In my promise to start another thread for us to discuss matters that arose from the Bible Study Course - https://www.nairaland.com/1226596/expository-bible-study-course-raising. I hope to find peaceful talk here with ourselves and others that might join in this discussion.

1.

Goshen360:

Following all contributions. I will put everything together later so we can be on same page.

@ italo, kindly mention to us the accurate God's way to interpret so we can add to update plus examine it together.

And your response was,

italo:

There is only one Church, one faith and one doctrine of our Lord, Jesus Christ (correct me if I'm wrong)

It is the duty of that one church to transmit God's one doctrine to the children of God and that is how it was for 1500years before the heretics came and turned everything upside down...now look at the confusion they have put you people.

The Church is infallible in its teachings because Christ has given the Church the Spirit to teach it the truth. That is why you believed that Mark wrote "Mark" and that it was inspired by the Holy Spirit. Because the infallible Church told you so. The Church wrote the New Testament and compiled the Bible and declared it the word of God in the fourth century...and you submitted to their authority.

1Tim 3:15 says the Church is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

That one church that was founded by Christ is the one that compiled the Bible in the fourth century...it is the same one that Luther broke away from in the 16th century to start this confusion...

That one church is the Catholic Church.

And I further asked,

Goshen360:

@ italo,

Is your response above an answer to my question asked?

Again, you response was,

italo:

Yes.

2., second subject of discussion.

Goshen360:

A.

Please correct me if I'm wrong or misunderstood your words here. One the other side, the church was the Roman Catholic. On this side, the church is REPRESENTED. These people (Paul and Philip) are part of the church of God as you rightly said in which Ephesians 4:11-12 comes to play before the scripture was completely canonized.

B.

Also, like I keep saying and this will be stressed in the next lesson, there is place for the ministry gifts which Christ gave to the church. The case of Apostle Paul and Philip is one of it and the revelation being progressive then. The Bereans system is what we are doing with this Bible course - to learn how examine what is being taught.

C.

Yes, you're right - Apostle Paul taught the Bereans BUT what did the Bereans do? They examined and searched the scriptures TO FIND OUT IF WHAT APOSTLE PAUL TAUGHT WAS THE TRUTH - How to do that, like the Bereans is what we intend to embark on with this course. I hope you balance both sides and NOT just say we should turn to the church or ministry gifts alone; we MUST be able to search out the truth for ourselves and see if what the ministry gifts teaches is truth or mixed with error.

Your response,

italo:

A

Why are you taking this issue back to the 'Catholic or no Catholic' thing? I deliberately left out the name 'Catholic' in my post so that we can have a better and reasonable discussion since there are many who would rather die than listen to the name.

Anyway, since that is the way you want it, you give me the opportunity to ask:

Who "completely canonized the scripture" according to you? When was it canonized and under whose inspiration? (please give evidence of your answer)

PLEASE ANSWER THIS FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION INSTEAD OF MERELY SCRATCHING THE SURFACE... God bless you as you do so.


B

You are not doing the 'Berean system.' The Bereans didnt search scripture alone, they searched scripture and listened to the Church - represented by one of its bishops, St Paul. Even Paul himself didnt practise this your "let scripture interpret scripture" system.

Gal 2:2 "Then after fourteen years, I went up again to Jerusalem, this time with Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2 I went in response to a revelation and, meeting privately with those esteemed as leaders, I presented to them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles. I wanted to be sure I was not running and had not been running my race in vain."

Did you see that? As knowledgeable as Paul was, he wanted to be sure he was preaching the right thing, he didnt go to scripture to interpret scripture, he went back to the LEADERS of the CHURCH to interpret God's teaching! And there is no mention of them reading scripture together.

C

You are not doing as the Bereans did. The Bereans listened to the Church - represented by Paul. Who do you listen to? Who is your "Paul"? Does pride make you to think that you are the "Paul?" And let us even imagine that you are the "Paul," who are the leaders you go back to (like Paul did) to confirm if you are preaching the right thing or heresy.. If you are "running in vain" or not? You run back to yourself?

PLEASE THESE QUESTIONS ARE BEGGING FOR ANSWERS O...

Acts 20:

28 Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
29 I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 And of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

Which one are you now? Has the Holy Spirit placed you a BISHOP(verse 28)...or are you a RAVENING WOLF(verse 29)...or a you a part of the FLOCK(verse 28 & 29)...or are you part of the DISCIPLES DRAWN AWAY(verse 30)?

As for me, I am part of the flock being tended by my bishop who "rules the Church of God."

I know you are not a bishop and you are not listening to the bishop.

Doesnt that mean that you are either ravening wolf or a disciple drawn away?

3., third subject of discussion. Having debosky on the scene now,

debosky:

God bless your efforts Goshen.

I'd just like to add one caveat to this expository: regardless of how much we study the word, there are bound to be disagreements when it comes to certain details - this happened even in Paul's day. As long as we agree on the one faith, one Lord and one baptism, we should seek to lessen the importance of disagreements on 'secondary' (I don't mean any scripture is unimportant) issues.

^^^

My response was to debosky was,

Goshen360:

Thank you my dear brother. Yes, we will always disagree and you're right. We also hope to lessen our disagreement should everyone of us release ourselves to God's Spirit in the truth of this course. I believe the truth had already being completed in God word. We have read the disagreements in the days of Paul and read how it was resolved; it shouldn't be a disagreement to us anymore.

^ And you, italo picked up from the highlight above asking,

italo:

How was it resolved?

My response was,

Goshen360:

Resolved by Apostolic teachings.

italo:

Until we meet at your promised thread for you and I.

^^^

debosky:

I am also waiting for the ^^ above mentioned thread.

^^^

Goshen360:

*smiles* It'd be nice to discuss with you too.

Thread officially opened for discussion. First subject of discussion first and then to the second and lastly the third. Thank you!

My concern is simple - italo wants to arrogate all 'authority' to the Catholic Church organisation headed by the pope, while the bible (regardless of whether it was 'compiled' by a previous gathering of Christians) doesn't support this view. Jesus spoke to specific church groupings in Revelations without referring to a monolithic church.

Don't get me wrong though, I do believe in the unity of the Church under Jesus as its head. That church is identified by its adherence to Jesus' teachings and the instructions of the apostles. It is not defined by 'belonging' to the RCC.

debosky: My concern is simple - italo wants to arrogate all 'authority' to the Catholic Church organisation headed by the pope, while the bible (regardless of whether it was 'compiled' by a previous gathering of Christians) doesn't support this view. Jesus spoke to specific church groupings in Revelations without referring to a monolithic church.

Don't get me wrong though, I do believe in the unity of the Church under Jesus as its head. That church is identified by it's adherence to Jesus' teachings and the instructions of the apostles. It is not defined by 'belonging' to the RCC.

But this is precisely the point.

There is no negotiation on this fact. Jesus is the head, no other person has the right to arrogate to himself privileges and rights that only belong to the Son of GOD.

Another ploy by Pope Gohen the infallible head of Hateism and Cardinal frosbel, the head of the congregation for the propagation of the faith of Hateism, to eliminate all those who do not agree with them.

@ Debosky, kindly note that you did not address specifically, Goshen360's No. 1 issue listed. Thank you.

@ Goshen360, I think you deliberately omitted what I would call the "genesis" of this thread.

Goshen360:
1.
Goshen360:

Following all contributions. I will put everything together later so we can be on same page.

@ italo, kindly mention to us the accurate God's way to interpret so we can add to update plus examine it together.

What you did not mention are the key "contributions" that led to this No. 1 point on this thread.

italo: However, I disagree with your 2nd post saying essentially that the sure way to arrive at the truth is to "let scripture interpret scripture." While it is good to read a verse in context and compare and contrast it with other verses and passages, it is by no means a sure way of arriving at the truth.

WHY DO I SAY THIS? - By saying "let scripture interpret scripture," what you are saying, perhaps without knowing, is 'instead of interpreting the first passage, let MY INTERPRETATION of the other verse(s)/passage(s) interpret the first verse/passage.'

That logic does not hold...nor guarantee you arriving at the truth.

Infact all those "churches" that teach contradictory doctrines claim to do that. They claim to put scripture against scripture to arrive at the truth...yet they teach millions of contradictory and differing doctrines.

WHY? Because they are putting, not "scripture against scripture" but 'their interpretation of scripture against their interpretation of scripture.'

This was part of my first post in reply to you on that other thread. Clearly, I set out to refute you teaching that "letting scripture interprete scripture" will lead us to the truth.

You then asked me to tell how to arrive at the correct interpretation of scripture without adequately proving your theory right.

My summary is: in as much as you want me to prove that the Catholic Church is the authority to interpret God's teaching (Scripture and otherwise), you must first prove that your own "let scripture interpret scripture" theory is accurate...or at least we must do it side by side.

Can you please answer to this post of mine now?

italo: In order to just cut the long story short and prove to you that this your "let scripture interpret scripture" method is not a sure way of arriving at truth and is not devoid of private interpretation, let us put it to practice on a particular issue.

In John 6:35, Jesus declares, "I am the bread of life..."

The Catholic Church says he was talking about Holy Communion which we receive at mass and believe it appears as bread and wine but is ACTUALLY the body and blood of Jesus...and I believe it because I believe the sure way to know God's teaching is to listen to the Catholic Church.

You, as a Protestant, obviously have a differing opinion (correct me if I am wrong).

What is your actual position about this matter and how can you prove it to be the truth, using your preferred "let scripture interpret scripture" method, without infesting your explanation with your PERSONAL INTERPRETATION?

Please go ahead.

@ Goshen360 and others,

Regarding my submission that the Catholic Church should be the one to interpret God's teaching (scripture and otherwise), what specifically, is your objection to that?

italo: @ Debosky, kindly note that you did not address specifically, Goshen360's No. 1 issue listed. Thank you.

Apologies for the oversight. My view is that scriptural interpretation is wholly reliant on the Holy Spirit who teaches all things. In terms of specifics, interpretation needs to be contextual and not contradictory of other scripture. I believe the scriptures are consistent and, if properly interpreted should not result in confusion.

If I recall correctly, this is your view:

I believe the sure way to know God's teaching is to listen to the Catholic Church.

I disagree with this wholeheartedly because this places the Catholic Church in a position of authority not given to it by Jesus as recorded in Scripture. Jesus is the head of the church, and the Holy Spirit teaches all things, not the Catholic Church.

Now, I appreciate where your view point may originate from - you believe the Catholic Church holds a 'direct' connection to the early church through its 'apostolic succession' and its role in 'compiling' the bible. That's would be all well and good if rightful interpretation was based simply on being 'connected' to the early church. But it isn't.

After all, in the early church (more precisely early church groups)there were teachings that had to be challenged by Paul and others - my point is that no church group is immune from wrong teaching simply by historical precedent or connection.

Those who call themselves 'Catholics' and 'Protestants' may disagree on many things, but tend to agree that the bible is the inspired word of God. It contains the teachings of Jesus and the apostles of the early church, and is 'unchanging'- it is not being modified or added to. Therefore, it should not be subject to the 'authority' of one church grouping.

I understand that Catholics may disagree with this, claiming that the bible itself was 'written' by the Catholic Church and hence cannot be placed above 'Church teachings', but this is inaccurate in my view. The Catholic church clearly didn't 'write' the OT, neither did it 'write' the books of the NT - what transpired in essence was a common recognition among church groups (led by the Holy Spirit) about which books were indeed inspired, followed by 'formal' approval by councils and nothing more.

Of course there are dangers to individual interpretations, which is why we should not forsake fellowship of the brethren and continue to sharpen iron with iron. Above all, we should rely on the Holy Spirit for interpretation - allowing him to teach us and bring us into greater knowledge of the Father and the Son.

italo: @ Goshen360 and others,

Regarding my submission that the Catholic Church should be the one to interpret God's teaching (scripture and otherwise), what specifically, is your objection to that?

well....am not Goshen360 and others, but i don't quite agree one should swallow everything dished out by the church elders. for me it all comes down to the issue of the church being seen as infallible. this is not year 50A.D, the apostles are out of the picture, so what is the church elders reading that i don't have access to? (unless you are telling me they have some documents in there that i will never get to see).

Should the catholic church be the one to interpret God's teaching? if the catholic church is the one interpreting God's teaching, there will be no other denomination. It's already too late for that so you need to rephrase your question.

^^^ And the thread in the following link discusses one way to look at the infallibility of the "Church".

https://www.nairaland.com/1229310/infallibility-christian-church-simple-approach

debosky:
Those who call themselves 'Catholics' and 'Protestants' may disagree on many things, but tend to agree that the bible is the inspired word of God. It contains the teachings of Jesus and the apostles of the early church, and is 'unchanging'- it is not being modified or added to. Therefore, it should not be subject to the 'authority' of one church grouping......

.......Of course there are dangers to individual interpretations, which is why we should not forsake fellowship of the brethren and continue to sharpen iron with iron. Above all, we should rely on the Holy Spirit for interpretation - allowing him to teach us and bring us into greater knowledge of the Father and the Son.

I agree with this.

Allowing the church do the interpretation have its advantages though. It allows for order in the system and nobody comes to NL fighting over issues that have to do with interpretation of the scriptures. But we also have to consider the possibility of the church feeding us with false teachings.

debosky:
Jesus is the head of the church, and the Holy Spirit teaches all things, not the Catholic Church.

I will have to align with italo on the bolded. if it is the holy spirit doing the teaching, how come we have hundreds/thousands of interpretations?

Enigma: ^^^ And the thread in the following link discusses one way to look at the infallibility of the "Church".

https://www.nairaland.com/1229310/infallibility-christian-church-simple-approach

seen. am leaving a comment there for you.

Zikkyy:
I will have to align with italo on the bolded. if it is the holy spirit doing the teaching, how come we have hundreds/thousands of interpretations?

I answered this already - there are some 'tests' of an interpretation one can carry out:

In terms of specifics, interpretation needs to be contextual and not contradictory of other scripture. I believe the scriptures are consistent and, if properly interpreted should not result in confusion.

Secondly, I don't believe we have to practice uniformity on each and every issue - for example some will support drinking in moderation, while others will support total abstinence - I believe the fundamentals of faith should be strong and held on to. Other issues that are secondary should be treated as secondary.

Finally, the truth is that the enemy seeks to cause confusion and human beings will look for teachings that meet their own individual tastes. Sticking to 'Catholic authority' will not prevent that as such erroneous teaching can still creep in.

debosky:
My view is that scriptural interpretation is wholly reliant on the Holy Spirit who teaches all things.

There are millions of people and "churches" all over the world, teaching differing and contradictory doctrines "under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit." Is it that there are millions of '"holy spirits" or it is the one Holy Spirit that is teaching all of them different things and causing confusion?

What about 'scripture compilation?' Who was it reliant on? The Holy Spirit? When then, did the Holy Spirit compile the Bible? When did the Holy Spirit tell you that the book of "Mark" is scripture but the "Acts of Peter" is not?

debosky: In terms of specifics, interpretation needs to be contextual and not contradictory of other scripture.

You mean 'your interpretation of a part of scripture needs to be contextual and not contradictory to your interpretation of other parts of scripture.'

Adeboye and/or Pastor Chris could also see their own interpretation (which might be contradictory to yours) of the first part as scriptural and not contradictory to their own interpretation (which might again be the opposite of yours) of the other parts of scripture...

...And you, Adeboye and Pastor Chris would all say that the Holy Spirit has taught you the truth, while saying contradictory things.

debosky: I believe the scriptures are consistent and, if properly interpreted should not result in confusion.

Yes... Your problem is that you dont know where to go for the proper interpretation.

[quote author=debosky]I disagree with this wholeheartedly because this places the Catholic Church in a position of authority not given to it by Jesus as recorded in Scripture. Jesus is the head of the church, and the Holy Spirit teaches all things, not the Catholic Church.

John 16:13: "But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth.

John 14:26: "But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

"Who was Jesus talking to in those verses? Everybody or his apostles - the leaders of his (Catholic) Church?

Jesus sends the Holy Spirit to his Church to teach it all things so that the Church can teach the people of God.

debosky: Now, I appreciate where your view point may originate from - you believe the Catholic Church holds a 'direct' connection to the early church through its 'apostolic succession' and its role in 'compiling' the bible. That's would be all well and good if rightful interpretation was based simply on being 'connected' to the early church. But it isn't.

It is not merely a "direct connection." The Catholic Church is the "early Church." The Church only began to be called "Catholic" around the year 100 to distinguish it from the many heretical groups that were springing up. The Church that wrote the New Testament and taught the people of old in biblical times is the same (Catholic) Church that compiled the Bible and declared what was and what wasnt Scriptural in the fourth century (long long after the apostles had died). That same Church continue's to teach the people of God today. If you believe their 1st and 4th century teachings and declarations to be God's teachings and declarations, why do you doubt them in the 21st century?

debosky: After all, in the early church (more precisely early church groups)there were teachings that had to be challenged by Paul and others - my point is that no church group is immune from wrong teaching simply by historical precedent or connection.

Please show me a "teaching" that was challenged by anybody within the Church. I am unaware of such.

debosky: Those who call themselves 'Catholics' and 'Protestants' may disagree on many things, but tend to agree that the bible is the inspired word of God. It contains the teachings of Jesus and the apostles of the early church, and is 'unchanging'- it is not being modified or added to. Therefore, it should not be subject to the 'authority' of one church grouping.

Firstly, I dont know what you mean by "church grouping." My Lord, Jesus Christ founded only ONE Church that teaches ONE Faith. Secondly, the Catholic Church compiled the Bible because it has the authority to do so. That is why we Catholics believe that it is the inspired word of God. You protestants also believe the Bible is God's word because the Catholic Church declared it so...BUT YOU WONT LIKE TO ADMIT IT. The Bible gets its validity from the authority of God's Church which compiled it.

debosky: I understand that Catholics may disagree with this, claiming that the bible itself was 'written' by the Catholic Church and hence cannot be placed above 'Church teachings', but this is inaccurate in my view. The Catholic church clearly didn't 'write' the OT, neither did it 'write' the books of the NT - what transpired in essence was a common recognition among church groups (led by the Holy Spirit) about which books were indeed inspired, followed by 'formal' approval by councils and nothing more.

How do you know that there was a common recognition among "church groups" led by the Holy Spirit? Dont you know that there were hot debates about several books? The Catholic Church wrote the new teastament and canonized the Bible with its Councils. You deliberately refused to mention that it was Catholic Church councils that canonized the Bible. Where were your imaginary "church groupings" then?

debosky: Of course there are dangers to individual interpretations, which is why we should not forsake fellowship of the brethren and continue to sharpen iron with iron. Above all, we should rely on the Holy Spirit for interpretation - allowing him to teach us and bring us into greater knowledge of the Father and the Son.

What you are practicing is what the millions of people and "churches" teaching contradictory doctrines are practicing. You protestants have been doing it for 500years and every year, the confusion, division and heresy only gets worse. I never taught I'd see a "gay church" but ALAS! Cant you see that it is the devil that has sown this pride in your hearts that make you think every man can teach himself?

Who do you think is responsible for this division? Jesus or satan?

I know my questions are many but I would appreciate if you could answer them.

@ italo,

Please permit me, I will join today when I wake up. It's my own time to sleep over here.

Zikkyy:

well....am not Goshen360 and others, but i don't quite agree one should swallow everything dished out by the church elders. for me it all comes down to the issue of the church being seen as infallible. this is not year 50A.D, the apostles are out of the picture, so what is the church elders reading that i don't have access to? (unless you are telling me they have some documents in there that i will never get to see).

My brother, humans and fashion may change but the things of God remain the same. If the Church was infallible in 50AD, then it will remain infallible to the end of time. That is why the apostles laid hands on their successors to give them the Spirit in a special way. Except your are telling me that the Holy Spirit that made the Church infallible has 'washed off'

So make up your mind. Was the Church infallible in 50AD?

Zikkyy: Should the catholic church be the one to interpret God's teaching? if the catholic church is the one interpreting God's teaching, there will be no other denomination. It's already too late for that so you need to rephrase your question.

Even in the time of the apostles, there were already heretics (what you call denominations) teaching the wrong thing in the guise of being "church." But the (Catholic) Church continued to teach God's word and declared the Canon of Scripture and you accepted.

There is NO denomination. There is only ONE Church that teaches ONE faith.

If one group says "Jesus is God"; and another says "Jesus is not God," can they both be "denominations" of God's church? NO. God does not teach such confusion.

ONE Church is true, the rest are not.

Zikkyy:

I agree with this.

Allowing the church do the interpretation have its advantages though. It allows for order in the system and nobody comes to NL fighting over issues that have to do with interpretation of the scriptures. But we also have to consider the possibility of the church feeding us with false teachings.

If the could teach you a lie, then it is also possible that the Church could have lied about the Canon of Scripture.

Maybe "Mark" wasnt written by Mark... And maybe "The Acts of Peter" was scriptural but the Catholic Church dubiously threw it out.

Have you considered the implication of that?

There would be no Christian faith if the Catholic Church could teach error.

This is great! If all of u r hear to discuss maturely ii will advice dat no one 'like' any post. If u r happy with an argument pls keep ur 'like' to urself in order for dem to focus on the truth and validity of each others arguments as against trying to entertain d crowd.

debosky:
Secondly, I don't believe we have to practice uniformity on each and every issue - for example some will support drinking in moderation, while others will support total abstinence - I believe the fundamentals of faith should be strong and held on to. Other issues that are secondary should be treated as secondary.

What if one group thinks drinking alcohol is a sin and is a fundamental issue, while the other group thinks that it is not a sin if done in moderation and it is a secondary issue? Who decides what is "fundamental" and what is "secondary?" Who is speaking God's mind?

YOU WOULD RESORT TO YOUR VARIOUS PRIVATE INTERPRETATIONS, WOULDNT YOU?

debosky: Finally, the truth is that the enemy seeks to cause confusion and human beings will look for teachings that meet their own individual tastes.

You know this yet you allow the enemy succeed through you.

debosky: Sticking to 'Catholic authority' will not prevent that as such erroneous teaching can still creep in.

You cant just declare this. Show us how sticking to Catholic teaching will not prevent us having erroneous teaching.

italo:

You cant just declare this. Show us how sticking to Catholic teaching will not prevent us having erroneous teaching.

A perfect example that comes to mind is the gift of tongues which the Catholics say it has been done away with, NOT only Catholics sha but other denominations frowns at it. What say ye? Is it scriptural or not?

Bidam: A perfect example that comes to mind is the gift of tongues which the Catholics say it has been done away with, NOT only Catholics sha but other denominations frowns at it.

I believe we are not here on this thread to make wild allegations (as is common here on nairaland and even elsewhere).

I am talking about what The Catholic Church teaches, not what one or two or even many "Catholics" say.

I am not aware of any Catholic Church teaching or official document that say that the 'gift of tongues' has been done away with.

If you know of such, please provide the evidence, if not, I will take this as another wild allegation and move on.

*bear in mind that all of Catholic Doctrine is well documented and mostly available on the internet, including the Catechism of the Catholic Church*

Bidam: What say ye? Is it scriptural or not?

Of course, we believe the 'gift of tongues' is scriptural.

What might not be scriptural is pretending to have the gift of tongues and blabbering rubbish when you do not have such gift... And you know those who are mostly guilty of this.

Lest we digress from the main issue at hand.

We are talking about how to know the true interpretation of scripture.

Goshen360 says: let scripture interprete scripture. Italo says: listen to God's (Catholic) Church.

What say ye?

Zikkyy:

I will have to align with italo on the bolded. if it is the holy spirit doing the teaching, how come we have hundreds/thousands of interpretations?

Exactly the point! If Peter and Paul had been allowed to continue with their divergent views on circumcision, Imagine the chaos it would have caused...No one can accuse Peter or Paul of not being led by the holy Spirit, or is there? But they had to seek clarification from the council, and when the council decides, then..."it has pleased us and the Holy Spirit..."see (Acts 15). What could be more certain than the decision of the church.

Zikkyy:

I agree with this.

Allowing the church do the interpretation have its advantages though. It allows for order in the system and nobody comes to NL fighting over issues that have to do with interpretation of the scriptures. But we also have to consider the possibility of the church feeding us with false teachings.

The problem lies when we start looking at "the church" as separate from us, as a group of people with hidden agenda. Imagine the sheep distrusting the shepherd and going on it's own. The major church teachings are ratified by councils, and these are a congregation of church leaders from all over the world where the church exists. Believe me, contrary views are heard, research and deliberations made in prayers and a final decision taken at the end. This is a rather more trust worthy means than relying on ones own interpretation.

Bidam: A perfect example that comes to mind is the gift of tongues which the Catholics say it has been done away with, NOT only Catholics sha but other denominations frowns at it. What say ye? Is it scriptural or not?

Go carefully through Italo's submissions on this, nothing can be more precise and correct than that.

italo:
If the Church was infallible in 50AD, then it will remain infallible to the end of time.

You said it yourself,there were already heretics in the time of the apostles. What happens if & when heretics led the church at some point in time? or what happens if some of their teachings somehow found their way into the church at some point in time? The church is made up of humans and so can make mistakes.

italo:
So make up your mind. Was the Church infallible in 50AD?

I told you before, when assessing the teachings of the apostles, i don't consider infallibility. it's either you accept their teachings or reject everything. There's no basis for considering some of their teachings as likely truth and some as possibly false.

The church today relies on the foundation laid by the apostles and will to a large extent be measured by what was laid down by the apostles. If the church today teaches doctrines that totally contradict that of the apostles, are you going to accept it (because the church is infallible)? if you will not accept such teachings, then the church today is not infallible, and if you do accept then the apostles were not infallible.

italo:
But the (Catholic) Church continued to teach God's word and declared the Canon of Scripture and you accepted.

Can one accept Christ and reject the bible? The other option for me would have been to reject the canon & Christ. If i chose to accept Christ then i have to accept the scriptures that were made available. It's one package.

italo:
There is NO denomination. There is only ONE Church that teaches ONE faith.

I said its too late for the question. Now we have churches not under the authority/control of the RCC and they have no intention of placing themselves under the authority of the RCC or accepting any of its teachings.

italo:
If one group says "Jesus is God"; and another says "Jesus is not God," can they both be "denominations" of God's church? NO. God does not teach such confusion.

True. The question is, who is correct.

italo:
There are millions of people and "churches" all over the world, teaching differing and contradictory doctrines "under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit." Is it that there are millions of '"holy spirits" or it is the one Holy Spirit that is teaching all of them different things and causing confusion?

This question is redundant but I'll answer it yet again. The Spirit does not bring confusion - the confusion is based on incomplete understanding, selective reading or a number of other deficiencies.

What about 'scripture compilation?' Who was it reliant on? The Holy Spirit? When then, did the Holy Spirit compile the Bible? When did the Holy Spirit tell you that the book of "Mark" is scripture but the "Acts of Peter" is not?

The Holy Spirit moved through the early Church to compile the bible.

You mean 'your interpretation of a part of scripture needs to be contextual and not contradictory to your interpretation of other parts of scripture.'

No I don’t - there should always be a common starting point - for Christians that is Jesus’ death that gives us salvation. That doesn’t require any interpretation.

Adeboye and/or Pastor Chris could also see their own interpretation (which might be contradictory to yours) of the first part as scriptural and not contradictory to their own interpretation (which might again be the opposite of yours) of the other parts of scripture...

This is possible, but what’s your point?

...And you, Adeboye and Pastor Chris would all say that the Holy Spirit has taught you the truth, while saying contradictory things.

As I said earlier simply saying ‘the Holy Spirit’ taught me isn’t proof that the Holy Spirit indeed taught you.

italo: @ Goshen360, I think you deliberately omitted what I would call the "genesis" of this thread.



What you did not mention are the key "contributions" that led to this No. 1 point on this thread.



This was part of my first post in reply to you on that other thread. Clearly, I set out to refute you teaching that "letting scripture interprete scripture" will lead us to the truth.

You then asked me to tell how to arrive at the correct interpretation of scripture without adequately proving your theory right.

My summary is: in as much as you want me to prove that the Catholic Church is the authority to interpret God's teaching (Scripture and otherwise), you must first prove that your own "let scripture interpret scripture" theory is accurate...or at least we must do it side by side.

lemme break it down.
An open bible placed on a table or pulpit lacks d ability to interprete it self. The ethopian said to philip "how am i to understand if no one preaches to me". Paul says "faith cometh by hearing". The word needs a preacher or it is just words!!!

The bible verses bear witness to dem selves but they do not interprete themselves, that is d word of d spirit thru d ministry of d church.
I just left d obadiah thread and i witness a great...bible disaster by my opinion. Obadiah would use is bible to interprete and concluded dat d fowls dat died in d time of noah were d leaders, he posted another scripture were d foul were d elect. I laughed, which of them is d fowl, d elect, d rulers of the people or the literal fowl?
It all comes down to d fact that those passages do not interprete themselves, even after laying precept on precept we still had 3 possible interpretation for one word: fowl. We also have so many preachers each preaching contradictory doctrines and we must ask ourselves. What was paul taking about when he said "d church is d pillar and bulwark of truth"? Is he refer to frosbel d one man church? D church they established and left their teaching authority with? Or the church as a totality of believers?

^^^ and of which he led by example in Gal2:1-2, where he went to get a confirmation that he "Paul" was still preaching what is true.

italo:
If the could teach you a lie, then it is also possible that the Church could have lied about the Canon of Scripture.

If you want my honest view, then i say it's a possibility. My very little understanding of church history gives the impression that what was included in scriptures was arrived at based on simple majority (or influenced majority ), so do we have the complete scriptures? i don't know. Maybe there were some other letters by apostle Paul not in wide circulation or were destroyed (poorly handled) prior to the time the church compiled the bible.

italo:
Maybe "Mark" wasnt written by Mark... And maybe "The Acts of Peter" was scriptural but the Catholic Church dubiously threw it out.

Have you considered the implication of that?

There would be no Christian faith if the Catholic Church could teach error.

What's my own if Mark was not written by Mark? It's also possible that the "Acts of Peter" was scriptural. The thing is i don't have info to substantiate these possibilities. i no dey there, so I have taken a decision to accept what was presented.