Do non-Catholic church pastors claim to teach infallibly or fallibly?

[Prodigal_Son1]

Such a thing is now impossible since Western Catholicism’s Magisterium (teaching authority) is considered (accepted) infallible, therefore it’s interpretation of Matt. 16:18 cannot be questioned.

I don’t know of any Protestant congregations that claim or assign infallibility for or to their Pastors or teachers. I don’t know of any Pastors or teachers that claim it of themselves. One need not be infallible to present an accurate interpretation of Scripture. One must, however, be regenerated by the Holy Spirit in order to even begin to understand them accurately. Even Augustine changed his mind concerning the Matt. 16:18 passage, seeing Peter’s confession (not Peter himself) as the “rock” on which Christ would build His church. His change of mind proves fallibility on his part and yet a personal quest to attain accuracy regarding the interpretation of Scripture.

It appears one need not be a pastor in a Protestant Church to speak an infallible truth. There are many lay people who say Catholicism is wrong and to make a statement of wrongness is the same as declaring themselves right.

Your statement on Augustine, who was not a Pope, shows you ignoring a statement I just made to you. Not everything a Pope says is infallible and that makes a Pope fallible. Only on the matters of faith and morals are infallible statements made and there’s a criteria for that.

As for an accurate interpretation of scriptures, how is it a modern day interpretation is correct over the very Church that preserved scriptures for hundreds of years for the reformers to have the Bible? Also, please take time to explain the many interpretations between Protestant denominations all being one truth?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Infallibility refers to the person, not what the person says. What a man says (even your Pope) MAY be accurate, but because he is not infallible, not everything he says is accurate.

The Scriptures are inerrant because of the infallibility of the One who “breathed” them. There is no such thing as an infallible interpreter of Scripture when referring to men, since no man is infallible. And much of Scripture is best understood without “interpreting” it, but rather simply believing it.

You’re using semantics now to provide a biased and anti view of Catholicism, in my honest opinion.

There are many interpretations between the many denominations of Protestantism. Who has the authority to declare the other interpretations ‘inaccurate’? Scriptures cannot be it’s own interpreter.

 

[1voice]

Your interpretation is that St. Augustine supports your position. This is the reason you presented it. Thinking St. Augustine’s words supported your position is your logical fallacy, due to your blind eisegetical methods based on fault presupposition and lack of proper background.

St. Augustine’s words you quoted support God’s Catholic Church and therefore my position… i.e. the truth. I showed you that, and you still don’t understand. But, only those seeking God would actually try to understand, which you have not done so. Why?

“For the Rock (Petra) was Christ”

… St Augustine.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

“For the Rock (Petra) was Christ”

… St Augustine.

And why should we ignore all the other Church fathers?

BTW, you said you were going to respond to the points I raised, but now they’re buried in this thread. Do you still intend on responding?

 

[1voice]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1voice
LOL! … St Peter wasnt infallible.

I dont doubt that there are a large number of Catholics that believe that the interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is cut in stone…

My point is that the distinction between Petros and Petra was … and is … no small throw away point, as you indicated above. It was clearly understood to be very important … and a Church Father no less than St Augustine spoke about it to the Communicants on multiple occasions. … and left it to them to decide on the issue for themselves.
Id like to see what would happen if a Priest or Bishop let people decide for themselves on an issue like that today.

Such a thing is now impossible since Western Catholicism’s Magisterium (teaching authority) is considered (accepted) infallible, therefore it’s interpretation of Matt. 16:18 cannot be questioned.

God forbid that Augustine should have the freedom to say that the the Father’s revelation of Jesus Christ to those that he chooses to call to himself is the rock upon which Jesus is building his Church.

That kind of thinking is exactly why, in the earliest days of Christ’s Church, the Church Fathers of the Orthodox family of Christianity decided to just ignore Western Catholicism’s claims to infallibility.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1voice
LOL! … St Peter wasnt infallible.

I dont doubt that there are a large number of Catholics that believe that the interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is cut in stone…

My point is that the distinction between Petros and Petra was … and is … no small throw away point, as you indicated above. It was clearly understood to be very important … and a Church Father no less than St Augustine spoke about it to the Communicants on multiple occasions. … and left it to them to decide on the issue for themselves.
Id like to see what would happen if a Priest or Bishop let people decide for themselves on an issue like that today.

That is exactly why, in the earliest days of Christ’s Church, the Church Fathers of the Orthodox family of Christianity ignored Western Catholicism’s claims to infallibility.

Why aren’t you Orthodox? I see a lot of people use the differences between the East and West as a justification for the many denominations of Protestantism, or simply to reject Catholicism. Which is your reasoning?

You’ve avoided posts with many points raised and repeated little ‘snippet’ posts, without any explanation. To be perfectly honest, it has an ‘anti-Catholic’ appearance, but you only know the real answer to that.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Twelve Quotations from Ten Protestant Biblical Scholars

William Hendriksen
member of the Reformed Christian Church
Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary

The meaning is, “You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church.” Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, “And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.” Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view.

New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), page 647
JPK page 14

Gerhard Maier
leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian

Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which — in accordance with the words of the text — applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis.

“The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate”
Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context
(Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), page 58
JPK pages 16-17

Donald A. Carson III
Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary
(two quotations from different works)

Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “stone” and “rock” respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock”. The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name.

The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke)
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), page 368
JPK pages 17-18

The word Peter petros, meaning “rock” (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter.

Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary — New Testament, vol. 2
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), page 78
JPK page 18

John Peter Lange
German Protestant scholar

The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun… The proper translation then would be: “Thou art Rock, and upon this rock”, etc.

Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), page 293
JPK page 19

John A. Broadus
Baptist author
(two quotations from the same work)

Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.

But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, “Thou are kipho, and on this kipho”. The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, “Thou are kepha, and on this kepha”… Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: “Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre”; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, “Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.”

Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
(Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), pages 355-356
JPK page 20

J. Knox Chamblin
Presbyterian and New Testament Professor
Reformed Theological Seminary

By the words “this rock” Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the Builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself. The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, “You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church”. As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus.

“Matthew”
Evangelical Commentary on the Bible
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), page 742
JPK page 30

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

continued…

Craig L. Blomberg
Baptist and Professor of New Testament
Denver Seminary

Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon’s nickname “Peter” (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, “You are Peter”, parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ”, as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.” The expression “this rock” almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following “the Christ” in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word “rock” (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification.

The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22
(Nashville: Broadman, 1992), pages 251-252
JPK pages 31-32

David Hill
Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies
University of Sheffield, England

On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the “rock” as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.

“The Gospel of Matthew”
The New Century Bible Commentary
(London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), page 261
JPK page 34

Suzanne de Dietrich
Presbyterian theologian

The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The new name contains a promise. “Simon”, the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will, by the grace of God, be the “rock” on which God will build the new community.

The Layman’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16
(Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), page 93
JPK page 34

Donald A. Hagner
Fuller Theological Seminary

The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built… The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock… seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy.

Matthew 14-28
Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b
(Dallas: Word Books, 1995), page 470
JPK pages 36-37

 

[1voice]

Why aren’t you Orthodox? I see a lot of people use the differences between the East and West as a justification for the many denominations of Protestantism, or simply to reject Catholicism. Which is your reasoning?

You’ve avoided posts with many points raised and repeated little ‘snippet’ posts, without any explanation. To be perfectly honest, it has an ‘anti-Catholic’ appearance, but you only know the real answer to that.

I mention Orthodoxy in order to illustrate that the standard Roman Catholic: "we were here first " argument is not a strong position to stand on. The Orthodox Communion of Christians trace roots back to Pentecost as well … yet that fact holds no validity from the Roman Catholic point of view. The Roman Catholics talk every so often about reuniting but it is always from the position of primacy and Infallibility … which the Eastern tradition scoffs at … and rightfully so.
Personally I dont believe that tradition has standing in any discussion unless it lines up with Gods word in the Bible. Paul the Apostle admonished those he was evangelizing to test what he was saying and not to take it at face value. I hear exactly the opposite here.
… and when I follow Paul’s admonition … I am thought to be anti Catholic. What is that??​

This conversation started when …
a little while ago MDK asked me why I am not a Catholic any more ( I was born and raised Catholic and practiced for the first 20 years of my life … I was an altar boy that knew the responses in Latin … Got my knuckels busted by the Nuns at St Joes School for not knowing the answer … Got the Ad Altare Dei pinned on my chest in the Boy Scouts on the way to Eagle. My Dad was head bingo caller and belonged to the Knights of Columbus … Typical Catholic kid.
Anyway MDK said that he hoped that I might reconsider my decision made 40 years ago. I said that there were too many places that I saw where tradition,( that conflicted with the New Testament), and confusing rules,( that made no sense), prevented me from even considering becoming a Catholic. I gave one example of the several that led to my choice and … we were off to the races. I am in no way anti Catholic. I disagree with much of the doctrine and teaching but I stated that I have come to know in my heart that Catholicism is one part of Christianity… It is not all encompassing as is often expressed by devout Catholics. I have simply tried to explain my position. Obviously it does not agree with the Roman Catholic Position … But neither does the Orthodox position and they’re not anti Catholic…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I mention Orthodoxy in order to illustrate that the standard Roman Catholic: "we were here first " argument is not a strong position to stand on. The Orthodox Communion of Churched trace their roots back to Pentecost as well … yet that fact holds no validity from the Roman Catholic point of view. The Roman Catholics talk every so often about reuniting but it is always from the position of primacy and Infallibility … which the Eastern tradition scoffs at … and rightfully so.

Catholics acknowledge the valid apostolic succession of the Orthodox Church. The Church was ONE until the great schism, which occurred in 1054.

Why rightfully so? Again, you side with one but reject it too. This is part of the appearance of ‘anti’ in your posts. If you felt one was right, you’d be a part of it and not using it to reject another.

Personally I dont believe that tradition has standing in any discussion unless it lines up with Gods word in the Bible. Paul the Apostle admonished those he was evangelizing to test what he was saying and not to take it at face value. I hear exactly the opposite here.
… and when I follow Paul’s admonition … I am thought to be anti Catholic. What is that??

Ok, please take time to explain who has the authority to decide if tradition lines up with scriptures. How do you have the authority to ‘test what he was saying’ against years and years of tradition, from the very Church that preserved the scriptures for 1500 years for the reformers to have?

Paul preached one mind and judgment. Paul wrote to hold to the traditions whether by word or epistle. Paul wrote that the Church was the pillar and foundation of truth, not scriptures. Paul also wrote that the manifold wisdom of God maybe made known through the Church, not scriptures.

You started participation in a debate with, ‘Peter was not the rock,’ no explanation, no documentation, nothing but your opinion. One of your most recent posts provided a ‘cherry picked’ snippet, again no explanation, no documentation, but clearly a rejection of the Catholic view. You ‘overlook’ posts and fail to respond to direct questions. You ‘cherry pick’ a quote from one Church father and ignore all the rest. Why, if not for the sake of simply rejecting ‘Catholicism’, over and over?

---

This conversation started when …
a little while ago MDK asked me why I am not a Catholic any more ( was born and raised Catholic and practiced for the first 20 years of my life … I was an altar boy that knew the responses in Latin … Got my knuckels busted by the Nuns at St Joes School for not knowing the answer … Got the Ad Altare Dei pinned on my chest in the Boy Scouts on the way to Eagle. My Dad was head bingo caller and belonged to the Knights of Columbus … Typical Catholic kid.
Anyway MDK said that he hoped that I might reconsider my decision. I said that there were too many places that I saw where tradition, that conflicted with the New Testament, and confusing rules, that made no sense, prevented me from even considering becoming a Catholic. I gave one example of the several that led to my choice and … we were off to the races. I am in no way anti Catholic. I disagree with Much of the doctrine and teaching but I stated that I have come to know in my heart that Catholicism is one part of Christianity. It is not all encompassing as is often expressed by devout Catholics. I have simply tried to explain my position. Obviously it does not agree with the Roman Catholic Position … But neither does the Orthodox position

Where in scriptures does it tell us individually to make our own decisions? You brought up Paul’s writings. Paul told us to ‘obey our prelates’. How does individualism work in relation to obeying prelates?

**
Heb 13:17 Obey your prelates and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls: that they may do this with joy and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you. **

Paul’s writings very much support an authoritative Church. There was no ‘individualism’ in what he taught.

 

[PJM]

=diorthosis;7746564]Writings aren’t infallible. They’re either errant or inerrant. Scripture, which includes the Psalms of David, is inerrant because the One who inspired (breathed) it through men is Himself infallible.

There’s no such thing as partial or sporadic infallibility. One is either infallible or one is not.

My friend;

a rather powerful responce to a statement essentially true…

God Bless,

 

[MDK]

I see that you apparently are unable to provide quotes from these two men contrary to what I quoted. I know what you think they said. Basically you are saying that they were both Catholic and couldn’t mean something non-Catholic. That is eisegis, trying to force these statements to support a Catholic position that they do not support.

There are other church fathers who do support the Catholic position which can be seen just by looking at Aquinas’ Catena but these two fathers do not, at least in the quotes I gave and you have not given me anything from them showing they do.

Really… are you completely without understanding? We’re discussing the interpretation of the same quotes you provided. I don’t need any other quotes. The quotes you provided DO NOT mean what you claim they mean. It’s as simple as that.

No, basically I’m not saying what you assumed either. Sadly, you seem to lack the either the intellect or decency to even try to understand what I wrote. What I’m saying is that I fortunately have the background and grace to understand what they’re actually saying, and their quotes that you provided both support the Catholic position. Let me state it clearly to you. The meanings of the phrases you quoted of both of these men support the Catholic position that I have been espousing. I derived this by exegesis. I don’t use eisegesis, as that’s for Protestants. Stated simply, both quotes support the Catholic position that I had explained earlier.

If you’re incapable of understanding what they wrote, then you have no business quoting them to try and support your case, when it actually supports mine (the Catholic teaching). Please at least try to get a clue.

 

[MDK]

“For the Rock (Petra) was Christ”

… St Augustine.

… which in the actual context in St Augustine wrote it means Jesus is the Ultimate Rock (the Catholic position), and Peter is able to be Rock of the Church because of Jesus being the Ultimate Rock (the Catholic position).

(Your lame attempt to distort is all you have here.)

Did St. Augustine say Jesus is the Rock of the Church in Matt 16:18? The honest person says NO. You, however, use preconceived fallacies and so your eisegesis goes against the truth. So, you provide yet another quote outside of its context, attempting to render it void of true meaning so you can promote your heresies you hold so close to your heart. It’s what you do, as you have no real background, nor capability and willingness to use the tools of discernment and exegesis.

Go back and look at the WHOLE writing of Augustine, then get at least some kind of clue about the truth.

 

[SyCarl]

Really… are you completely without understanding? We’re discussing the interpretation of the same quotes you provided. I don’t need any other quotes. The quotes you provided DO NOT mean what you claim they mean. It’s as simple as that.

No, basically I’m not saying what you assumed either. Sadly, you seem to lack the either the intellect or decency to even try to understand what I wrote. What I’m saying is that I fortunately have the background and grace to understand what they’re actually saying, and their quotes that you provided both support the Catholic position. Let me state it clearly to you. The meanings of the phrases you quoted of both of these men support the Catholic position that I have been espousing. I derived this by exegesis. I don’t use eisegesis, as that’s for Protestants. Stated simply, both quotes support the Catholic position that I had explained earlier.

If you’re incapable of understanding what they wrote, then you have no business quoting them to try and support your case, when it actually supports mine (the Catholic teaching). Please at least try to get a clue.

Such a personally insulting attack is totally unwarranted and has been reported to the moderators. As you seem to think insults are a legitimate means of apologetics I will not be responding to you any further.

 

[MDK]

I mention Orthodoxy in order to illustrate that the standard Roman Catholic: "we were here first " argument is not a strong position to stand on. The Orthodox Communion of Christians trace roots back to Pentecost as well … yet that fact holds no validity from the Roman Catholic point of view. The Roman Catholics talk every so often about reuniting but it is always from the position of primacy and Infallibility … which the Eastern tradition scoffs at … and rightfully so.
Personally I dont believe that tradition has standing in any discussion unless it lines up with Gods word in the Bible. Paul the Apostle admonished those he was evangelizing to test what he was saying and not to take it at face value. I hear exactly the opposite here…

Your limited understanding of God’s Catholic Church is evident. No wonder you left, because of lack of education, lack of knowledge of Christ… it’s how the Devil is able to pick off the weak ones.

An honest person knows that the Orthodox Church didn’t exist at Pentecost, but ONLY the Catholic Church existed. The Catholic position is “we are the full Church established by Christ” and “we are the ONLY Church Christ established.” We must make the point that there was not two Churches at Pentecost… only God’s one Catholic Church. God didn’t make two Churches, only one. Man’s arrogance and pride caused the Orthodox split. They took valid Bishops with them, and so while they can trace back holy orders back to the Apostles, it’s not proper to say the Orthodox Church existed at Pentecost… but, it really didn’t. Just look at the history and see no one called the original Christian Church “the Orthodox Church” in 100 AD, 200 AD, 300 AD…

Jesus believes Peter is the Pope. Those who don’t know Jesus well enough, or just want it their own way say otherwise. Rejecting the Papacy is one of the ways to reject Christ’s authority in your life. When you reject the Pope, you reject the one who sent the Pope, and the Father as well. So, you lack the education necessary to articulate the position properly, and so you distort it as you have been prone to do…

 

[MDK]

Such a personally insulting attack is totally unwarranted and has been reported to the moderators. As you seem to think insults are a legitimate means of apologetics I will not be responding to you any further.

It’s not meant to be insulting, but I guess you take it that way out of your own free will. By saying it’s a “personally insulting attack” is to bear false witness against me.

It’s meant to show exasperation with your lack of basic conversational understanding. Sorry, but it’s very frustrating discussing with someone who cannot or will not understand even the basic elements of a discussion.

If the truth is insulting to you, I suggest you please work more at learning what is said so that the truth doesn’t make you look so bad. I would much rather the truth about your knowledge and understanding made you look good. But, the truth is still the truth, and you need to work on your understandings.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Closed pending mod review.

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Having drifted away from the OP, and charity, this thread is closed.