Transcription
One of the things that I struggle with the most when, uh, just considering it, uh, from the Catholic point of view versus, I suppose, I'm a Protestant, um, is Second Timothy 3:16-17. I'm sure you're familiar with it.
Yeah, we're all familiar with that one. Yeah. Yeah. But it's more so the the words towards the end of, uh, 17, um, where it says that the the that the scripture, the God-breathed scripture, is good to make man complete and equipped for every good work. And so I guess my my question is, is from the Catholic perspective, are we considering, like, is the Bible the only infallible source? Because I'm okay with other sources of authority, but the Bible to me, from what I can see and what I'm from what I've studied, just just seems like the only infallible source. And that's usually where I get hung up as the infallibility.
Where does the Bible say it's the only infallible source? It doesn't explicitly, and not even implicitly, because it says if it's God-breathed, it makes it infallible. Jesus breathed on his apostles, and that's why they said their even their words are not the words of men but the words of God. So even what they preached orally, here, let me show you. Nowhere does the Bible say only the scriptures are infallible because they're God-breathed. Because it says that Jesus breathed the Holy Spirit on the apostles in the context of missions, which is why they said the words they preached is not the words of men but God, and you must accept them fully. Here, let me show you. So that's the first fallacy of the Protestant premise, which I know because I used to be a Protestant.
Here, John 20:21-23. So Jesus said to them again, "Peace be with you. As the Father sent me, I also send you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them. Breathe said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit." So they're also being breathed on by God. "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them. If you retain the sins of any, they have been retained." Now, watch 1 Thessalonians 2:13. "And for this reason, we also thank God without ceasing that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, not which you read from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but for what it really is, the word of God, which also is at work in you who believe." So where did you get that scripture alone is infallible?
I, I don't, I don't know if I got it from anywhere. To me, to me, it is implicit. Yeah. But even if it's implicit, it doesn't say only the Bible. You said only scripture. It didn't say that because it also implicitly says that Christ breathed explicitly on them the Spirit. So their words that they spoke, they too are infallible. Mhm.
Would they genuine question, would they have been teaching things that aren't that are outside of scripture that we have? No. Catholic Orthodox thinks that of their traditions. No Catholic Orthodox says that their traditions are somehow different from or even in conflict with what is in written in scripture. But is there a further and greater clarification? Of course, because if you're okay with that, I don't know if you are, brother, because, for example, when Luke 1:28 says Mary is many, and then the church, through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, as the Holy Spirit illuminates the church and moves the church greater depth and insight into the meaning of scripture, and they see that this points to God filling Mary with a grace that results in being blameless and holy. And he did it in the past, and he gave it to her in all his fullness. And therefore, the conclusion is that God kept her pure from sin. You reject that?
I do reject that. Yes. And then on, but what basis? Since you're not a prophet, you're not an apostle. Romans 3:23. What? No. Romans 3:23. Brother, brother, that shows that you're a Bible pervert because Romans 3:23 says, "For all have sinned." It's not about people who have sinned. But if all have sinned, have infants who have died sinned? Infants who have died, have they? All have sinned. Because you're using the word all. That shows you're a Bible, brother, because you don't know. So infants have sinned. They're born in sin. Let me repeat the question. Have infants sinned? Because it's saying they have sinned, not they're born in sin. Yeah. Have infants sinned? I suppose not. Okay. So why are you taking all and assuming everyone without exception as opposed to seeing whether all has a more restrictive meaning?
No. Been there, done there, got the t-shirt. But you just proved my point. You become your own pope, telling me that this passage doesn't mean this, but it means that based on how you think a certain passage reads. Okay. I, I know, I know how you get with people who like seem bouncy on questions. I'm asking this genuinely. All right. Genuinely. Yeah. Stay on track though, so I don't have to keep jumping and changing topics. Go ahead.
Yeah, of course. Um, Mary wasn't an infant though. No. So, wouldn't that all still apply to her? Well, you just proved my point. If you admit there's an exception, so you don't get it. This is why I'm saying it's aism. Once you admit all has an exception, then you prove Mary can be an exception, just like Jesus is an exception from the all. For instance, it says Hebrews 9:27, "It is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment." It is appointed for man to die once. Lazarus died twice. So Hebrews 9:27 must be wrong. Okay? Jairus's daughter died twice. So Hebrews 9:27 must be wrong. See, if I follow the way you interpret scripture, you're going to create contradictions because this is my point. What I said, the Bible was not given to an individual to take home and read on his own. It was given to a church that's been there for 2,000 years. The very church that I told you that when they read these statements, they told you this is what it means, it doesn't mean. And now you're sitting in judgment of them, and you're a Johnny come lately.
So here, Hebrews 9:27, just to illustrate my point. If we follow the way you interpret Romans 3:23, buddy, we've heard these verses, and I used to use them when I was anti-Catholic. That should tell you, if he heard these verses and used them, what made him change? Cuz I saw how shallow these arguments are. But hold on, I'm going to illustrate my point. Hebrews 9:27, "Inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once, and after this comes judgment." All right, but hold on. Same Hebrew says Hebrews 11:5, "By faith Enoch was taken up so they would not see death." But he just told me it is appointed for man to die once. Enoch did not die, and he was not found because God took him up. For prior to be taken, he was approved as being pleasing to God. But here's another one. Hebrews 11:35. "Women receive back their dead by resurrection." But wait, he just told me man is appointed to die once. If someone died and was raised, that means they're going to die a second time. Lazarus died twice. Jairus's daughter died twice. The widow's son died twice. All that Jesus and the apostles raised died twice. But Hebrews told me men die once. So if I follow the way you interpret the Bible, you're very dangerous. You're going to create contradictions.
Okay. Um, last question. It's, it's, it's on this topic. Yeah. Yeah. But, but before you go there, I just gave Mary as an illustration of what I was trying to say. Sure. That what's in scripture doesn't contradict what's in sacred tradition. It only contradicts a person's interpretation. So no Catholic or Orthodox thinks that what was proclaimed orally and passed on to the successors of the apostles and promulgated and developed and expounded on contradicts the accurate interpretation of scripture. It only contradicts your interpretation. And you illustrated my point perfectly by going to Romans 3:23. That's based on your interpretation, which you now think conflicts with Luke 1:28. But go ahead. What's your other question?
Um, yeah. So, uh, just, just kind of staying, staying with the infallibility part, because you're giving me good, you're giving me good stuff. It's one of the reasons why I wanted to talk to you about it. You have a great way of bringing stuff together. I give God glory to the Holy Spirit because when I get angry and dead, cuz that's me. That's my sense. So, everything good, we give God. I'm like, I can be that way too sometimes, but Jesus is working on us. Amen. We're, we're angry people, bro. We were born angry. But go ahead.
That's right. Um, so, so as far as infallibility goes, um, when, when we're talking about like the the Pope, when the Pope says something that is out of line with scripture, um, just brief example, and it's probably the more one of the more obvious ones, the most recent Pope was recorded on a stage talking to a bunch of different religious leaders, and he, and it came out of his mouth that he said that there are many different paths to heaven, yada yada. A whole bunch of Catholics, Protestants alike were like, "Whoa, what was that?" So, when he does something like that, how, how are we to then view that?
From that's easily answered. It's been answered by people more qualified than I. First of all, go and study and I'm saying this, what infallibility means and doesn't mean. Okay? Study that, and you'll see no Catholic authority and no Catholic council has ever said the Pope anytime he opens his mouth speaks infallibly. No, the Pope is believed. Now, I'm not saying you have to believe it. I'm saying at least understand the argument. I'm not saying you're trying to misunderstand it because I'm trying to understand. Yep. The teaching goes like this, that when the Pope speaks in regards to faith, morals, practices that bind all Christians to submit to, that's when the Spirit will guide the Pope to speak without error. Okay? When the Pope says something in an audience that is not a statement where he's saying, "All Catholics are now bound to submit to this statement," he can make mistakes. He can even sin. And I'm going to give you an example. David committed adultery and murdered the man and covered up that sin. Did that disqualify him from being a king and a prophet who spoke and wrote inspired, infallible revelations? Nope. Solomon in First Kings 11, he took 700 wives, 300 concubines, foreign women who not only worshiped gods and goddesses, sacrificed to them, he joined in the sacrifices. He sacrificed to their gods and goddesses, blatant idolatry and blasphemy, which was punishable by death. And even multiplying foreign women, Israelites were not to marry foreign women. He committed several sins worthy of death, to be put to death physically and cut off eternally. Did God defrock him and throw him out of his office? No. Did that then nullify the scriptures he wrote that are part of your own testament that you believe are infallible and inspired? Nope. Then why would the Pope making comments in an audience where he's speaking to a general audience? Now, did he drop the ball? You can say yes. Did he make a mistake? Yes. But then that's why you have the Catholic Church and its dogmatic pronouncements to know when a Pope drops the ball, because the Catholic Church has dogmatic pronouncements that have been preserved to even judge the Popes by. And even the Catholics will tell you in our history, we've had many antipopes. Just like in the history of the Old Testament, if you read the theocracy, didn't God establish the kingdom on earth? Yep. How many of the kings were wicked, immoral, bloodthirsty idolaters? And did that disqualify the kingship? No. So why would Well, for one of them it did, but which one? Saul. No. Yeah. But once you God made that perpetual covenant with David, and it was only the only time they didn't have a king is when they went to exile and then they returned. But my point is, Yeah, I'm listening to your point. You're right. I was just, I was just Yeah. Yeah. But throughout that entire period, did that disqualify the kingship from being a valid office on earth, in spite of the fact that many of them were immoral, pagan, idolatrous, and murderous? No. So then why would a corrupt Pope disqualify the Bishop of Rome, that office being divinely ordained? It only means that you have now a wolf that God will soon remove. Okay. That's, that's the Catholic understanding. Now, you can reject it, but at least we want to represent it accurately. Yeah. Of course. And I, I don't, I don't, I don't outright outright reject it. I'm, I'm very interested in learning more about it. Most 99% of the people I talk to about this end up getting mad or just, you know, not not as collected in scripture as you are. So that's one of the reasons why I wanted to bring it to you here, what you had to say.
And that should tell you something. If I've studied the scriptures and then I ended up leaving Protestantism and saw the fullness of truth elsewhere, that says something. I didn't do it out of ignorance, and I'm not getting paid for it. In fact, I've gotten more backlash and in my journey, I've lost support. So it's, I'm trying to be a man of integrity, and God forgive me. So that says something, because if unless people think I'm stupid, I'm illiterate from the Bible, that's one thing. But if people think, well, this guy has studied scripture, then that first question is, why did he change? If he studied scriptures and he wants to be faithful to scriptures, then there must be some validity to this. Otherwise, what would make him change? And I would not have changed if it was against scripture. That's the last thing I do. Cuz even to this day, over 98% of my arguments are based on scripture, because I love scripture. I have the highest view of scripture. And it was scripture that got me to re-examine my assumptions and traditions, because I believe the promises of scripture regarding the church, that the Lord said he'd be building the church, and the Holy Spirit would guide the church, and that the successors of the apostles would be filled with the Spirit to be true shepherds, protecting the church from wolves, and the truth will be found in the church. So that means if Christ cannot lie, the church has been around for 2,000 years. It didn't spring up in the 16th century or in the 20th century with evangelicalism. But then I look at that church, and who represented Orthodoxy, and they didn't sound like reformed Baptists or Presbyterians or Evangelicals. Okay.