Does each brand of Protestant claim infallibility in its own way?

[Harpazo]

I’ve been pondering this question for a while and I’ve reached the conclusion. In a sense, each Protestant denomination, sect, faction, whatever you want to call it, claims infallibility. Why else would they be divided if they didn’t believe they had the entire truth?

The Lutherans broke off first, then the Presbyterians from them and so on.

Then Anglicanism formed, then Puritanism, Wesleyanism formed, etc.

Why else would these different movements and break-away groups form if they didn’t believe they got it right? If they believe another is right, why the division?

If Protestants are going to go by this logic, then they will have to invariably keep going after the newest, and latest and greatest denomination.

Then there is the deal with “essentials and non-essentials,” (which no one can agree what they are) and the “invisible Church” (which is not at all in Scripture). I see these as ways to avoid being Catholic and ways to justify their separation. A form of pride, if you will. I say none of this to offend, so don’t accuse me of such. I’m honestly looking for discussion on the topic.

Your thoughts?

Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew

 

[SyCarl]

I think that the Apostles’ Creed sets out the essentials. I think that every church adds on to those essentials because of human nature. It may be possible to know more but I don’t think it is required. We are proud and believe that we can and should be able to define and understand everything. To achieve this we speculate and claim knowledge I don’t think we need. I think we forget the simplicity of the faith that was preached to the poor and uneducated, not philosophers and theologans. We come as thinkers and theorists and not as children.

While I have a church that I attend regularly, I am comfortable in any church I attend while away because we are all Christians, no matter how complex we try to make it.

 

[SyCarl]

I guess I should add love God and your neighbour as the essential actions.

 

[J_C]

hi harpazo. i was a protestant who floated around from church to church. i thought they were all the same, and pretty much i would say they are. i know there is this thing going round about 30,000 denominations but I think that is a gross exageration.

I never remember hearing infallibility mentioned very much. that is a term that, in my memory, was not used by anyone, except maybe in talking about the Catholics and the Pope, so in a derogatory manner. if any of them had a concept of infallibility it was in the Bible alone. over time I realized, though was not able to exactly articulate my realization, that it isn’t the Bible they beilieve infallible, but rather their interpretations of it. one thing most protestants seem to have a problem with is knowing the difference between the Bible and their interpretations of it.

i guess my opinion is that they do have a concept of infallibility, but it isn’t very well defined, it varies a bit from group to group, and even person to person, and they don’t call it infallibility as a general rule, but rather they call it something like the clear word of God. in other words the Bible interprets itself so that all men of good will, reading it without guile, will arrive at the same interpretations.

 

[roanoker]

As a lifelong protestant, it has been my experience in various churches that no one is considered infallible. And no denomination considers itself infallible, as far as I know. I don’t know any one protestant denomination that considers itself the only true way to salvation. The Apostle’s Creed pretty much says it all for all of us. Roanoker

 

[Contarini]

I’ve been pondering this question for a while and I’ve reached the conclusion. In a sense, each Protestant denomination, sect, faction, whatever you want to call it, claims infallibility. Why else would they be divided if they didn’t believe they had the entire truth?

The Lutherans broke off first, then the Presbyterians from them and so on.

Then Anglicanism formed, then Puritanism, Wesleyanism formed, etc.

Why else would these different movements and break-away groups form if they didn’t believe they got it right? If they believe another is right, why the division?

If Protestants are going to go by this logic, then they will have to invariably keep going after the newest, and latest and greatest denomination.

Then there is the deal with “essentials and non-essentials,” (which no one can agree what they are) and the “invisible Church” (which is not at all in Scripture). I see these as ways to avoid being Catholic and ways to justify their separation. A form of pride, if you will. I say none of this to offend, so don’t accuse me of such. I’m honestly looking for discussion on the topic.

Your thoughts?

Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew

Getting it right is not the same thing as infallibility. Infallibility means that you can’t get it wrong. Those are different things.

Also, at least by the 18th century some Protestants were beginning to take seriously the possibility that no one church had all the truth. In my opinion this makes the later Protestant divisions all the more inexcusable–we were splitting so that we could proclaim our particular take on the Gospel more clearly, knowing that it was not necessarily the fullness of the Faith.

Edwin

 

[Harpazo]

Getting it right is not the same thing as infallibility. Infallibility means that you can’t get it wrong. Those are different things.

Also, at least by the 18th century some Protestants were beginning to take seriously the possibility that no one church had all the truth. In my opinion this makes the later Protestant divisions all the more inexcusable–we were splitting so that we could proclaim our particular take on the Gospel more clearly, knowing that it was not necessarily the fullness of the Faith.

Edwin

Each group would have to invariably claim infallibility to divide. If this wasn’t the case they wouldn’t have divided, right?

The Lutherans thought they had it right, and the Catholics had it wrong. If not what other reason for the division? Each successive sect and division believed to have the pure interpretation of the Gospel.

Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew

 

[ALLFORHIM]

Each group would have to invariably claim infallibility to divide

. Why?

If this wasn’t the case they wouldn’t have divided, right?

No, why do you think this to be true?

The Lutherans thought they had it right, and the Catholics had it wrong. If not what other reason for the division? Each successive sect and division believed to have the pure interpretation of the Gospel.

I think you answered your own question with your very first sentence in this paragraph.

It really is that simple. One group thinks the others interpretation of scripture is wrong. That is the long and short of it. Oh and I should add that neither group is really willing to sit down and talk and reason together(pride) hence they split.
Has happened from the begining and will continue to happen until Christ comes back.

 

[mozart-250]

Each group would have to invariably claim infallibility to divide. If this wasn’t the case they wouldn’t have divided, right?

The Lutherans thought they had it right, and the Catholics had it wrong. If not what other reason for the division? Each successive sect and division believed to have the pure interpretation of the Gospel.

Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew

No, actually Edwin nailed it. You are not using the word infallible correctly. You are using it in the sense of believing that you are right. That is not the same as believing that you are incapable of being wrong. This is a common mistake.

To illustrate…

I might take a math test and be absolutely convinced that I nailed it 100%. That is believing I am correct.

However that is not the same as believing that it is impossible for me to make an error in any math test.

Now if you titled the thread “Does each brand of Protestant claim correctness in its own way” I would not be having this discussion because the answer would be true at least in many or most cases.

It is important when discussing the words infallible and infallability that we stick to the correct definitions and not try to stretch the word into something that it does not mean…

 

[Harpazo]

No, actually Edwin nailed it. You are not using the word infallible correctly. You are using it in the sense of believing that you are right. That is not the same as believing that you are incapable of being wrong. This is a common mistake.

To illustrate…

I might take a math test and be absolutely convinced that I nailed it 100%. That is believing I am correct.

However that is not the same as believing that it is impossible for me to make an error in any math test.

It is important when discussing the words infallible and infallability that we stick to the correct definitions and not try to stretch the word into something that it does not mean…

Then please explain to me why one would break away if they didn’t believe they were incapable of erring? Why be a part of a new movement if they did not claim to have entire truth and were not capable of erring?

Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew

 

[manualman]

In my experience among evangelicals, it is the rare one among them who expects that his pastor or the positions of the denomination he belongs to are infallible. All the more recent protestant communities formed not primarily because of doctrinal issues, but because of “fellowship” issues.

Evangelical protestantism has a rather different take on ‘Church’ than we do. For them, it is a place to gather together as believers to be renewed, refreshed and supported in their ‘personal walk with Christ.’ When there becomes a large percentage of a congragation that is lax or lukewarm, the response is often that the zealous minority break off to ‘plant a new church’ in which ALL of the members are ‘on fire’ for God. That goes well for a generation or two and then the process repeats itself again. and again… Eventually there are thousands of different ‘denominations.’

I call it the “retreat and regroup” approach to christianity. When it happens these days it isn’t usually because the group perceives a DOCTRINAL deficiency in the old community, but because they weren’t being ‘fed’ there. Very few people at a mega Church oppose the teachings of the ‘Presbyterian Church.’ They just found it to be a dull and uninspiring place and left.

 

[Swan]

Then please explain to me why one would break away if they didn’t believe they were incapable of erring? Why be a part of a new movement if they did not claim to have entire truth and were not capable of erring?

Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew

They broke away because they had a disagreement. But you must keep in mind that since there was no belief in infallibility, or the possibility of infallibity, that was not what they were searching for. They simply wanted to be able to worship in the way that thought was right. Infallibility did not enter into it at all.

 

[mozart-250]

Then please explain to me why one would break away if they didn’t believe they were incapable of erring? Why be a part of a new movement if they did not claim to have entire truth and were not capable of erring?

Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew

…because they believed they were correct.

Actually ManualMan also nails it.