I ITim 3:16 and infallibility

the need for some kind of singular teaching authority to interpret scripture

There is, the "HOLY GHOST".

Most people fail to realize that "someday" they will stand in the presents of Jesus and have "HIM" testify as to was/wasn't listening to "HIM".

All "claims" end there, only the "TRUTH" will prevail, our only concern should be if Jesus will "bear witness" to our words as being "his words" or something we made up.

Most people look to a denomination/doctrine for "TRUTH", rather than a "personal relationship" with Jesus, it's "easier" to let someone else do the studying/teaching than "Search the scripture" themselves.

But did you know that man/denomination/doctrine can do something that's "IMPOSSIBLE" for God to do???

LIE

That's the "CHANCE" they take with Salvation.

Studying the scriptures, isn't like school "homework", which I always "HATED",

but it's a time spend "WITH GOD" and the "SPIRIT", learning, getting acquainted with each other, a "personal relationship".

Many people know my wife, some have worked with her 25 years, but because of our "personal relationship" and living with her 40 years, I know things about her they could never learn in a "Casual relationship", and that's the way it is with God.

People say they "know God", but not well enough to prevent them from having to ask if he wanted "Cream/Sugar" in his coffee.

1Jo 2:27 But the "anointing" (Holy Ghost) which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

 

Matt Black,

Do you know absolutely that I don't know anything absolutely?

I am very wary of those who decry the possibility of knowing anything for certain. That philosophy opens the door wide open to the slippery slope down hill to Sodom.

Mark Osgatharp

 

The difference between this Baptist pastor and the Pope, is the Pope tells you to accept what he says as the infallible truth just because he said it; whereas I challenge you to judge what I say by God and His word.

Though I do know some things infallibly, I don't expect nor ask anyone to assent to them until the Lord has convinced them of the same. As Paul said,

"but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God."

Mark Osgatharp

 

Please re-read what I wrote. I'm not denying that all Christians have the Holy Spirit to help us interpret; the point I made is that even with the Holy Spirit we manage to come up with a plethora of mutually-contradictory interpretations which leaves us epistemologically nowhere. Your post does not address this problem. </font>[/QUOTE]we manage.....to come up with a plethora of mutually-contradictory interpretations which leaves us epistemologically nowhere.

The problem is found right here, WE manage.

The "SPIRIT" doesn't teach "LIES", and "TRUTH" doesn't come in "two's, three's, four's, but only in "ONE'S",

Quite obviously, "SOMEONE" isn't "listening to the Spirit", when you do start listening, you'll know who is speaking the truth and who isn't.

the "Spirit" bears witness to the "TRUTH".

 

Matt Black,

You said,

I don't? Are you infallibly sure of that? You said,

Sure I will elaborate. The men of Sodom, as they were attempting to perpetrate homosexual rape and were rebuked by Lot for doing so wicked a thing, retorted that Lot had no right to judge them. That is the same philosophy you are advocating and, when carried to it's logical conclusion, excludes us from judging the rightness or wrongness of any idea or behavior, no matter how blasphemous or grossly immoral.

You said,

What a dishonest abuse of Paul's words!

Come now, did you carefully read Paul and conclude, after honest and sober reflection, that he was cautious in his doctrinal conclusions because, after all, it might turn out that he was in error about the gospel and commandments of Jesus Christ? Really, now Matt Black, is this how you read Paul?

Paul was not even addressing the possibility that something he taught might be fallible. He was addressing the fact that, from their perspective, the revelation of God to His churches was not yet complete. In that sense, there were some things that they saw only darkly.

Of course, even thought that revelation is now complete, there are still things about God that we don't know and, in fact, always will be, or else we would be omiscient as God Himself.

All the modernist/infidel ad hominum rhetoric to the contrary, we Christians have never claimed to have all knowledge infallibly. What we have, and will claim, is that the knowledge we have received of our Lord is infallible and that when we have correctly understood it then we are in possession of infallible truth on which to rest our faith.

The cheif of those infallible truths is that we know - absolutely and infallibly know - that the Scriptures are the inerrant words of God and that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ revealed in them, who was crucified for our sins and risen for our justification and that all who tust in the shadow of His wing for life eternal will not be put to shame.

Do you believe this, Matt?

Mark Osgatharp

 

This discussion reminds me of a "Story" I heard.

The teacher was attempting to tell the class there was no such thing as "Absolute truth".

Little Johnny raise his hand, the teacher ask what he wanted, he replied, "If there's no such thing as "Absolute Truth", then what you said can't be "Absolutely true".

 

Matt in responding to a question about how you know something is accurate, you answered, "Because the Church tells me so."

I don't think anyone followed up on just what you mean by this. If I missed it, I apologize.

When you say "Because the Church tells me so", which church do you mean?

Thanks.

 

Thanks. I would desire that you clarify what you mean. I could take it you mean either the Eastern Orthodox Church or the Roman Catholic Church or some generic majority of Christians. There is nothing exact that has been believed everywhere, at all times by all Christians, the Vincentian Canon notwithstanding.

 

Finding old threads, especially is the archives, can be quite hard. Thanks for posting the ones that you do. I am starting a thread on the Vincentian Canon. Perhaps some will choose to discuss it more fully. I'm just going to post three things I believe are held universally and see what kinds of comments they draw.

Click here - The Vincentian Canon

I think I can better understand what you mean by the Church interpreting Scripture. To be clear, I do not agree with the position you've espoused in this thread on this or sola scriptura. But I also think that there is too much individualism (especially in American Christianity). The assembled congregation is definitely a place of corporate Bible study for the edification of the whole body and should not be readily dismissed. There should also be interaction between congregations, somewhat as in Acts 15. I've seldom seen representatives from two or more Baptist churches sit down to discuss the interpretation of Scriptures (but I have seen it). Finally, I believe in soul liberty as the freedom of the individual to worship God according to the dictates of his/her own conscience; but not the modern bastardized version that holds "anybody just believe anything regardless" and no one can say anything about it.