Posted on 07/01/2008 6:10:30 PM PDT by Salvation
You also missed that one line — please do read it now.
**Infallibility is a gift of Christ and the Holy Spirit that gives us clarity and certainty about the faith itself and morality. **
Please re-read this line.
**Infallibility is a gift of Christ and the Holy Spirit that gives us clarity and certainty about the faith itself and morality.**
Not correct, actually - you've misunderstood me. I am arguing that God does not delegate His incommunicable attributes.
So the inspiration of God can be conferred on men when they are teaching via the written word? But, God cannot confer that same infallibility when another man teaches after the death of the Apostles?
God does not speak to His people through revelation after the death of Apostles because by the time the last of them died, He had already communicated to us, through the inspired writings of Scripture, all of the infallible teaching we would need to obtain salvation through His sacrifice on the cross and live lives of pleasing service to Him - the Word made flesh.
That Scripture, recognized as such in its own time and by the early church immediately after its composition, has been divinely preserved as the only infallible source of instruction and edification for God's people everywhere down through the centuries to the present day. Praise God!
And I question your last sentence - what teaching of the Church do you believe has contradicted itself, changed over time, or is inconsistent with Holy Scripture and Tradition?
A discussion of the teachings of the Roman church and its tradition I believe to be contradiction of Holy Scripture would take many, many threads...and they would probably have to be "Open" ones, at that, not "Ecumenical" ones. On that note, out of deference to the spirit of the thread, I'll say no more on this matter, as the intention of my original post was merely to point out that the ecumenical nature of the thread was no excuse for equivocating or mincing words to camouflage fundamental differences in views.
A good evening to all. :-)
Please remember that this is an Ecumenical thread. Antagonism against another profession is not condoned.
So you are saying that the Holy Spirit abandoned the Church and/or the faithful when the Apostle’s died?
Not correct, actually - you've misunderstood me. I am arguing that God does not delegate His incommunicable attributes.
See - He communicated His attribute of infallibility when the writers of Scripture were inscribing the Holy Writ. Now, He didn't confer infallibility on them per se, but the Holy Spirit protected them from error - much as He protects the Magisterium.
God does not speak to His people through revelation after the death of Apostles because by the time the last of them died, He had already communicated to us, through the inspired writings of Scripture, all of the infallible teaching we would need to obtain salvation through His sacrifice on the cross and live lives of pleasing service to Him - the Word made flesh.
Public revelation is absolutely ended - I could not agree more. However, the Scripture does not speak to every issue we face today, or will face tomorrow; nor is it explicitly clear on each point it does contain. We need to interpret it and understand it, and to do both without error, lest we stray from the Truth. It is difficult to believe He would leave us each an island in understanding His Writ, relying solely upon ourselves to understand His will; Truth is Truth, and it does not vary. There cannot be a multitude of correct answers to a given question - like Him, there is only One. Thus, if He has given us an infallible book, why would He not give us an infallible teacher?
That Scripture, recognized as such in its own time and by the early church immediately after its composition, has been divinely preserved as the only infallible source of instruction and edification for God's people everywhere down through the centuries to the present day. Praise God!
Scripture used today by Protestants differs from the Scripture used by the early Church - I pray you understand that. Further, nowhere do I find in Scripture that it is the sole source for instruction. But, definitely Praise God! :-)
A discussion of the teachings of the Roman church and its tradition I believe to be contradiction of Holy Scripture would take many, many threads...and they would probably have to be "Open" ones, at that, not "Ecumenical" ones. On that note, out of deference to the spirit of the thread, I'll say no more on this matter, as the intention of my original post was merely to point out that the ecumenical nature of the thread was no excuse for equivocating or mincing words to camouflage fundamental differences in views.
Fair enough, and I appreciate your ecumenical tone in our discussion. I hope we can continue this conversation elsewhere!
I think that those who deny infallibility (as properly defined) deny the truth of the Scriptures.
Speaking to the Apostles at the last supper, Jesus said (John 14:26), “But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”
He promises to send the Apostles the Holy Spirit to teach them ALL things.
Later on in the same discourse (John 16:23), Jesus continues, saying, “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.”
Again, he promises to send the Spirit of Truth to guide the Apostles into ALL the truth.
So if He is telling the truth here (and we have no reason to believe that Jesus ever did anything other than proclaim the truth), He promises to guide the Apostles into the Truth. Any denial of this is a denial of Scripture (a pretty funny thing for a “sola scriptura” person to do, if you think about it — they may as well deny John 3:16).
The Apostles, operating with this charism of truth, appointed and empowered bishops as their successors. And St. Paul, operating with this charism of truth said that this would continue until the return of Christ (See Ephesians 4:11-13). Deny this and deny Scripture (you may as well deny John 3:16 if you deny the Scriptural support for apostolic succession).
The method for confirming doctrine or for making dogmatic decisions was originally by Church Councils, consisting of: bishops — the apostles and their successors. The first example of this is shown in Acts 15 (Gee, imagine, councils are scriptural, as well). Again, deny it — and you may as well deny John 3:16.
And guess who “ratified” Church Councils? Yup, the Pope. And guess what codified the doctrine of Papal Infallibility? A council.
(To a Catholic, this is confirmed also by the history of the popes...there have been some very “interesting” characters who have been named pope in history. Despite how “interesting” they were — the Catholic Encyclopedia has used the term “disappointing,” in fact — no official doctrine, much less dogma, was ever issued by those “interesting/disappointing” characters)
It's not easy to abide by the protocol, at least not for me, especially in view of your excellently made points (with which I disagree but which I would like to explore)
The one clarifying effort I think I can make is to say that "Infallibility" does not necessarily imply the same kind of revelation that went into, say, the writings of Paul. I would venture to suggest that ONE model of infallibility in action would be the Conference in Jerusalem over what to do about uncircumcised Christians (the ones that weren't female, that is.)
An aspect of "Infallibility" and its exercise which I think is often overlooked is that as a rule it is exercised in response to contention or outcry. Apparently sincere and pious folk of good will can disagree on the relationship between The Son and the Father, and their disagreements were often as nasty as religious debates on FR!
(Yes, I know that's hard to believe, but there it is. In those days, though, once Christianity was licit, they knew the identity of the RM -- fellow named Constantine, I think.)
Then as now, those who thought the Scriptures were clear that the Son was as divine as the Father were amazed and angry that there were others who maintained "There was when the Son did not exist." All of them reading more or less the same texts, and intending to worship whatever it was the Jesus of Nazareth was (and is).
Questions of this kind have cropped up over the past millennia. You and I may say the Trinity is clearly implicit in Scripture. But my Jehovah's Witness friends will say it's clearly denied in Scripture — and will produce their own translation to bolster their claims!
To whom can the person who is not a theologian and is just beginning to read the Bible turn? Which translation of the Bible shall he study? Are left saying that if God wants to save Him and wants Him to be at least approaching some kind of truth He will somehow direct him in the right way or to the right group of people?
(I see that our claims of "infallibility" only push the question back a step in this pluralistic age.)
Certainly it seems that it cannot be and has not been a case of a person alone with the Bible. There is always at least a temporary companion.
Okay, I'm rambling. Sorry.
Public revelation ceased with the death of the last Apostle but the Holy Spirit resides in the Catholic Church and the Holy Spirit has not and will not abandon the Church. It is that same Holy Spirit(God) which keeps the teachings of faith and morals infallible not mere humans.
It is pretty obvious that the Apostles were also fallible humans yet Jesus chose them to head the church on Earth. It was through the Holy Spirit, not their feeble humanity, that they had the faith and the knowledge—and infallibility—required to lead the early church after Pentacost.
I could go on for days but the when the Magisterium of the Catholic Church meets all the requirements of infallibility it is God speaking through the Church and not fallible men. There is no new revalation but there can be a more thorough understanding of revelation.
Without the guidance of the Holy Spirit we would not have the Bible we have now which was compiled and infallibly deemed inspired by a council of the Catholic Church. Individuals would be left in the dark as to which books were inspired and which weren’t and then there would likely be millions of different denominations instead of thousands, each with a different theology than the next.
For centuries the Church was alive and well through Tradition, that revelation that the Apostles handed on and it was through that Tradition of the Apostles that the councils chose which books were inspired and it was through the Holy Spirit that this could be known.
**He promises to send the Apostles the Holy Spirit to teach them ALL things.**
So true. Right there in Scripture!
I appreciate your taking up this question in such a clear and agreeable way. I’d gone to bed.
Willkommen!
Very well articulated.
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.