|
Post by Jay on Jan 13, 2015 23:25:14 GMT
The one who has the correct interpretation of the Scripture is the one who has the truth. Anyone can claim to be thee authority to interpret Scripture. That means nothing if the interpretation is wrong and the way to show it is wrong is by correct exegesis.
Where has your church officially and infallibly interpreted the Scriptures? Where can I find this work?
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 14, 2015 14:59:53 GMT
Jay, You said This is circular reasoning since you claim we determine the truth by the correct interpretation of Scripture. You said I answered this here: where I said:
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 14, 2015 16:12:18 GMT
It is not "circular reasoning since you claim we determine the truth by the correct interpretation of Scripture." That's how we determine how we know something is true or not. This is true not only in regards to Scripture but other areas of science and history. In fact we use it everyday.
I'm not talking about defining doctrines in your church but how do you know if you have the correct interpretation of a passage of Scripture? I have asked RC's to give me the correct interpretation of a passage of Scripture and both give me a different interpretation. How do I know which one is right?
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 14, 2015 16:50:00 GMT
Jay,
You say
Saying that we determine truth by the correct interpretation of Scripture and we determine the correct interpretation of Scripture by truth is circular reasoning. If you can't see that, I don't think it would be profitable to continue this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 14, 2015 16:53:21 GMT
Help me out. How does one determine the correct interpretation of a historical event?
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 14, 2015 16:59:10 GMT
Did Jesus expect the people and the leaders to interpret the Scriptures correctly to discern Who He was and His mission? Could they have done this without appealing to the Scripture and if so, how?
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 14, 2015 17:10:28 GMT
Jay,
You ask
You look at the historical documents, and the historical documents indicate that the early Christians referred to the Deuterocanonicals in the same way they did of the Protocanonicals, and J.N.D. Kelly affirmed that. Also, even if they didn't, the historical documents indicate Jesus commissioned the Apostles, who passed on the keys of the Kingdom to successors, who in turn ordained successors. Thus, you can look to the Church as a whole that is in Apostolic succession to the Apostles to know what they taught, to know what is Scripture, and to know what is the correct interpretation of Scripture.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 14, 2015 17:13:13 GMT
You ask
Yes, Jesus expected people to interpret the Scriptures in his day, and he said:
So, even Jesus affirmed there was an OT magisterium in his day. Likewise, in the New Covenant, there is a Magisterium that goes back in succession to Christ. To them you are to listen.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 14, 2015 20:28:41 GMT
Notice what how Jesus condmens these leaders. Notice also that He never claims they are infallible nor that they are not to blindly follow them.
Note also that Jesus did expect the people to properly interpret the Scripture for themselves. The Rich Young Ruler in Mark 10 is one example where Jesus expected the rich ruler to know the commandments and what they meant.
You are to listen only to those who have the truth. Notice what Paul says in Acts 20:29-30-"I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them."
Peter also warns of false teachers coming into the church deceiving many-"But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves." 2 Peter 2:1
Jesus never promised that He would protect His church from error. In Revelation 2-3 we already see Him rebuking churches for embracing errors. If He had promised to protect His church from error then these things could not have happened.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 14, 2015 20:52:31 GMT
Jay
You say
True. There are differences between the OT and NT magisterium.
You say
Just because a person is expected to know about part of Scripture, such as the 10 Commandments, doesn't mean they are expected to know everything in Scripture. This would have been impossible for most people in the days of Jesus.
You say
If you don't see the problem in your reasoninig about this point, there is nothing further I can do.
You say
Right. I never said there won't be those who will call themselves Christians and will oppose the truth.
You said
Read the following verses:
and from Paul
You say
Jesus promised to protect His Church not every single member of the Church.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 14, 2015 21:20:06 GMT
Where does it say in the NT that its leaders would be infallible?
Acts 20:29-30, 2 Peter 2:1 and passages in Rev 2-3 all point to the fact that churches will err.
John 16:13 was a promise to His apostles there that night. Says nothing about leaders centuries later.
1 Tim. 3:15 says nothing about the church not being able to err.
If Jesus promised that His church could not err then how is it that in Revelation He rebukes churches for erring? Maybe the churches in Revelation 2-3 are not His churches. Right?
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 14, 2015 21:31:03 GMT
You say
If Jesus promised his Church will not fail and her leaders will be lead into all truth, it follows they will not err as a whole.
Individual Churches such as those in Acts 20:29-30, 2 Peter 2:1 and passages in Rev 2-3 may err, but the Church as a whole may not err.
You say
It doesn't do the Church very good to promise the Apostles that they will be guided into all truth and then not to have left a mechanism that would preserve that truth given how many Theological controversies there would be in the life of the Church.
If the Church as a whole can err, then it isn't the pillar of truth.
You say
Individual Churches in Rev 2-3 may err, but the Church as a whole may not err.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 14, 2015 22:25:56 GMT
It does not follow that "Individual Churches in Rev 2-3 may err, but the Church as a whole may not err." Any church can err because it is composed of fallible men and women.
What we have from Christ and His apostles is the inspired-inerrant Word of God to guide the church through the ages. By it we can test the teachings of men and see if they line up with the Scripture and see if they should be obeyed or rejected.
Though your church claims to be guided by the Holy Spirit, its history shows otherwise. It is a church that has erred. Some examples are the inquisitions, and the papacy to name a couple.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Lofton on Jan 14, 2015 22:43:18 GMT
Jay,
You say
The Church is composed of men but God can communicate his word infallibly through fallible men. You believe that Peter is fallible, yet you also believe he wrote two infallible epistles. This is just a poor argument because it backfires on you. You have made a number of arguments that backfire on your own position so my suggestion is that if you are using criteria that works against you, then you need to rethink your position (and Dr. has often affirmed as much).
You say
Right, but the canon was determined by fallible men, as you have already admitted, so this ends up working against you.
You say
Could you be more specific? There were many inquisitions and the papacy spans 2,000 years. Lastly, the claim that God preserves His Church from teaching error concerning matters of faith and morals is not the same things as whether His followers will consistently practice the faith and morals. The former is taught by the Church while the latter is not.
|
|
|
Post by Jay on Jan 14, 2015 22:58:09 GMT
Peter was not infallible. He never claimed to be nor do any of the apostles claimed he was. In fact Paul rebukes in Galatians for denying the gospel. A person can write a perfect paper but that does not mean he is perfect or infallible. There has only been one infallible person who has walked on this earth and that is the Lord Christ.
You assert that my arguments backfire but you never refute with facts that my arguments are in error.
Just because the canon was discerned by fallible men does not mean that the Scripture is not inspired-inerrant.
It was your church that started promoted the inquisitions that went on for centuries with the full approval of the popes. These inquisitions in which thousands of people were tortured and murdered did involve matters of faith and morals.
This is as I said just one example has erred and it shows it was not protected from error.
|
|