Saturday, June 04, 2016

Intallibility Discussion - Part 4

In an on-going discussion on BeggarsAll, I offer the following response to PBJ:
PeaceByJesus said...  
sw: PBJ, thanks for all the effort you have put into this - but your argument still falls short. THE point is in both Matt 16:18-19 (which you're avoiding) and Matt. 18:18, MEN are given the authority to bind and loose AND that which is bound or loosed on Earth is bound or loosed in Heaven. THAT is the extent of my argument..nothing fallible can be bound or loosed in Heaven.
PBJ: Scott, as much as you seem to want to avoid the elephant in the room, calling it a "tangent, it remains to be The Argument, and cannot be removed. For it is simply one thing to assert that men are given the authority to bind and loose on Earth/Heaven, and another thing to force this to translate into Rome's unique, autocratic, ensured magisterial infallibility.
sw: PBJ, what I seek from you is acknowledgement of the fact that God gave man this infallible authority.  Debating the alleged "elephant in the room" as to the extent or limitation of this authority would be tacit concession to the challenge - but I seek more than that.  Would you acknowledge that God gave men this authority?  Yes or no?  I'd be more than happy to discuss "the elephant in the room" once we agree upon the premise.

PBJ: And despite your mere dismissal of the substantiation to the contrary, while in fact it is you who must resort to out of context eisegesis, this power to bind and loose was and is not unconditional, nor restricted to magisterial judgment, but as seen in both the Old and New testaments, it applies to all believers of fervent holy faith.
sw:  I am confused by your statement/allegation that I have resorted to out of context eisegesis when in fact, I have remained within the context of the Gospel according to St. Matthew.  Just answer the question - does Scripture record God giving man/men this authority to bind or loose on Earth and that which they so bind is also bound in Heaven?  Again, a simple yes or no before moving forward to the agenda you wish to discuss.
PBJ: As for ignoring Matt 16:18-19, that charge is only viable if you ignore Matt. 18:15-20 as well as such other texts such as i supplied, which shows that this power was not unique to Peter, not the rest of the apostles. Nor is the binding/loosing promised formulaic infallibility, so that whatever the magisterium decrees when speaking according to its own scope and subject-based criteria then it is infallible. 
sw:  Again, just answer the question.  In Matthew 16:18-19 - to whom was Jesus speaking?  Was it to Peter, alone, or to the whole college of Apostles?
PBJ:  In short, Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
sw:  Again, MY challenge is not about what "Rome has presumed" but rather what has Scripture explicitly stated?  Does Scripture record God (Jesus) giving man/men authority to bind or loose whatsoever they choose on Earth and that which they bind/loose on Earth is bound/loosed in Heaven?  Again, the answer here is a simple "Yes" or "No."  AFTER you answer that, I have said I would engage your "elephant in the room."
PBJ:  Thus despite RC bluster and bombast, you are left with having to engage in out-of-context extrapolation to support the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults).
sw:  To the contrary, I repeat, the context I refer to is limited to the Gospel of Matthew, specifically in the 16th and 18th chapters.  I have not been "unscriptural" in the least in my discourse and context, in fact - I have simply asked you to answer a simple question or two - and you, on the other hand, choose to answer questions I have not asked and import other contexts and challenge me on what you perceive to be would be my next step - all the while I am asking you to take the FIRST STEP FIRST before moving on to the NEXT STEP.

sw:  The silence from James Swan, who wrote the original article I responded to, has not gone unnoticed.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Keep in mind while posting:
1) Please respond ON TOPIC to the article at hand.
2) Posts more than 4 weeks old are set to automatically save new comments for moderation - so your comment may not show up immediately if you're responding to an older post.
3) The "Spam Filter" is on - and randomly messages get caught in that filter. I have no control over which messages get caught in the spam filter and those that do must wait for me to mark them as "not spam." A message caught by the spam filter may show up for a moment, making you think it posted, and then disappear. Do not assume I have deleted your comment, it's probably just the spam filter and it will show up.