Do some Protestants (non denom?) believe they are Infallible?

[MT1926]

m.youtube.com/watch?v=GPg0wBP5k6M

That was hilarious.
I liked the one how to deny original sin and baptismal regeneration in the same breath…

 

[Lenten_ashes]

Not only do they believe they are infallible, but they are overbearing about it. I got into a semi-heated argument with a non denmon co-worker.

She was practically screaming that nothing they do is wrong and are 100% right, etc. I finally had to step up to her and command her to stop, and that we agreed to disagree. Even then, I heard her ranting to co-workers that she was right! Unbelievable!

Sola Scriptura combined with the Word of Faith, health and wealth gospel can lead a person down that road you described.

Instead of Jesus being Lord, he becomes your homeboy and your personal cosmic butler. God wants me rich, God wants me healthy, God is in heaven smiling down at every little inane thing I do, etc.

It’s really a self exalting position due to misapplication of scriptures.

Thankfully, most protestants are not this way, imo.

 

[MT1926]

However no real tangible authority exists in most cases. Come to a scriptural standoff and there’s a decent chance it doesn’t get resolved. So you end up agreeing on “essentials” (deity of Christ, Trinity etc)and disagreeing on " non essentials". (Infant baptism, eschatology, etc)

However, as Dr. David Anders always says…"If all Jesus wanted us to agree on is the essentials, can you please show me the list of essentials and non essentials in the Bible? "

 

[Kliska]

So this means we therefore can defer our understanding of scripture to someone who we presume is better equipped (been to seminary, smarter, more likely to be right than we are, etc). In any event, it seems most Protestants in actual practice do defer to someone, a pastor or preacher, that they find especially convincing or gifted in eloquence.

You would defer in so much as what they teach is backed up by scripture. Hence, the scripture searching Bereans are held up as a model.

However, if we seek the Spirit’s guidance, and if the Spirit then does guide us, that means we are infallible. Because that’s what infallibility means, to be guided by the Spirit.

No, because it’s clear that the Spirit can be guiding someone and the person does not follow, does not understand, resists, manipulates, etc… Again, the Spirit is infallible, the person is not. The Spirit is never wrong, the human on the other hand…

And this model, that of testing a teaching by the light of scripture, can only apply to times and places when people possess and can read their own scriptures. This was not the case for most of Christian history, which makes one wonder.

I agree that there was a limit in some cases to oral delivery; however, as I said, the OT was first relied upon as a measuring stick. As we see Jesus teaching the OT in the light of Himself (on the road to Emmaus), people could indeed find Him in the scripture and check what the Apostles proclaimed (Kingdom of God, Messiah, prophecy, morality, etc…). So, the Bereans were searching the OT obviously not the NT documents because they didn’t exist yet.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

However, as Dr. David Anders always says…"If all Jesus wanted us to agree on is the essentials, can you please show me the list of essentials and non essentials in the Bible? "

Right.

Last I checked Jesus said “Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God”

So it’s all important.

 

[MT1926]

I agree that there was a limit in some cases to oral delivery; however, as I said, the OT was first relied upon as a measuring stick. As we see Jesus teaching the OT in the light of Himself (on the road to Emmaus), people could indeed find Him in the scripture and check what the Apostles proclaimed (Kingdom of God, Messiah, prophecy, morality, etc…). So, the Bereans were searching the OT obviously not the NT documents because they didn’t exist yet.

Thank you for this honest response, it blows my mind how often someone thinks the Bereans were looking through the entire Bible.

What you said here got me thinking…

people could indeed find Him in the scripture and check what the Apostles proclaimed (Kingdom of God, Messiah, prophecy, morality, etc…).

…about this quote. “The new is in the Old Concealed, the Old is in the New Revealed.”

As you said the Bereans searched the OT to see how it contained what the Apostles proclaimed. However, the part many leave out is once they understood this they submitted to Paul’s authority. (Not saying you are doing this here)

My thoughts…If we are to follow the example of the Bereans, shouldn’t our reading of the NT be to understand the OT revelations and not to argue who’s right or wrong about doctrine with the authority Jesus gave to us?

I am not making a statement of fact here, this just popped in my head, when I read what you wrote, and would like to know others thoughts on this.

God Bless

 

[Kliska]

As you said the Bereans searched the OT to see how it contained what the Apostles proclaimed. However, the part many leave out is once they understood this they submitted to Paul’s authority. (Not saying you are doing this here)

I do see that many leave that out, esp. if we don’t stop with the book of Acts, but take into account all of Paul’s letters. What it turns into is the “sinner’s prayer” mentality which says, the Bereans just believed Paul about the Gospel and that was enough.

My thoughts…If we are to follow the example of the Bereans, shouldn’t our reading of the NT be to understand the OT revelations and not to argue who’s right or wrong about doctrine with the authority Jesus gave to us?

I am not making a statement of fact here, this just popped in my head, when I read what you wrote, and would like to know others thoughts on this.

God Bless

At this point in my journey I agree. lol I’m tired of the constant interpretation wars that happen.

 

[Brassring]

I’m reading (The Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist: demonstrably proved from scripture, from tradition, ) and on page 52 link it says –

In effect, every Protestant is placed in this dilemma: if he do not believe himself infallible, he has no certainty for his faith; if he believes himself infallible, each of his judgements must appear to him a ray of increased intelligence. He ought, according to the remark of Bossuet, to "deem all his thoughts to be emanations of the Deity; an intellectual pantheism which directly leads to the other.

Protestants and Catholics, whats your opinion?

In my experience as a former protestant (evangelical non-denom and Pentecostal mostly, with a few years of Presbyterianism, Methodism, and two kinds of Baptist thrown in for good measure), most of them do. That’s what Protestantism does; it replaces one magisterium with 800 million magisteriums. That’s why in five centuries, the world has gone from two protestant denominations to over 40,000.

When there is no single truth except how you, personally, interpret scripture, then there is no single truth. It’s why sola scriptura, coupled with individual revelation, is such a horrible, destructive idea.

 

[Peter_J]

Not only do they believe they are infallible, but they are overbearing about it. I got into a semi-heated argument with a non denmon co-worker.

She was practically screaming that nothing they do is wrong and are 100% right, etc. I finally had to step up to her and command her to stop, and that we agreed to disagree. Even then, I heard her ranting to co-workers that she was right! Unbelievable!

Technically this is a different topic from the OP, but I agree it’s a kinda unfathomable how so many Christians can be 100% certain that a given teaching is correct while so many other Christians are 100% certain that it is incorrect.

I won’t even get into people being overbearing about their views.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Kliska;14457401
You would defer in so much as what they teach is backed up by scripture. Hence, the scripture searching Bereans are held up as a model.

The Jehovah’s Witnesses back everything they say by scripture. They too use the Bereans as a model.
Of course we wonder, as well, how the pagans that were being evangelized by the apostles or Christian missionaries could possibly do the same as the Bereans did. The pagans obviously did not have access to scripture or knew about it.

No, because it’s clear that the Spirit can be guiding someone and the person does not follow, does not understand, resists, manipulates, etc… Again, the Spirit is infallible, the person is not. The Spirit is never wrong, the human on the other hand…

What? I’m trying to make sense of the above. It seems to be saying that even if the Spirit is guiding someone, they nevertheless can be wrong!
Also, what point is there to ask the Spirit for guidance if you subsequently can misunderstand or resist? The guidance of the Spirit must be awfully weak. (Or maybe actually not guiding at all.)
True, the Spirit is never wrong, but humans often are. I wonder if the apostles, even though guided by the Spirit, were wrong. If so, they were not infallible…

I agree that there was a limit in some cases to oral delivery; however, as I said, the OT was first relied upon as a measuring stick. As we see Jesus teaching the OT in the light of Himself (on the road to Emmaus), people could indeed find Him in the scripture and check what the Apostles proclaimed (Kingdom of God, Messiah, prophecy, morality, etc…). So, the Bereans were searching the OT obviously not the NT documents because they didn’t exist yet.

Paul was trying to convince the Bereans how Jesus was the promised Messiah, and the Bereans went back to the synagogue where the OT scrolls were kept to see if the passages Paul used were actually there, and to ponder them. This model can’t be used for non-Jews, gentiles, who do not possess scripture. Only oral delivery is possible. Christian scripture was written to those who were already Christians, not to non-Christians.

 

[Kliska]

The Jehovah’s Witnesses back everything they say by scripture. They too use the Bereans as a model.
Of course we wonder, as well, how the pagans that were being evangelized by the apostles or Christian missionaries could possibly do the same as the Bereans did. The pagans obviously did not have access to scripture or knew about it.

The JW’s don’t use valid translations of the originals (not even speaking of interpretation), as you probably are aware of. What we would have in the early days of the Church with new Jewish believers would be those who knew scripture, prophecy, etc… and had access to the scripture via synagogues (which served as the beginning preaching points as the Apostles/Disciples traveled). We even have those like the Ethiopian who apparently had a copy to read. I would imagine many Gentiles would know at least a bit about Jewish religion as the Jewish people has widespread synagogues and were a part of the society. Under the power of the Spirit, I’m sure some didn’t believe they needed to check scripture, but rather believed outright what the Apostles preached. That’s good too.

Regardless, all of that is a moot point; the main thrust of what I was saying is that we have the Bereans praised for their actions, and we have access to scripture, old and new today. Too, “sola scriptura” isn’t solo scriptura, so most protestants would believe it too oral passing down of the Gospel prior to the Gospels being written down. There would be no problem with that.

What? I’m trying to make sense of the above. It seems to be saying that even if the Spirit is guiding someone, they nevertheless can be wrong!

Do Christians still sin? Is it the Spirit guiding them to sin?

Also, what point is there to ask the Spirit for guidance if you subsequently can misunderstand or resist? The guidance of the Spirit must be awfully weak. (Or maybe actually not guiding at all.)

Do Christians still sin? Is the Spirit so weak He can’t stop them from sinning? Humans fight against the Spirit all the time.

True, the Spirit is never wrong, but humans often are. I wonder if the apostles, even though guided by the Spirit, were wrong. If so, they were not infallible…

As the CC teaches that infallibility is an extremely narrow thing. Peter was not infallible as he wrongfully hid the fact he was eating with Gentiles when James’ boys from Jerusalem showed up. Paul made that clear. But that would not stop you from claiming Peter would have been infallible speaking ex cathedra.

Paul was trying to convince the Bereans how Jesus was the promised Messiah, and the Bereans went back to the synagogue where the OT scrolls were kept to see if the passages Paul used were actually there, and to ponder them. This model can’t be used for non-Jews, gentiles, who do not possess scripture. Only oral delivery is possible. Christian scripture was written to those who were already Christians, not to non-Christians.

Nevertheless, we don’t live in a society like that now. We have readily available holy books from all major religions. The idea is that God insured we would have the Scriptures as the game of telephone that is oral transmission broke down. I’m not saying that’s my perspective, but that is indeed part of the sola scriptura perspective. BTW, the sola scriptura perspective does not dismiss the role of the Church, its leaders, or the Holy Spirit. Scripture acts as a check, a measuring stick. But, going back to the OP, that shows protestants don’t believe themselves to be infallible; quite the contrary.

 

[mackbrislawn]

QUOTE=Kliska;14465331

The JW’s don’t use valid translations of the originals (not even speaking of interpretation), as you probably are aware of. What we would have in the early days of the Church with new Jewish believers would be those who knew scripture, prophecy, etc… and had access to the scripture via synagogues (which served as the beginning preaching points as the Apostles/Disciples traveled). We even have those like the Ethiopian who apparently had a copy to read. I would imagine many Gentiles would know at least a bit about Jewish religion as the Jewish people has widespread synagogues and were a part of the society. Under the power of the Spirit, I’m sure some didn’t believe they needed to check scripture, but rather believed outright what the Apostles preached. That’s good too.

That’s right, the JW’s New World Translation we do not consider valid. However, the JW’s will use any bible translation their prospective convert wants to use.
Yes, Paul was talking to Jews who already believed the scriptures he was using. And true, many gentiles of that society were also familiar with the Jews and knew that the Jews had scriptures. The problem arises when missionaries leave that society and time and preach to pagans who do not know anything about the Jews nor have any idea of scripture. A different, non-scriptural approach is needed for such occasions. So yes, these people had to believe outright what the apostle or missionary preached. No appeal to scripture.

Regardless, all of that is a moot point; the main thrust of what I was saying is that we have the Bereans praised for their actions, and we have access to scripture, old and new today. Too, “sola scriptura” isn’t solo scriptura, so most protestants would believe it too oral passing down of the Gospel prior to the Gospels being written down. There would be no problem with that.

I’m not convinced the point is moot, because the situation today is an anomaly in history, because in most of missionary time, there were no scriptures for the prospective converts to refer to, and people probably weren’t sufficiently literate anyway. Authoritative missionaries sent from the authoritative Church represent the gold standard method.
The way I see it, the Bereans weren’t praised so much for consulting scripture as such, but for seeing how Paul was right about OT predictions about Jesus, and agreeing with him.

Do Christians still sin? Is it the Spirit guiding them to sin?

A non sequitor and an avoidance.

It’s avoiding the whole point of having the guidance of the Spirit is to not be wrong! Which means the guidance of the Spirit is meaningless if in spite of it we can be wrong. If we are wrong, then it has to mean the Spirit was not guiding.

Do Christians still sin? Is the Spirit so weak He can’t stop them from sinning? Humans fight against the Spirit all the time.

We have free will as far as sinning, and a fallen nature as far as sinning.

But it seems odd to pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit in understanding scripture, then fight against the understanding He gives us! I suppose that means in spite of the Holy Spirit, we will understand scripture in the way our fallen nature wants to. So we can never be sure we have the truth.

Asking for help against sinning, and asking for help in understanding are not apt comparisons.

As the CC teaches that infallibility is an extremely narrow thing. Peter was not infallible as he wrongfully hid the fact he was eating with Gentiles when James’ boys from Jerusalem showed up. Paul made that clear. But that would not stop you from claiming Peter would have been infallible speaking ex cathedra.

The above is the response to my comment that if humans can be wrong, even if guided by the spirit, which also implies the apostles who were guided by the Spirit, could have been wrong! The conclusion I left unsaid, but which I hoped would be picked up on, is that since the apostles wrote scripture, scripture can be wrong!

Of course we don’t want to conclude that scripture can be wrong, so therefore there must be something wrong with the reasoning. Probably something wrong in the premises. I think the error lies in thinking that even though guided by the Spirit, a human can be wrong. That premise is mistaken. If one is guided by the Spirit, by definition that human is infallible and not wrong.

And so yes, that is the reason infallibility is defined so narrowly. It has nothing to do with improper behavior (such as Peter’s).

Nevertheless, we don’t live in a society like that now. We have readily available holy books from all major religions. The idea is that God insured we would have the Scriptures as the game of telephone that is oral transmission broke down. I’m not saying that’s my perspective, but that is indeed part of the sola scriptura perspective. BTW, the sola scriptura perspective does not dismiss the role of the Church, its leaders, or the Holy Spirit. Scripture acts as a check, a measuring stick. But, going back to the OP, that shows protestants don’t believe themselves to be infallible; quite the contrary

.

Well, yes, we today don’t live in a society like that now, but I don’t see how our society can be taken as the norm. It’s true, we take our society for granted, but we shouldn’t, because it’s so limited in space and time.

If God could use fallible humans to write scripture, why could He also not use fallible humans to transmit His truth orally? God is behind both means. He protects His truth. So where do we find infallibility? It has to be somewhere, and since most people, both Protestants and Catholics, don’t take themselves to be infallible, then where?

 

[Kliska]

No appeal to scripture.

I think there was always an appeal to scripture even when done so orally. Even among the Gentiles there would have been appeal to prophecy, history, etc… that was contained in the OT. I can appeal to scripture even when there’s no Bible present, and even if I could find someone that doesn’t know what a “Bible” is. Sola scriptura doesn’t demand someone holds a Bible in their hand.

Authoritative missionaries sent from the authoritative Church represent the gold standard method.

No one really argues that to my knowledge, that gold standard only hold true when there is no written record, however. Even today we demand important things be written so that we can compare what is being claimed was said with what was actually said.

The way I see it, the Bereans weren’t praised so much for consulting scripture as such, but for seeing how Paul was right about OT predictions about Jesus, and agreeing with him.

We’ll have to disagree that the scripture searching was or was not an important and significant component then.

A non sequitor and an avoidance.

It’s avoiding the whole point of having the guidance of the Spirit is to not be wrong! Which means the guidance of the Spirit is meaningless if in spite of it we can be wrong. If we are wrong, then it has to mean the Spirit was not guiding.

It’s neither. The Spirit guiding someone is not a forcing of someone. It never has been because we have free will and God won’t override that.

We have free will as far as sinning, and a fallen nature as far as sinning.

But it seems odd to pray for guidance from the Holy Spirit in understanding scripture, then fight against the understanding He gives us! I suppose that means in spite of the Holy Spirit, we will understand scripture in the way our fallen nature wants to. So we can never be sure we have the truth.

You and I have a very different experience with human nature then. As for knowing truth, we can trust God is Truth, and we can know Him because He showed up. There’s a reason why we are told that fear and trembling go with working out our own salvation.

Asking for help against sinning, and asking for help in understanding are not apt comparisons.

I believe they absolutely are.

The conclusion I left unsaid, but which I hoped would be picked up on, is that since the apostles wrote scripture, scripture can be wrong!

Scripture could have been wrong, as God didn’t use a typewriter, He inspired a human. We all believe here that those humans wrote what was inspired. We aren’t arguing that point as we each accept scripture as scripture.

If one is guided by the Spirit, by definition that human is infallible and not wrong.

It would make the Spirit infallible, not the human. The human can either follow the Spirit’s lead and guidance or not. Matthew, Mark, Luke, etc… were not infallible, scripture was infallible. Is there a Catholic teaching that says these men were infallible in everyday life? Again the CC’s definition and application of infallibility is so narrow that I doubt it.

If God could use fallible humans to write scripture, why could He also not use fallible humans to transmit His truth orally?

He does that all the time.

God is behind both means. He protects His truth. So where do we find infallibility? It has to be somewhere, and since most people, both Protestants and Catholics, don’t take themselves to be infallible, then where?

That’s the debate, isn’t it? Sola Scriptura says you find the infallibility in today’s society in the teachings of scripture. Catholic doctrine says otherwise. That wasn’t the OP’s question. The point of this thread was to ask if Protestants believe that they, themselves, are infallible. No protestant I’ve ever met believed or believes that.

 

[Kliska]

mackbrislawn, my apologies, I let my love of explanation and discussion once more drag me into argumentation over something I have no wish to prove nor disprove, but I was just clarifying that Protestants don’t believe they are infallible, then fell down the rabbit hole. Thanks for the time you took in replying, I’m done in the thread.

grace and peace,
K

 

[Peter_J]

mackbrislawn, my apologies, I let my love of explanation and discussion once more drag me into argumentation over something I have no wish to prove nor disprove

Who would have guessed that could happen here? Never happened to me, that’s for sure.

 

[mackbrislawn]

Kliska;14466734

I think there was always an appeal to scripture even when done so orally. Even among the Gentiles there would have been appeal to prophecy, history, etc… that was contained in the OT. I can appeal to scripture even when there’s no Bible present, and even if I could find someone that doesn’t know what a “Bible” is. Sola scriptura doesn’t demand someone holds a Bible in their hand.

Most of the time in Christian missionary history, there was no scripture for the pagan converts to appeal to. They had to take the missionary at his word. The pagan converts had no Bible present. Having a Bible to appeal to is unique in history, only in our society when the missionary is engaged in what might be called sheep stealing.

No one really argues that to my knowledge, that gold standard only hold true when there is no written record, however. Even today we demand important things be written so that we can compare what is being claimed was said with what was actually said.

Again, the written record to appeal to was the one carried by the missionary, and used by the missionary, not the prospective convert. Unless, again, the missionary is sheep stealing, that is, trying to convert a Christian to another denomination.

We’ll have to disagree that the scripture searching was or was not an important and significant component then.

Yes, it applied to Christians when trying to convince Jews of Jesus, because they shared a common scripture, but of course not important when evangelizing pagans who did not share a scripture. Of course Christian missionaries could and did appeal to the pagans’ philosophy and pagan writings, as Paul tried to do with the Athenians.

It’s neither. The Spirit guiding someone is not a forcing of someone. It never has been because we have free will and God won’t override that.

This is true. Which is why the Catholic concept of infallibility is not a forcing. It is a preventing of statement that would be erroneous. It does not provide the content of the statement.

It does seem that to say that one is led by the Spirit really does not mean anything, which would explain why no Protestant can claim infallibility.

You and I have a very different experience with human nature then. As for knowing truth, we can trust God is Truth, and we can know Him because He showed up. There’s a reason why we are told that fear and trembling go with working out our own salvation.

Some people are mystics and perhaps have had private revelations, in which case we can know Him directly and not need intermediaries such as scripture nor missionaries.

I believe they absolutely are.

That is, is it okay to compare asking for help against sinning to asking for help for understanding. Well, maybe they are similar. This would explain why there are so many different scriptural interpretations–since being led by the Spirit is not infallible.

Scripture could have been wrong, as God didn’t use a typewriter, He inspired a human. We all believe here that those humans wrote what was inspired. We aren’t arguing that point as we each accept scripture as scripture.

Humans by their nature are not infallible, but when God inspires them, that causes them to be infallible. If not they are not infallible, then their teachings and writings are then also not infallible.

It would make the Spirit infallible, not the human. The human can either follow the Spirit’s lead and guidance or not. Matthew, Mark, Luke, etc… were not infallible, scripture was infallible. Is there a Catholic teaching that says these men were infallible in everyday life? Again the CC’s definition and application of infallibility is so narrow that I doubt it.

Again, no human is infallible by nature. So, if Matthew, Mark, and Luke were not infallible, how can we accept the scriptures they wrote as infallible?

I think we are playing with words here, and what we mean by infallible. It seems the Protestant has a different concept when “infallible” is mentioned. And there is no Catholic teaching that anyone, not even the Apostles were infallible in everyday life. An example is Peter, and Paul too admitted he was not perfect. It is only when they spoke and taught and wrote under the Spirit was what they did infallible.

Now, is there any Protestant who claims that? Apparently not.

He does that all the time.

This is in regards to the “telephone” game analogy which is used to discredit the idea of oral transmission.

That’s the debate, isn’t it? Sola Scriptura says you find the infallibility in today’s society in the teachings of scripture. Catholic doctrine says otherwise. That wasn’t the OP’s question. The point of this thread was to ask if Protestants believe that they, themselves, are infallible. No protestant I’ve ever met believed or believes that.

That is the debate. Yes, scripture is infallible, or inerrant.as Catholics say. However, even if we have scripture that is inerrant, how do we infallibly know what the teachings of scripture are?

So, to tie it all in back to the initial question…lets rephrase the initial question. Is there any Protestant who does not claim that he himself is infallible, but that his understanding of scripture is infallible?

 

[mackbrislawn]

mackbrislawn, my apologies, I let my love of explanation and discussion once more drag me into argumentation over something I have no wish to prove nor disprove, but I was just clarifying that Protestants don’t believe they are infallible, then fell down the rabbit hole. Thanks for the time you took in replying, I’m done in the thread.

grace and peace,
K

My apologies, too, K. I think we are a lot alike, and I think to some extent we were talking past one another. Perhaps we sometimes mistake infallible for inspired.

Mack

 

[Anna_Scott]

The Word of God is Infallible.

 

[josephback]

*"…to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. "

~Luther*

Protestant staple.

But Luther started as a Catholic, and St. Thomas said that even an erring conscience binds. Indeed one must always follow their conscience, ideally having taken the time first to rightly form it. The Church can’t stand over someone’s shoulder and be their private moral theologian in everyday decisions. It’s the “rightly formed” bit that gets missed and causes problems - the imperative to follow one’s conscience is totally Catholic

 

[josephback]

The Word of God is Infallible.

Is there a statement in the Westminster Confession or other declaration to support this? I’m not an Anglican scholar