Responding to “Spiritual but Not Religious” Christians

Over the last several years I have encountered a fair number of Christians who claim they are “spiritual but not religious.” In other words, they do not identify with a particular Christian denomination, using the Bible alone to guide their faith. It’s an ideology that says religious institutions are outdated and unnecessary.

People may reach this conclusion for a multitude of reasons. Some are disillusioned by what they perceive to be corruption and hypocrisy in religious institutions. Others may feel like they are not being “fed.” Others yet may feel that these intuitions teach something contrary to their beliefs regarding political and social issues.

Whatever the reason may be, we must reach out to these people and take their concerns seriously.

Most dictionaries define religion as “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.” It is abundantly obvious from Scripture that Christians are called to worship the one true God (cf. Matthew 4:9, Mark 5:6, Luke 4:8, John 4:23). I’m sure most “spiritual but not religious” Christians will agree with this.

The issue is whether or not one can do this privately, reading only Scripture and coming to their own conclusions on theological matters, or whether one must submit to some authority outside of themselves.

In Matthew 16:18, Jesus says to the apostle Peter, “you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.” Catholics believe that in this verse Jesus is bestowing on Peter a position of authority from which the office of the pope is derived. But even if the “spiritual” Christian has problems with this belief, there is no escaping the fact that Christ intended his Church to be both visible and authoritative.

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. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 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 (15-17).

If Jesus did not intend his Church to be authoritative and visible, then what Church is he talking about in this verse? It’s clear in the text that this Church is communal.

It is also evident from Scripture that Jesus intended this community to gather regularly for worship:

Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another—and all the more as you see the Day approaching (Heb. 10:25).

This verse indicates that, even in the first century, there were Christians who did not think it was necessary to gather for worship. This runs contrary to the idea that one can be a church unto himself as long as he has accepted Jesus as his personal Lord and Savior. The Lord intended his Church to be a community.

On his way from Jerusalem to Gaza, Phillip the Evangelist encounters a eunuch reading the Book of Isaiah:

So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet, and asked, “Do you understand what you are reading?” And he said, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him(Acts 8:27-31).

The point of this passage is that the clear meaning of Scripture is not always evident. This is reinforced again in 2 Peter 1:20:

First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation,

So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

Clearly, just picking up the Bible and interpreting it for your self is not recommended. A teacher is necessary; preferably an authoritative one.

As my colleague Tim Staples is fond of saying, “You don’t leave Peter because of Judas.” From a Catholic perspective this means you don’t leave the Church because someone didn’t live up to its teaching.

I came into the Church during the height of the priest abuse scandal. I was certainly concerned about it (as most Catholic laypeople were), but ultimately the number of people out in the world doing good work far outweighs the number of people who have abused their positions. For more on this I recommend reading our special report, A Crisis of Saints.

Many “spiritual but not religious” Christians have also expressed concerns about events in history. It’s true that Christians throughout time have acted contrary to the faith, but like the abuse scandal, it should be remembered that history is filled with good and holy missionaries.

It’s also worth pointing out that many of the events in history have been blown way out of proportion in the popular imagination. Catholic Answers has dozens of great articles about this available at this link.

It’s clear from the Bible that Jesus did not intend Christians to live out their spiritual lives in a vacuum. He founded a Church, gave it authority in the areas of faith and morals, and guards it from teaching error (Mt 18:17-18).

At Catholic Answers, we have a mountain of great resources making the case that the Church Jesus founded is the Catholic Church. If you or someone you know is “spiritual but not religious,” please consider reading what we have to offer.

The point is that private interpretation spawns false heresy which leads believers to fall away and be lost. Yes, the Scripture did not come from man, but from God; the second verse I quoted verse establishes this premise, not to end there, but to point out the real danger is false teaching, which is fed by the practice of private interpretation where every man and his brother is his own pope and comes up with thousands of new denominations, sects, and cults teaching heresies that destroy souls.

You may not realize this, but you just reinforced the concept of sola Scriptura. It is precisely because the Scriptures are from God and not from man that we CAN know truth from error. Just as those whom God used to pen the words they were inspired to write did not write their OWN thoughts and ideas, so those whom God gifts to the body of Christ to teach, edify and lead do not do so from their OWN thoughts and ideas. It is STILL the Holy Spirit directing whether through the inspiration of writing Scripture or interpreting Scripture.

Doesn't it seem unlikely that, two-thousand years removed from the physical presence and direct teachings of the Apostles, we STILL believe the same things they taught to those first believers if there was no Holy Spirit directing us STILL? How he does that is THROUGH the Scriptures - God's word, in which is power to transform even the most stubborn and intransigent heart. Of course, nobody really imagines that a full understanding of everything Scripture teaches us comes automatically or suddenly. Paul advised Timothy to STUDY the Scriptures so that he might be able to be an effective teacher. It is a life-long process of learning, experiencing and absorbing the depths of the richness we have been given in Scripture. I've been at it for over forty-five years and still stand amazed as layer upon layer of truth unfolds. I don't doubt at all that this book is NOT a product of human minds - no matter how brilliant they may have been.

God gave us this sacred writing so that we could know the truth - Scripture is the word of truth - and those who take up the mantle of teachers of the word MUST be held, and hold themselves, to what this word says plainly and clearly. Irenaeus said:

Against Heresies

Remember the Sabbath is a commandment..

To be fair, we were never taught it because Israel has abandoned their duty...
Tough to remember what we were never taught... so some have chosen Saturday, some Sunday... and there are tons of denominations that have lots of disagreements on this..
The day He set in the sky is not even mentioned as an option in churches.

Sabbath is a sign between Him and His people in scripture as well..

Exod 31:13 (NKJV) “Speak also to the children of Israel, saying: `Surely My Sabbaths you shall keep, for it [is] a sign between Me and you throughout your generations, that [you] may know that I [am] Yahweh who sanctifies you

Isai 56:3 (NKJV) Do not let the son of the foreigner Who has joined himself to Yahweh Speak, saying, “Yahweh has utterly separated me from His people”; Nor let the eunuch say, “Here I am, a dry tree.” 4 For thus says Yahweh: “To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths, And choose what pleases Me, And hold fast My covenant, 5 Even to them I will give in My house And within My walls a place and a name Better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name That shall not be cut off. 6 “Also the sons of the foreigner Who join themselves to Yahweh, to serve Him, And to love the name of Yahweh, to be His servants—Everyone who keeps from defiling the Sabbath, And holds fast My covenant-

Isai 66:22 (NKJV) “For as the new heavens and the new earth Which I will make shall remain before Me,” says Yahweh, “So shall your descendants and your name remain. 23 And it shall come to pass [That] from one New Moon to another, And from one Sabbath to another, All flesh shall come to worship before Me,” says Yahweh..

His Sabbath is not found on a calendar that was not created by Him. He created His calendar and you and I can choose to observe what the world says and does or what He says.

Our Messiah, even in death, observed His Sabbath... the jewish scheduled passover(the 14th day) this year and its sabbath day( the 15th) was nowhere near the pope appointed saturday or sunday this year..

On His calendar, Pentecost hasn’t even happened yet..
That is in the rearview mirror for Jews and Christians..

That was a rather big day for Israel and His church..it is certainly observed today as the church’s birthday..

Maybe it is prophectic that the worldly church has forgotten or been blinded from observing His calendar and timekeeping.

How else to expain the church having a substitute ‘birthday’ for themselves to go along with the substitute days they have for the other days they observe as holy? It fits a pattern...

But He will restore all things... and we will all learn all things before we become His bride..
Or we will be foolish virgins that get shut out..

Mathew 24:24
For there shall arise pseudo Christs, and pseudo prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Psuedo- counterfeit, imitation, phony, pretend, sham, lies...

Let me be a little more blunt..

The greco roman latin church has set itself up as the authority on all things of the Elohim of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob...

In that process, they have counterfeited the Messiah of Israel with a greco roman latin savior with phony (sham, pseudo counterfeit) holy days that are not biblical, counterfeit sabbaths- that are not biblical, and have used the latest man made calendar, the pope gregory calendar, to drag all the world into their system of false premises and hide His true appointed times and set times for congregating- that even Israel misses...
That is quite a bang up job with one little timepiece.

The greco roman latin church has bluntly created a substitute messiah with a whole different set of observances to match sun god worship that scripture describes in bad terms, always... sometimes its called ‘weeping for Tammuz’ or having the priests at the sun rising facing towards the sun with their backs to His temple..

The substitute has all the words of the Messiah of Israel, without the genuineness of any of the worship..

A perfect counterfeit that seems to have come from a master counterfeiter.. just enough truth to get passed as genuine for anyone who hasn’t studied genuine..(which is why many jews reject the messiah to our amazement)

I struggled with this all until I saw even the greco roman latin name could be explained away as a substitute for a perfect English name, Joshua..- acts 7:45 and hebrews 4:8...

But that is for each believer to test and prove ALL things..I had no reason to doubt the church previously.. we all meet Him the same way

but Praise Yah, He doesn’t let us stay there if we study and ask, seek and knock..and I stopped letting others do my supposing for me...

Those early church fathers aren’t living in the times we are -we have incredible access to things they couldn’t only hope to have..

I have done that work with His Spirit as the witness to truth- we are to test all spirits and prove all things..

And it is not a flattering picture of the greco roman latin mother or her daughters, of which I was a part of...

We need His mercy and grace more than we can ever know in this life...and His Kingdom will restore all the things that satan has copied, counterfeited and hidden..and whatever three lumps we are apart of - 30 fold, 60 fold or 100 fold, will know all things.. but 1000 years is a longtime to live as rahab, the harlot..
She and her family were saved from destruction for hiding His messengers but she and her family was outside the camp as she was still a spiritual harlot..
that is a warning for all of us that believe.that is a picture of His Kingdom..

Those jews who accept and follow Torah but reject Messiah - are they less than those that accept the words of the Messiah (Torah in flesh that dwelt among us) but worship falsely other gods and goddesses, even in ignorance (like today being Thor’s day)?

Is our enemy ‘hands off’ in the church or is he pulling the strings in all parts of the world he rules?

We can’t possibly know it all, but those parables of the Kingdom are less a l mystery to me today like they were before.. I am seeing how we are being separated here, even further in the Kingdom to come - and we will all be presented to him after 1000 years as a spotless wise Bride.. we can read ahead and be prepared for what is coming without being ‘legalistic’- it is called obedience..
He obeyed His Father’s commandments, even in death, He rested on the Sabbath... If He is our example and leader and commander, what is it abut wanting to know all about Him, a bad thing?

The calendar is a piece that if seen, can unlock real Truths about Messiah’a His real birth day, His circumcision, His dedication in the temple, His baptism - and restoring what scripture tells us what occurred on passover, unleavened bread and first fruits..

And while observing it, it has revealed an absolute whitewashing of His New moons, Sabbaths and Feasts- all days the Messiah has fulfilled or will fulfill in His return- that would seem like homework that one would like to study.but each person has their own beliefs ad opinions..

We all have a journey to walk. And my walk has no more counterfeits in it..
And I can actually see how scripture is fulfilled when it says ‘Satan deceives the whole world’...

Each of us have to work out our salvation.. I am doing it with fear and trembling..because I know how deceived I was...

And I really worry about the church... I can’t emphasize that enough.. I think we have all been falling for the greatest lie, ever told..
A greco roman latinized copy of the greatest story ever told..

it isn’t one a believer can even fathom.. I didn’t until two years ago...

But we will all find out at some point. keep your lanterns and oil ready...

May He bless you all more than He has me!

HalleluYah

You have asked me to begin my analysis by looking at the meaning of the word επιλυσεως "epiluseos," but to do so effectively we need to set the table.

In the case of 2 Peter 1:20, to resolve the disputed language, we have to look at the logical flow of Peter's argument. What was being contested? And why did Peter choose to resolve that conflict by telling his readers that Scripture comes from the Holy Spirit?

Look back to verses 2-4:

2Pe 1:2-4 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, (3) According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: (4) Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

These are astounding promises indeed. By His divine power we have everything we need, we are called to virtue, glory, participation in the divine nature. But then there is trouble to resolve. Peter knows these are amazing, supernatural claims, and some would call them fables. They are too good to be true. Most likely he is reacting to some who have troubled his readers with claims he is just making these things up. So, knowing he is soon going to die, he wants his readers to understand and remember that these amazing promises are all true, and not mere fables:

2Pe 1:16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

And so he begins with the fact that he was a personal eyewitness to the glory of Christ, revealed in fullness of His divine majesty on the mount of transfiguration.

But even better than Peter's testimony is the testimony of God directly recorded in Scripture:

2Pe 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

A day will come when we sit with Jesus in the Kingdom, and all uncertainty as to His promises will be forever erased from our minds and hearts. But until that day comes, we have something even better than Peter's eyewitness testimony: We have God's own word on it. All the promises of God are "Yes!" Affirmed. Indisputable. 100% reliable. And it is the establishing of that certainty in his readers' minds which brings him to verse 20:

2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

And in the Greek:

2Pe 1:20 τοῦτο πρῶτον γινώσκοντες, ὅτι πᾶσα προφητεία γραφῆς ἰδίας ἐπιλύσεως οὐ γίνεται.

"knowing this first" is a marker that the following idea is supremely important toward his goal. And what is his goal? To establish certainty in his readers that God will fulfill all those amazing promises. So in answer to our earlier question, this is the "why," the reason he goes to this argument. It is not to establish some intermediate human authority as the sole proper interpreter of Scripture. The goal is to give his readers assurance they can trust God to come through on His promises, and the doctrine he is about to mention is supremely important to that goal.

So how does he establish this certainty? By showing that Scripture comes from God, not man. He says, in effect, that "every prophetic writing does not come into being of his own disclosure."

ἐπιλύσεως ("epiluseos") is the word commonly translated as "interpretation" here, and it can mean that:

ἐπίλυσις, εως, ἡ (Aeschyl.+ w. var. mngs.; inscr., pap.) explanation, interpretation (so Sext. Emp., Pyrrh. 2, 246; Vett. Val. 221, 9; 330, 10; Heliod. 1, 18, 2 ὀνειράτων ἐπίλυσις; Gen 40:8 Aq.; Philo, Vi. Cont. 75, l. 8 v.l.; Clem. of Alex., Paed. 2, 1, 14) πᾶσα προφητεία ὒδίας ἐπιλύσεως οὐ γίνεται 2 Pt 1:20 (γίνομαι II 2a and ἴδιος 1 aβ.—Ps.-Callisth. 2, 1, 5 Stasagoras complains about the unfavorable interpretation of an omen by the prophetess in these words: σὺ σεαυτῇ ἐπέλυσας τὸ σημεῖον=you gave the omen your own interpretation.—S. also WArndt, CTM 7, ’36, 685-91). Of the interpretation of a parable Hs 5, 5, 1; 5, 6, 8; 5, 7, 1; 8, 11, 1; 9, 13, 9; 9, 16, 7. M-M.*

See Arndt, W., Gingrich, F. W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (1979). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature

But according to Greek Scholar AT Robertson its more generic meaning is to untie or release something, which in the case of information, would mean disclosure. Look back at the lexical reference just above and note how it was applied in the context of pagan prophecy. The omen came from the purported deity, and it was up to the alleged prophetess to interpret it. Similarly, we know that this same term is used in the Septuagint of Joseph, as he is interpreting Pharaoh's dreams about the coming famine. As with the classical reference above, it was the job of the prophet to interpret the divinely sent message.

Even Philo demonstrates this model, using language amazingly like that of Peter, to express the relationship between the prophet (not the reader) and his message:

"for a prophet says nothing of his own, but everything which he says is strange and prompted by some one else"

Available at http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book17.html

So this raises the question of where ἰδίας ("idias") is pointing back to. ἰδίας is the word typically translated "private," but the word more nearly means something like "his own," yet the immediate antecedent is "prophetic writing," not "prophet." So is it "every prophetic writing does not come into being of [the prophecy's] own disclosure," or is it "every prophetic writing does not come into being of [the prophet's] own disclosure?" I believe the latter is the correct rendering, based on verse 21, which provides an immediate and unambiguous explanation:

2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost..

So you see he is talking about the coming of prophecy, it's divine origin and nature, the passive role the prophet plays. But not one word about rules for reading it. This locks it down that the referent of ἰδίας in verse 20 is the prophet. And this is exactly the model we see in the actual delivery of the prophetic message:

Jer 1:4-8 Then the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, (5) Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. (6) Then said I, Ah, Lord GOD! behold, I cannot speak: for I am a child. (7) But the LORD said unto me, Say not, I am a child: for thou shalt go to all that I shall send thee, and whatsoever I command thee thou shalt speak. (8) Be not afraid of their faces: for I am with thee to deliver thee, saith the LORD.

So you see it was the prophet who was obligated NOT to interfere with the divine message by interjecting his own ideas. He was simply to relate to God's people what God had to say to them. Note the word "For" in 2 Peter 1:21. It is γάρ ("gar"), which is a marker of explanation, the reason this prophecy can be trusted as NOT being the concoction of the prophet's own imagination, is that it came from, or had it's origin with, God acting through the Holy Spirit, and not man.

So finally we can look to the word γίνεται ("ginetai") for confirmation of this meaning. If Peter had wanted to use the simple verb of being, he would use the verb "estin," which corresponds very nicely to our simple "is." But that's not the word chosen by the Holy Spirit here. Instead, the word is γίνεται, which speaks of something coming into being, an origin story. So in verse 20, Peter is saying, the origin of true prophecy is NOT the prophet. Then he goes to the positive contrast and tells us the origin is God. This locks down his case against those accusing him of fables, because these very things he was eyewitness to were foretold in Scripture by God Himself. End of story. Case closed. The opponent can raise no argument to defeat that. Scripture ends the argument. Which serves Peter's goal, which is to provide his readers with the certainty that comes with the glorious promises of God, that He has spoken, and will be faithful to His word.

Well, it's past two in the morning here, so I must go to bed. There really is a lot more to say. I didn't even get to the gender matching in the phrase in question. Hope this helps.

Peace,

SR

... So how does he establish this certainty? By showing that Scripture comes from God, not man. He says, in effect, that "every prophetic writing does not come into being of his own disclosure." ἐπιλύσεως ("epiluseos") is the word commonly translated as "interpretation" here, and it can mean that: ἐπίλυσις, εως, ἡ (Aeschyl.+ w. var. mngs.; inscr., pap.) explanation, interpretation (so Sext. Emp., Pyrrh. 2, 246; Vett. Val. 221, 9; 330, 10; Heliod. 1, 18, 2 ὀνειράτων ἐπίλυσις; Gen 40:8 Aq.; Philo, Vi. Cont. 75, l. 8 v.l.; Clem. of Alex., Paed. 2, 1, 14) πᾶσα προφητεία ὒδίας ἐπιλύσεως οὐ γίνεται 2 Pt 1:20 (γίνομαι II 2a and ἴδιος 1 aβ.—Ps.-Callisth. 2, 1, 5 Stasagoras complains about the unfavorable interpretation of an omen by the prophetess in these words: σὺ σεαυτῇ ἐπέλυσας τὸ σημεῖον=you gave the omen your own interpretation.—S. also WArndt, CTM 7, ’36, 685-91). Of the interpretation of a parable Hs 5, 5, 1; 5, 6, 8; 5, 7, 1; 8, 11, 1; 9, 13, 9; 9, 16, 7. M-M.* See Arndt, W., Gingrich, F. W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (1979). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature But according to Greek Scholar AT Robertson its more generic meaning is to untie or release something, which in the case of information, would mean disclosure. Look back at the lexical reference just above and note how it was applied in the context of pagan prophecy. The omen came from the purported deity, and it was up to the alleged prophetess to interpret it. Similarly, we know that this same term is used in the Septuagint of Joseph, as he is interpreting Pharaoh's dreams about the coming famine. As with the classical reference above, it was the job of the prophet to interpret the divinely sent message. Even Philo demonstrates this model, using language amazingly like that of Peter, to express the relationship between the prophet (not the reader) and his message: "for a prophet says nothing of his own, but everything which he says is strange and prompted by some one else" Available at http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/philo/book17.html So this raises the question of where ἰδίας ("idias") is pointing back to. ἰδίας is the word typically translated "private," but the word more nearly means something like "his own," yet the immediate antecedent is "prophetic writing," not "prophet." So is it "every prophetic writing does not come into being of [the prophecy's] own disclosure," or is it "every prophetic writing does not come into being of [the prophet's] own disclosure?" I believe the latter is the correct rendering, based on verse 21, which provides an immediate and unambiguous explanation: ...

Thank you for the lesson and this response is to acknowledge it and not to make short shrift of it as I need to meditate on what you have written. I do have two points that I already anticipated before you responded and which your response confirms.

I anticipated a rejection of the KJV translation as inadequate. I have found only one error in the KJV and generally go with it when dealing with Protestants or other non-Catholic Christians. I find the constant modern retranslation of the Scriptures into English over and over again to be a symptom of the same problem as the constant reformation of new denominations, sects, and cults, every man his own pope and every man his own translator. Are there passages I am tempted to retranslate ? Yes. Am I going to do it ? I think not. I'm stuck with what we inherited, whether I particularly like it or not. I generally do not engage in debate with nonCatholics in any translation except the KJV.
If Peter were writing to the Gentiles in his epistle, and he may have been, perhaps even in Rome, then your point that he must first establish that prophecy comes from God and does not originate from the prophet. I read 1 Peter Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, 2Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. and compare it with 2 Peter Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, and admit that could be the case. I just don't know. If he were writing to Jews in the diaspora, which is my assumption, then his point makes more sense in the KJV rendering. A prophet does not interpret his own prophecy privately; a true interpretation comes only from God; I can explore this when I have more time.
As always, it is a pleasure to read your patient and well thought out responses. I will give this more thought.

It is the unlearned and unstable, Peter said, who wrest the Scriptures to their own destruction. Damnable heresies are disputed by the authority of God's word NOT the presumed authority of men.

They are ultimately disputed by the authority of God's assured word, which the Scriptures are, but God has established the teaching as well as administrative office of the church:

"Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching;" "Or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth, with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness." (Romans 12:7-8)

And as Westminster affirms,

It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word. — http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm

But the issue with RCs is the premise of Rome and its presuppositions, that man cannot assuredly determine Truth thru the use of his fallible human reasoning, and thus an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium (AIM) is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)

And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God.

As Cardinal Avery Dulles stated :

People cannot discover the contents of revelation by their unaided powers of reason and observation. They have to be told by people who have received in from on high. Even the most qualified scholars who have access to the Bible and the ancient historical sources fall into serious disagreements about matters of belief.” - Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, “Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith,” p. 72; http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/08/magisterial-cat-and-mouse-game.html

the sense of Holy Scripture can nowhere be found incorrupt outside of the Church, and cannot be expected to be found in writers who, being without the true faith, only gnaw the bark of the Sacred Scripture, and never attain its pith.” - Providentissimus Deus

This extends even to what Divine revelation consists of, not only its meaning. And as Rome has defined "that the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity," and has infallibly declared that she is infallible, then it is reasoned,

Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter. Hence it follows that all interpretation is foolish and false which either makes the sacred writers disagree one with another, or is opposed to the doctrine of the Church.(Providentissimus Deus; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html)

Thus the AIM of Rome effectively becomes the supreme authority, not the words of Scripture, seeing as Scripture is only consists of what she says it is, and only assuredly means what she says it means. And which sola ecclesia model she shares with cults such as Mormonism.

This infallible magisterial basis for assured determination of Truth is promoted as being correct as it professes superior unity to the alternative of a non-infallible magisterium and leaders, that of souls objectively examining the evidence in order to ascertain the veracity of what is taught, as well as to gain understanding in things in general, and has the problem of competing truth claims.

"I have more understanding than all my teachers: for thy testimonies are my meditation I understand more than the ancients, because I keep thy precepts." (Psalms 119:99-100)

The problem is that the AIM basis for assured determination of Truth and unity is not Scriptural, as it means souls cannot be correct in anything if in conflict with the magisterium, contrary to how the church began.

For rather than an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for assured determination of Truth, and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith;

And being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that this entity is that assuredly infallible magisterium,

The fact is that both writings and men of God were recognized and established as being so and Truth and faith preserved without an AIM.

And in fact the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of promises of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34)

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

For the fact is that it is abundantly evidenced that Scripture was the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.

And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.) In addition, when the magisterium to which all are to concur with is in error, then it takes the problem of individual error to a corporate level, as seen in Rome, beginning with the very doctrine of perpetual papal infallibility, which is the basis for the AIM of Rome.

Moreover, while the AIM model for assurance of Truth attempts to rectify the problem of individuals claiming to be True based upon a claim to superior personal veracity, as with cults and the RC straw man of SS, yet the alternative sola ecclesia model results in competing ecclesiastical claims error to be the one true infallible church, which both Rome and EOs as well as cults claim.

But what of the divisions that result from competing interpretations? This requires Truth claims to be est. as the church was, which was not on the basis of an autocratic authority declaring that is was the one true church that Christ established, or even by Christ declaring that He was the Divine Son of God. But in both cases Truth claims were est. upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, overcoming error with Truth, manifesting that it is the church of the living God, not its institutionalized god, the pillar and ground of the Truth (which says no more than it is of the truth, grounded upon and supporting it). Rather than an entity autocratically declaring it is the world champion, invoking support from sources which can only assuredly mean what it says they mean, including the rule book, an entity must win the competition that it is the world champion in obeying the rules. And by which Rome is disqualified , fundamentally and otherwise.

This does not mean that under the Scriptural you will not have false Christs or gospels, but that the Truth will be Scripturally manifest so that the elect will see it.

"But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." (2 Corinthians 4:2)

This also does not mean that a centralized magisterium is not the Biblical model and goal, not as possessing perpetual assured infallibility of office, but able to make judgments that are established upon infallible Scripture, as was the decision of Acts 15. ((Gn. 35:2; Ex. 34:15-16; Ezek. 30:30,31; Gn. 34:1,2,31; Dt. 22:28,29; 2Chron. 21:11; Gn. 9:4; Lv. 7:27; 17:13,14)

The absence of this is due to the lack of such men as the apostles were, and which Rome is not even in the competition for being. It was only under men who could say they were,

"Giving no offence in any thing, that the ministry be not blamed: But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses,. By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left," (2 Corinthians 6:3-4, 6-7)

"Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds." (2 Corinthians 12:12)

It is not historical descent which establishes authenticity, but both writings and men of God were established as being so due to their heavenly qualities. And from the time when Scripture was first written, then it was the standard by which all Truth claims were tested and established by.

And only insofar as the church conforms to this it can claim to be a church, most primarily in preaching the gospel in which the redeemed come to God as souls damned for their works - not saved because of them - and destitute of any means or merit whereby they may escape their just and eternal punishment in Hell Fire and gain eternal life with God. And with contrite heart cast their whole-hearted repentant faith upon the mercy of God in Christ, trusting the risen Divine Lord Jesus to save them by His sinless shed blood. (Rm. 3:9 - 5:1) And whose faith is thus counted as righteousness, but it is a faith that will follow Him,, confessing the Lord Jesus in baptism and proclaiming Him as such in word and deed. And repenting when convicted of not doing so.

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.

But some cannot seem to separate "this" from "you".

through the Pope???