t Jesus accept an Old Testament canon that came from the Jews rather than from the Catholic Church? I’m not sure the Catholic Church can claim credit for the Old Testament canon.
I certainly don’t accept the canon on the basis of a fourth century decision (although I believed God used that decision as well as the history of canon formation BEFORE that decision). Either way God determined the canon not the Catholic church. The gospels were accepted as canon way before the 4th century!
