Posted on 02/03/2012 6:31:03 AM PST by NYer
Whatever the local assembly of believers is.
Because they use the same Scripture.
Matthew 18:15-17 15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.
And what might doctrinal differences have to do with dealing with a person who sins against you?
What is and is not sin is pretty well spelled out in Scripture.
What Jesus is simply doing here is giving the procedure for settling issues of sin, when someone has sinned against another. The person offended is responsible to approach the one who offended him and try to make it right.
If that doesn't work, then they are to get two or three witnesses.
The step after that is to go to the local assembly to try for reconciliation.
Why would doctrinal issues between churches enter into it? How would they be relevant?
That's just an assumption, an opinion.
It enjoyed authoritative teaching authority.
No it didn't because Jesus was still walking the planet at that time and HE was the authoritative teacher.
When He left, He gave believers the Holy Spirit as the authoritative teacher, and Scripture was available.
The church had no power, however, until the day of Pentecost as the Holy Spirit had not come yet, so the church could not have had authoritative teaching privileges.
And it must still exist.
Of course the body of Christ still exists. Where ever there are believers there is the church.
And It must teach inerrant doctrine, since God is truth.
Only Scripture is inerrant. Any one person or groups interpretation of Scripture for doctrine cannot be inerrant because God is beyond our comprehension. To claim that one's doctrine is inerrant is to lock God in a church box.
1 Corinthians 12:12-27 12 For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13 For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
14 For the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15 If the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? 18 But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19 If all were a single member, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.
21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I have no need of you,” nor again the head to the feet, “I have no need of you.” 22 On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, 24 which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, 25 that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. 26 If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.
27 Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it.
AlLso read Revelation chapters 2 & 3. The letters from Jesus addressed individual churches in separate cities, each with their own partiuclar strengths and weaknesses. There is NOTHING in those letters that refers to or appeals to a central authority. And THAT is NT church history.
Except for the implicit understanding the CHRIST is the authority and the same implicit understanding that his designates are similarly authorized.
I never cease to be amazed at the "heads I win, tails you lose" interpretations of Protestant quasi-scholars.
They misapply scriptures as badly as any pharisee, and call it "biblical," (bearing more than a little resemblance to the accusation of "harvesting on the Sabbath" laid on the apostles) then willfully deny scriptures like Matthew 16:18 with "interpretations" that are nowhere authorized in that same bible.
This is the quintessential example of what I referred to in my last post.
This assertion has no more biblical authority than a Cambell soup label. In fact, it is incredibly stupid.
One can not say Scripture is inerrant, but somebody's interpretation can not be inerrant, unless the person saying so claims inerrancy.
Such a person commits the same act they criticize the Catholic Church for, but simply isn't smart enough to recognize that fact.
:-)
Jumping into a thread i have not been following recently, but did you mean to say “one can say Scripture is inerrant?” The “but” seems to be making a distinction.
No.
My point in the sentence you ask about is you can not claim both the first clause AND the second clause without the third clause being true.
Questions:
Was metmom claiming a special charism of assured infallibility, as like the pope (which your response seems to charge her with claiming), or was she expressing a belief, that the Scriptures are inerrant/infallible based upon its statements and attestation?
And are you saying that no one can have Scriptural certitude (and thus believe and speak the same) except by confidence in the magisterium of Rome when it speaks infallibly?
Thanks
On the face of it, I have to question the relevance and/or probity of your questions: at least the one to me.
Simply stated, I’m pointing to what I call the Pat Robertson fallacy.
If Pat Robertson announces God told him something, the only way you can logically claim God DIDN’T speak to Pat Robertson is to for God to tell YOU he didn’t speak to Pat Robertson. So unless you are willing to claim God spoke to YOU, you can NOT logically claim he didn’t speak to Pat Robertson.
I think both the questions are completely relevant. If mm was claiming assuredly infallibility, then she could be charged with making herself a pope, but if she was expressing a belief (based on evidence) in the Bible as being inerrant, then she herself in not claiming such, but only presenting a judgement based upon evidence, being dependent upon a greater authority than herself to persuade people by manifestation of the truth. (2Cor. 4:2)
And which appeal to a greater authority is what you yourself do in asserting that Rome is the One True Church, based upon Scripture, Tradition and history, rather than the Orthodox or others who also appeal to their church as effectively being the supreme authority on doctrine.
This assertion of Rome as being the OTC flows from your fallible faith decision to submit to her, and which fallible human reasoning you must exercise on discerning which of many pronouncements and parts thereof are infallible (and thus require implicit assent of faith), as well as (to varying degrees) the meaning of these and those from the Ordinary magisterium, which most of what RCS believe and practice is said to belong to. And in which there are many differences beyond a unity in core essentials.
Thus neither adherents of SS and SE (sola ecclesia) believe they are assuredly infallible, but appeal to greater authorities which claim to be, and under both models there is division, the differences being in degrees, as well as a wide unity in core essentials.
The question then remains, are you saying that no one can have Scriptural certitude of truth (and thus believe and speak the same) except by confidence in the magisterium of Rome when it speaks infallibly?
Instead of throwing up a cloud of words which, given the way it’s written, tends to obscure the subject, why not just demonstrate the flaw in my logic?
There is a great epistemological gap between saying “I believe x” and being qualified to say “your belief in y is wrong.”
Good job, daniel. Obviously not able to be refuted based on the response.
I never claimed to be infallible in my interpretations. Scripture is inerrant and infallible, a claim Catholicism makes so I don’t see why MY also acknowledging that should be an issue.
I have been addressing the conclusion of the logic (and the argument behind it) which apparently holds that making a statement as fact based upon an inerrant source is a claim to assured inerrancy in speaking infallibly under certain conditions, if they indeed are engaging in the same act which we criticize Rome for, as you charged.
Which is not that Rome cannot speak truth - even if it be something as basic as “there is a Creator” and other Scriptural truths which we also affirm - but the epistemological basis for Rome’s presumption of assured infallibility and certain teachings which flow from it.
The issue is authority, and thus my question to you regarding your underlying argument was and is, are you saying that no one can have Scriptural certitude (and thus believe and speak the same) except by confidence in the magisterium of Rome when it speaks infallibly?
No, you are not.
You are denying an inescapable conclusion, positing a different argument, and treating that argument as if it were mine.
The is no "underlying" argument.
Of course you didn't. That has been my point from the beginning.
Maybe it would be easier for you to understand if I use an analogy.
You know what an analogy is, right?
What you are saying is:
I know this car runs, even if it's not running right now. (the bible is infallible)
I don't know everything there is to know about cars. (I am not infallible.)
YOU don't know everything there is to know about cars. (the Catholic Church is not infallible)
Now this is where you go off the rails: in order for you to be able to honestly say I don't know all there is to know about cars, you really DO have to know all there is to know about cars.
You are demonstrating the same well known (and admitted by honest ones) flaw of atheist thought. They assert there is no God, but readily admit they are not omniscient. But by admitting they are not omniscient, they admit they can't say with 100% confidence there is no God, because he could be hiding behind any of those things the atheist doesn't know.
This is all such well travelled ground in religious discussion, to deny it is to mark oneself a functional illiterate on the subject.
One can not say Scripture is inerrant, but somebody's interpretation can not be inerrant, unless the person saying so claims inerrancy. Such a person commits the same act they criticize the Catholic Church for, but simply isn't smart enough to recognize that fact.
Your poorly worded statement has a polemical context, and while i do not deny one can state somethings which are without error, based on evidence, I do deny that one must claim to be protected from error for their interpretation to be without error (Paul quoted a pagan writer as expressing truth). Or that in claiming to be stating Truth they are doing so after the manner of Rome with her infallibly declared assured infallibility.
The is no "underlying" argument.
Well, when you start posting things supporting an argument then you can let us know what that is.
I think you are forgetting which one of us is doing the rhetorical rope-a-dope.
My argument stands on its own.
And honestly, you really have no room to criticize "poorly worded" statements....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.