PeaceByJesus (PBJ) said...
SW: Scripture, quoting God Himself, states that "whatever" they bind "is bound" in Heaven. That is infallibility - at least to the objective reader.
PBJ: Which is the "no true objective Scotman" fallacy,
SW: It's not exactly the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, though I can see how you might believe it is. I also understand why you bring it up. You could challenge my objectivity and/or the objectivity of my statement, which you go on to attempt (without success). We could make this a debate about which kind of fallacy the other is using, but then we're just diverting the actual argument (known as the "red herring" fallacy, which you have been caught participating in).
PBJ continues: for objectively examined and shown, the power of binding and loosing was not a novel provision, but nowhere did it translate into ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility of office.SW: Wait, binding and loosing was not a novel provision? Please document or retract where said binding and loosing, by men, is previously recorded in Scripture - especially such which is bound or loosed in Heaven.
SW: Again, I am not debating the existence of an "office" at this time - I am only arguing for "the other pen" - which Ken has already conceded when he agreed that nothing fallible is bound (or loosed) in Heaven. Surely you, PBJ, are not arguing that error could be bound in Heaven, are you?
PBJ continues: As said, God broadly bound/binds souls to obey both civil and religious judicial magisterial judgments ("according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do" - Dt. 17:11) but as with "If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it," (John 14:14) accordance with God's word and will is the condition to see this fulfilled. Only God is autocratic, not man.SW: More diversions. I am not saying God cannot bind or loose. You then assert that "God is autocratic, not man" in direct defiance of Matthew 16:18-19 and Matthew 18:18 - where GOD HIMSELF has stated certain men DO have this autocratic authority to bind or loose "whatever" they choose.
PBJ continues the red herring: And nowhere is there any example or promise that an office will posses ensured infallibility when speaking according to a scope and subject-based formula, nor is this a requirement for authority or preservation of Truth and faith.SW: And again I repeat, let's not be diverted into a discussion of the existence of the office(s). Of course I accept the existence of these, but THAT is not THE POINT of MY argument. Stick to whether or not "the other pen" exists - then we can discuss/debate whether or not these "offices" existed and/or whether or not they were to continue.
PBJ still continuing the red herring: Moreover, unlike Rome's uninspired "infallible" decrees, the writings of Scripture, as with men of God, essentially came to be held as being of God due to their unique Divine qualities and attestation, and not based upon the premise that an office of scribes was promised ensured formulaic infallibility.SW: And again, let us not be diverted into a discussion debate of Rome's infallibility or inspiration. Until we conclude "the other pen" discussion - it is meaningless to proceed without a common premise.
PBJ concludes: Furthermore, while Swan's argument was "Protestants though argue the only extant record of God's infallible voice of special revelation is found in Sacred Scripture," yet even speaking an infallible Truth does not make it equal to the wholly inspired word of God, and Scripture is the only body of Truth that is wholly inspired of God, which thus possesses a unique power. (Heb. 4:12)SW: Again refocusing the argument, I am not arguing against what James Swan represents as what Protestants argue, I focused on his bringing up of James White's fallacious argument of non-existent "other pen." MY whole point is to show that Scripture itself points to "the other pen."
5:18 PM, April 23, 2016
Then Ken said... As "Peace by Jesus" related John 14:14 - "whatever" is qualified by the rest of Scripture, "whatever" in Matthew 16:19 is also qualified by the the context and rest of Scripture, so the "pen" is not infallible like the Word of God/ Scripture is.SW: Ken, that you admit to the existence of "the pen" you concede the argument. Either "the pen" is infallible, because no error can be bound in Heaven, or "the pen" does not exist - for the OTHER PEN which I am arguing for is that which MEN can bind or loose on Earth and IS BOUND (or HAS BEEN BOUND if you prefer) in Heaven MUST be infallible, because - and as you've already conceded, "Of course not, no error is bound in heaven." (your words on April 16, 2016 at 8:44am). You're not going back on your word now, are you?
Ken concludes: Local church authority is a secondary authority, a fallible authority and should be submitted to the Word of God. Your church drifted from the Scriptures and left its first love. (Revelation 2:4-5)SW: Whether or not local authority is a secondary authority is not the point. If a man or men binds something which IS or HAS BEEN bound in Heaven, then it is infallible, period. You see, my first love is God. I love His Word too and have never left either of them. I embrace His Word, especially where it is clearly stated that whatever he/they bind/loose on Earth, is or has been bound in Heaven. That's beautiful. Don't run from the Truth.
11:50 PM, April 24, 2016