This is the first part of my reply. Please keep in mind if I misunderstood anything you said I apologize and gladly accept your correction.
• But just as Peter was protected from writing error when he penned his epistle so were the Councils protected from error when called to defend the faith against heresy. I find NO Biblical support for that . . . any more than the religious rulers in Jerusalem were protected from being children of satan . . . though admittedly, Pentecost was after that.
Do you mean you find no Biblical support for my statement about Peter or about the Councils? If you mean the latter I will answer that those Protestant churches of the Reformation do believe the Creeds have authority. Meaning what they teach is true and a person who rejects those teachings can rightly be accused of heresy. This authority is not equal to Scripture which of course has primacy of authority in establishing the doctrines of such Protestant churches. They accept the Creeds because what is found in them can be supported in Scripture. I will gladly be corrected by I don’t think these Protestant churches believe the Creeds teach what is right because a group of men just happened to luck out and get it right. Rather what the Creeds teach is true because they can be linked to inspired and inerrant Scripture which gains its inerrancy and inspiration from the Holy Spirit. I have to admit I can not remember which Councils are accepted by the Churches of the Reformation. I think it is either the first 5 or the first 7. And remember I am speaking of all persons together in Council not individuals. So your comparison to the leaders in Jerusalem falls short. But I will contend I do not think this Charism existed in the OT for the simple reason there was no Church in the OT. And this was something promised by Christ to His Church. And I use that in a much broader sense than the Catholic definition of Church.
However, Paul’s writings were after Pentecost. And he exhorted MANY congregations about error that Holy Spirit did not protect them from. And, the degree to which they ignored Paul’s exhortations, they were not protected.
Congregations are not the same as individual Churches independent of any ecclesiastical authority. As such they do not have the protection from teaching error that I mentioned. Anymore than the parish of St. Joan of Arc in Minneapolis is protected from practicing base heresy. But your statement brings to mind something else. By what authority did Paul exhort these congregations? No doubt they too read scripture. They probably examined them and felt their interpretation was valid. So why was their interpretation condemned by Paul? And why does no one argue that they would have been justified in starting their own Church? Could it be that Paul ( who termed himself one of the Apostles) did have the authority to discern what was orthodox and what was heresy? If he did where did this come from? Was it of natural or supernatural orgin?
The fantasy of the RC magicsterical being automatically, in all respects theological protected by Holy Spirit from all error is an utterly outrageous fantasy with no Scriptural AND NO HISTORICAL support at all.
Ok that is a whole other thread topic. So let us just agree to disagree on this one. But will you grant that the Scripture is a source of authority in both Catholic and Protestant churches?
second part.
THE TRUE UNRUBBERIZED HISTORY OF THE ROMAN EDIFICE MAKES THAT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR. Personally, I think that is by God’s design… IF ORGANIZATIONS PLUS GOD whether God in Holy Spirit to leaders or God via Holy Spirit collectively . . . regardless—it would have been sufficient in Moses’ time—no rebellion—but there was. Even Aaron helped with the golden calf.
Again I must say I do not think the Charism was granted to any one group during OT times because this is a Charism reserved for the Church. It was I forgot to say certainly granted to the authors of the books of the OT when they wrote those books. It may also do with Law vs Grace but I have not examined that issue closely enough to reach a conclusion
After Pentecost—the same—and in SPIRIT FILLED CONGREGATIONS as with the Corinthians. I think God makes thereby a vivid object lesson point for all Creation . . . ONLY DAILY DIALOGUE; DAILY TAKING THE FLESH TO THE CROSS; DAILY SURRENDER; DAILY ABANDONMENT; DAILY CONFESSION AND REPENTANCE; DAILY FEEDING ON THE WORD; DAILY WORSHIP; DAILY SUBMISSION TO GOD’S HIGHEST AND GOD’S COMMUNICATIONS TO US—KEEP ANY INIDIVIDUAL AND ANY GROUP OUT OF ERROR. NARROW IS THE WAY.
I really have no disagreement with what you say above. The problem is what do you do when from their examination of Scripture a person comes to a conclusion that Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic churches would all define as heresy? What makes heresy so dangerous is not that it is extra biblical but that heretics can always find chapter and verse which on superficial reading supports their heresy. An example would be those who do not believe Jesus is God. They believe this because they are convinced the Bible teaches this.
I think there’s ABUNDANT though not screamingly glaring evidence in the New Testament that God had a dim view of organized political structured formal groups to get anything right. AS PAUL MAKES CLEAR IN CORINTHIANS—THE HOLY SPIRIT IS EVEN SUPPOSED TO BE IN CHARGE OF EACH AND EVERY MEETING. Boy has that been left in the dust by virtually all congregations of every partiuclar Christian club brand.
I think God has a dim view of us being able to save ourselves. Which is why I emphasize it is Catholic teaching that the Church is protected from teaching error in matters of faith in morals ONLY because of the promise of Christ and the protection of the Holy Spirit. Not because of the merit of any man. And sinners are found in all Churches. But thankfully so can God’s grace.
I’ll get to your kind replies by and by. A note, first . . . most eyes—even young ones—need white space between shorter masses of text for micro-rests. I find my aging eyes greatly need such. Great masses of text without paragraphs ever 5-7 lines and significant white space between the paragraphs is very troublesome, almost painful for me to read.
Therefore, rarely do I even bother with it. I will make an exception because you bothered to reply.
I find no Biblical support for the notion that the councils were any more protected from error than were individual local congregations applying the NT prescribed manner of 'having church' listed in I Cor 14. And, the Corinthian church had eveidently been muddling along after being started by ?Paul? most likely . . . with plenty of error in it in spite of extremely kosher Apostolic founder(s).
This authority is not equal to Scripture which of course has primacy of authority in establishing the doctrines of such Protestant churches. They accept the Creeds because what is found in them can be supported in Scripture. I will gladly be corrected by I don’t think these Protestant churches believe the Creeds teach what is right because a group of men just happened to luck out and get it right. Rather what the Creeds teach is true because they can be linked to inspired and inerrant Scripture which gains its inerrancy and inspiration from the Holy Spirit.
I think that's highly correct. Therefore what, I don't quite follow but I think that much is true.
I have to admit I can not remember which Councils are accepted by the Churches of the Reformation. I think it is either the first 5 or the first 7. And remember I am speaking of all persons together in Council not individuals.
Nor I. but I don't think it matters significantly at all. Except for Prottys such as Lutherans, maybe Episcopalians etc., I don't find a lot of 'standing on' any creeds or councils. IT IS SCRIPTURE AND HOLY SPIRIT that one stands on--which is another way of saying--standing on CHRIST THE LIVING WORD AND HIS SPIRIT'S CAPACITY TO LEAD EACH BELIEVER INTO ALL TRUTH--IN HIS WAY--IN HIS TIME.
So your comparison to the leaders in Jerusalem falls short. But I will contend I do not think this Charism existed in the OT for the simple reason there was no Church in the OT. And this was something promised by Christ to His Church. And I use that in a much broader sense than the Catholic definition of Church.
My main point about the Old Testament was a more human inclination/phenomena point--that organized, structured RELIGION--EVEN THAT STRUCTURED AND ORGANIZED BY GOD HIMSELF became rapidly corrupted by human nature. Moses was not up on the mountain THAT LONG before EVEN AARON was corrupted in the building of the golden calf. And, that Pentecost did NOT CHANGE HUMAN NATURE per se.
However, Paul’s writings were after Pentecost. And he exhorted MANY congregations about error that Holy Spirit did not protect them from. And, the degree to which they ignored Paul’s exhortations, they were not protected.
Congregations are not the same as individual Churches independent of any ecclesiastical authority. As such they do not have the protection from teaching error that I mentioned. Anymore than the parish of St. Joan of Arc in Minneapolis is protected from practicing base heresy.
In my experience and observation, THE MORE INDIVIDUAL CONGREGATIONS OF EVEN AUTHENTIC FOLLOWERS OF JESUS WHICH COLLECT TOGETHER IN DENOMINATIONAL CLUBS . . . THE GREATER THE PERVERSITIES AND ERRORS WHICH EVOLVE THEREIN. Actually, when a church gets much above a hundred people, the amount of crud creeping in seems to escalate proportionally to the numbers increase in members/participants.
But your statement brings to mind something else. By what authority did Paul exhort these congregations? No doubt they too read scripture. They probably examined them and felt their interpretation was valid. So why was their interpretation condemned by Paul? And why does no one argue that they would have been justified in starting their own Church?
Of course Paul had an Apostolic CALLING AND AN APOSTOLIC ANOINTING. What I find laughable and deplorable is the CHRONIC ASSUMPTION that successive laying on of hands has EFFECTIVELY transferred such callings and anointings when, in fact, Holy Spirit has 'left the building,' usually long beforehand.
Yet the shell soldiers on as though nothing has changed; nothing is amiss.
I find this almost as deplorable when such as Kenneth Hagin Sr presumes, seemingly, that his son will carry on with as much anointing and kosherness as Dad did. I didn't find that true at the time I was in a service led by Jr. No doubt Dad laid hands on and prayed over Jr. with all the seriousness of the office and anointing that Dad obviously walked decades in. Certainly the humility did not transfer. And I'm skeptical that anywhere near the same level of Holy Spirit's anointing and blessing transferred either.
Which reminds me . . . I think arrogance is one of the most deadly aspects of humanness which destroys both the anointing and the calling. And that it usually takes something incredible--a fierce refiner's fire--like prison in the case of Jim Baker, Chuck Colson--before any measure of the humility and anointing can again or newly be in place.
In terms of the RC edifice, history is replete with arrogant pontifications and brutally arrogant actions on the part of the political powermongering leaders in Rome. And, . . . a gross lacking of Holy Spirit's confirming anointing.
Could it be that Paul ( who termed himself one of the Apostles) did have the authority to discern what was orthodox and what was heresy? If he did where did this come from? Was it of natural or supernatural orgin?
Of course, it was supernatural . . . yet still, even after the dramatic Damascus road intro and after intense teaching by other Apostoles . . . he was still further refined on the back side of the desert as the purest prophetic SPIRITUAL leaders were in both the Old and New Testaments . . . witness also John on Patmos on that score.
I know of no RC edifice custom or practice of sending prospective Popes to the back side of the desert for purification and refinement before installation in office. But then, Prottys don't do any better at that, either.
The fantasy of the RC magicsterical being automatically, in all respects theological protected by Holy Spirit from all error is an utterly outrageous fantasy with no Scriptural AND NO HISTORICAL support at all.
Ok that is a whole other thread topic. So let us just agree to disagree on this one. But will you grant that the Scripture is a source of authority in both Catholic and Protestant churches?
NO! I CANNOT!
The RC edifice hereon HAS REPEATEDLY GONE TO GREAT LENGTHS TO INSIST THAT !!!!TRADITION!!!!, POWER MONGERING CUSTOM; MAGICSTERICAL PONTIFICATIONS; SENIOR LEADER PONTIFICATIONS ('ex cathedra' is it?) ARE MORE OR LESS EQUAL TO SCRIPTURE to begin with and typically--usually end up trumping, shredding, running rough-shod dismissively, destructively over the top of Scripture quite chronically.
I find that outrageously blasphemous, heretical, idolatrous and hideous to the max.