I ITim 3:16 and infallibility

[Me4Him]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
But - get this; here's the real rub - they were all quoting the same Scriptures at each other and all claiming that their interpretation of those verses was the correct one ! All claimed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit in their interpretation and all were determined to rely on just the Bible alone for their doctrine.

(The same could be said for cessationist v charismatic debates, Calvinist v Arminian, dispensationalist v covenantist, presbyterian v episcopalian v congregationalist, paedo-baptist v believers' baptist etc)

This leads me to a rather obvious conclusion: if relying on the Bible alone plus the individual inspiration of the Holy Spirit leads to this doctrinal anarchy, then clearly either the Holy Spirit isn't doing a very good job...OR there is the need for some kind of singular teaching authority to interpret scripture....

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.

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I am very wary of anyone who claims to know something infalllibly, whether that individual be the Bishop of Rome or the pastor of a church in Arkansas.

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

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I am very wary of anyone who claims to know something infalllibly, whether that individual be the Bishop of Rome or the pastor of a church in Arkansas.

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

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Me4Him:
the need for some kind of singular teaching authority to interpret scripture

There is, the "HOLY GHOST".

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.

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:
I am very wary of anyone who claims to know something infalllibly, whether that individual be the Bishop of Rome or the pastor of a church in Arkansas.

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 </font>[/QUOTE]No I don't know absolutely one way or the other - and neither do you. That's the point - as fallen human beings we are fallible. See my reply to your further post below.

[ETA - I'm not quite sure what any of this has got to do with the city of Sodom - perhaps you'd care to elaborate?]

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:
I am very wary of anyone who claims to know something infalllibly, whether that individual be the Bishop of Rome or the pastor of a church in Arkansas.

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 </font>[/QUOTE]OK, taking up your challenge to judge you by God and His Word, and continuing in your Pauline quoting: "Now we see but through a glass darkly; one day we shall see face to face". That is what the Lord has convinced me of on this issue.

 

[Me4Him]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Me4Him:
the need for some kind of singular teaching authority to interpret scripture

There is, the "HOLY GHOST".

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".

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Matt Black,

You said,

No I don't know absolutely one way or the other [whether Mark Osgatharp knows anything with infalliblity] - and neither do you.

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

I'm not quite sure what any of this has got to do with the city of Sodom - perhaps you'd care to elaborate?

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,

taking up your challenge to judge you by God and His Word, and continuing in your Pauline quoting: "Now we see but through a glass darkly; one day we shall see face to face". That is what the Lord has convinced me of on this issue.

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

 

[Me4Him]

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".

 

[rlvaughn]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Because the Church tells me so.

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.

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
Matt Black,

You said,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />No I don't know absolutely one way or the other [whether Mark Osgatharp knows anything with infalliblity] - and neither do you.

I don't? Are you infallibly sure of that? </font>[/QUOTE]Nice try at a logic game.

You said,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />taking up your challenge to judge you by God and His Word, and continuing in your Pauline quoting: "Now we see but through a glass darkly; one day we shall see face to face". That is what the Lord has convinced me of on this issue.

What a dishonest abuse of Paul's words!</font>[/QUOTE]Lay off the ad hominem and explain why my interpretation is a so-called 'dishonest abuse' and yours isn't?

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.

That is your interpretation - how do I know it is correct and not a 'dishonest abuse' like mine apparently is?

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?

You state several truths there as being the chief - which one is it? To attempt to answer your question, I believe that Jesus Christ was and is fully God, the second Person of the Divine Trinity, that in His Incarnation He was fully Man and that He died on the cross and rose again for the forgiveness of our sins and so that all who put their faith and trust in Him may also enjoy eternal life with God and resurrection from death.

As far as I'm concerned, that's all that is necessary for salvation. Now, if you know of another Gospel which requires in addition belief in an infallible Bible for salvation, then please state it here, quoting chapter and verse for that salvation by works.

["Prevwie psot is my firend" ]

 

[Matt Black]

Originally posted by rlvaughn:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Matt Black:
Because the Church tells me so.

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. </font>[/QUOTE]The company of believers in Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour over the centuries, adopting the Vincentian Canon.

 

[rlvaughn]

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.

 

[Matt Black]

I suppose very generalistically that I'm talking corporate as opposed to individualistic interpretation (I'm not a great fan of the concept of 'soul liberty' when it comes to the Bible, as I expect you've realised ).

There were a couple of threads I started early this year on the whole subject of epistemology which I'll try to dig out for you - they cover the point in far greater detail.

 

[Matt Black]

Hmmm...my trawl through the archive has not been terribly successful

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/68/256.html?

Long one here on the same subject:-

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/68/255/10.html?

Regrettably, I can't seem to find the thread in which I refer to the Vincentian Canon, but in it I also refer to Pascal's and Bakhtin's dicta on the issue

[ETA@2.48pm GMT - although I haven't found the thread re Vincent, I have managed to dig up my original quote re Vincent, Pascal and Bakhtin which I set out below:-

"Permit me to make a suggestion. As a starting point I might mention Vincent of Lerins’ ‘rule’ of “that which is believed everywhere, by everyone, at all times” as being helpful to discussions of this nature. Vincent is of course speaking about belief within Christendom and that necessarily begs the ‘drawback’ question of defining Christendom and ‘The Church’ ™. It also has the potential to direct us towards a single teaching authority in ‘The Church’™, and therefore points us in the direction of some kind of Magisterium if you like (I don’t necessarily!), a case of “all roads leading to Rome”.

A more helpful model to evangelicals therefore might be found in the concept of embracing the idea of pluriformity, and here a combination of Pascal and the Russian Mikhail Bakhtin is useful; the former for his dictum, “a plurality that cannot be organised into unity is chaos (denominationalism plus mutual anathematisation of other Christians’ beliefs); a unity without plurality is tyranny (the cults)”; the latter for his asking whether there is any single voice able to pronounce absolute Truth, and for encouraging dialogue accordingly between Christian traditions, placing ‘absolute’ and ‘final’ categories of Truth in their proper eschatological perspective, and accepting that this side of the eschaton we “see but through a glass darkly” per I Cor 13 and stressing the apophatic in theological approach.

The problem with the Pascal-Bakhtin solution is however twofold: on the one hand, it leaves unchanged the plethora of Biblical interpretations based on sola Scriptura (albeit embracing these rather than anathematising all but one interpretation, as many fundamentalists do), and on the other hand it tends towards a plurality of epistemologies and in what sense can this be said to be different from post-modern relativism?

Nevertheless, I believe that a synthesis of both Lerins’ approach and that of Pascal-Bakhtin’s (and please do not think I am straying into dialectic materialistic territory in saying this!) would bear great fruit in endeavouring to settle this interpretative problem. "

Does that clarify what I mean by the Church interpreting Scripture?]

[ December 22, 2005, 09:51 AM: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

 

[rlvaughn]

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.

 

[Matt Black]

I think I do come closer to you than you think on the soul liberty issue; it's just that the form I've encountered - in British as well as US evangelicalism - tends to be along the lines of "me, Jesus and my Bible", and I do reject that manifestation.