For Protestants, can no one teach without error?

[MarcoPolo]

So for Protestants, is there no human who can teach faith or morals infallibly (besides Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James, Jude, Isaiah, David, Jeremiah, etc…)??? And there’s actually no one today who could interpret a Scripture verse infallibly, correct?

I’m not looking for debate, just curiosity. And please go deeper than “Yes there is” or “No there isn’t.”

 

[mozart-250]

So for Protestants, is there no human who can teach faith or morals infallibly (besides Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James, Jude, Isaiah, David, Jeremiah, etc…)??? And there’s actually no one today who could interpret a Scripture verse infallibly, correct?

I’m not looking for debate, just curiosity. And please go deeper than “Yes there is” or “No there isn’t.”

Nope…there is no human who is incapable of being incorrect to us.

But that is the way that life and human nature is. We see no reason to make an exception here

Our physicians who we trust our lives with are still capable of being incorrect.

(A sore spot with me today) The folks who service our cars are capable of being incorrect.

The only place in life that I am aware of where claims of a human being being incapable of being incorrect are made is in respect to the Catholic pontiff.

Note: there is a difference between being incapable of being incorrect and an authority that you can trust in his subject area. I can trust my doctor in his subject area. I can trust my pastor in his subject area.

But today I can’t trust my auto repair person in his subject area (grumble, grumble).

Comment: There is a logical difference between teaching without error and teaching without the possibility of being incorrect. Kindergarten teachers presumably can teach the alphabet without error to their class, but yet even they are not incapable of being incorrect.

 

[heisenburg]

Were the writers of scripture capable of being incorrect when writing?

It says nothing about other areas of their life, but hopefully you believe that the scripture writers were free from error WHILE WRITING…

same is true of the Pope… All areas of their life can be full of sin in theory, however, like the scripture writers, they are protected from teaching error ONLY WHEN PUBLICLY TEACHING FAITH AND MORALS

The protection of the pope is so limited to border on not an issue when you get down to it… He is only protected on the most important issue… Public Teaching

In Christ

 

[SyCarl]

I don’t know that I would say that no one can teach without error. After all with the guidance of the Holy Spirit anything is possible. However, it is difficult for us to know when someone might be teaching completely without error. I would question the necessity of such a teacher. Someone can correctly teach Christian doctrine but be wrong on non-essentials. I know the question arises as to what is essential and what is non-essential, but I really do think that we try to know and explain too much.

 

[mozart-250]

Were the writers of scripture capable of being incorrect when writing?

It says nothing about other areas of their life, but hopefully you believe that the scripture writers were free from error WHILE WRITING…

Actually these two paragraphs ask different questions.

The first paragraph asks about the possibility of being incorrect.

The second paragraph asks about being incorrect.

The logical difference here is the same as the kindergarten teacher teaching the alphabet correctly and the kindergarten teacher being incapable of teaching the alphabet incorrectly.

Another way one might view it is that I am certainly capable of getting 100 on a math test. I might potentially get 100 on 1000 consecutive math tests. That doesn’t mean that I am incapable of being incorrect in math.

 

[NDfan]

Were the writers of scripture capable of being incorrect when writing?

It says nothing about other areas of their life, but hopefully you believe that the scripture writers were free from error WHILE WRITING…

I believe the writers were 100% free from error because what they wrote was inspired by GOD.

same is true of the Pope… All areas of their life can be full of sin in theory, however, like the scripture writers, they are protected from teaching error ONLY WHEN PUBLICLY TEACHING FAITH AND MORALS

But why just the Pope? That’s no where to be found in scripture. Actually in the early 2nd century to combat the Gnostics and Montanists, Ignatius wanted only the Bishops to teach scripture. It was never stated by Ignatius, Polycarp, or Clement (all students of the Apostles) that all teachings from the church were only capable of coming from Rome.

Irenaeus was the first to suggest that the churches should be in agreement with one another and should follow sound Apostolic teachings. He used the church in Rome as the prime example because Peter and Paul were martyred there. But just as Marcion was creating heretical doctrines, anyone who is placed in a position like the Pope would be capable of doing the same thing. Doctrine cannot contradict scripture.

The protection of the pope is so limited to border on not an issue when you get down to it… He is only protected on the most important issue… Public Teaching

You can’t show that to me in scripture anywhere. Scripture tells us that the Holy Spirit will guide us all into the truth. That doesn’t mean interpreting and teaching scripture perfectly is isolated to the Pope.

PEACE

 

[heisenburg]

To both…

If the Holy Spirit can guide the scripture writers, why not the Head Pastor of His Church…

I was showing a precedent more than anything else…

Papal infallibility is in scripture… and I mean this in the most respectful way, the issue we have is just that we disagree on what specific verses mean (IE Peter the rock).

To a Catholic,
When we are told in scripture that hell will not prevail, we believe that this means that His church will never teach error. If any error did creep in, this would mean hell DID prevail. Thus is the foundation for the doctrine of infallibility of the churches teaching authority

We have verses where Jesus tells Peter to “feed his sheep” in other words… Jesus is appointing Peter as Head Pastor over all the church. Thus is the foundation for the Pope

We also see where empty seats need to be filled when they said Judas’s seat must be filled, thus showing a need for apostolic succession…

WE also see that the pope is prefigured in Moses, and Joshua…

So, even if you do not agree with these interpretations, the Vicar of Christ (or Head Pastor of ALL the church) can be seen in scripture

Anyway, all this does come directly out of scripture We simply do not agree on interpretations…

Which takes me to my second point…

I am trying to find the truth of Christ… I search Scripture, and ECF’s prayerfully…

If both of us are truly seeking, and the Holy Spirit does guide all to truth, why are we on such opposite sides…

May both of you be blessed

In Christ

 

[MarcoPolo]

It was never stated by Ignatius, Polycarp, or Clement (all students of the Apostles) that all teachings from the church were only capable of coming from Rome.

In my OP I only asked what the Protestant viewpoint was.

But since you brought up ECF, it is peculiar you would reject a teaching based on how “early” it was taught (which is debatable). It begs the question: what is the cut-off point? Do you then reject teachings of the Trinity and Canon of Scripture because they didn’t come for about 300 years?

Also I am unclear…which teaching are you rejecting? The foundation of the Church on Peter? The primacy of the Bishop of Rome? Or Papal Infallibility itself?

 

[mozart-250]

To both…
If the Holy Spirit can guide the scripture writers, why not the Head Pastor of His Church…

The Holy Spirit can do anything. Again the issue is not what can God do, but what God actually is doing.

Papal infallibility is in scripture… and I mean this in the most respectful way, the issue we have is just that we disagree on what specific verses mean (IE Peter the rock).

I understand that you see it in Scripture. Even if Peter is the Rock, it does not necessarily mean that Peter is incapable of being incorrect.

To a Catholic,
When we are told in scripture that hell will not prevail, we believe that this means that His church will never teach error. If any error did creep in, this would mean hell DID prevail. Thus is the foundation for the doctrine of infallibility of the churches teaching authority

I understand that this is the teaching of Catholicism. One comment is that Catholicism seems quite inconsistent on when the gates of hell are prevailing and when the gates of hell are not prevailing. My other comment is that prevail in normal English usage means a status at the end. We are not at the end of the age…Left Behind notwithstanding.

We have verses where Jesus tells Peter to “feed his sheep” in other words… Jesus is appointing Peter as Head Pastor over all the church. Thus is the foundation for the Pope

We also see where empty seats need to be filled when they said Judas’s seat must be filled, thus showing a need for apostolic succession…

WE also see that the pope is prefigured in Moses, and Joshua…

So, even if you do not agree with these interpretations, the Vicar of Christ (or Head Pastor of ALL the church) can be seen in scripture

Anyway, all this does come directly out of scripture We simply do not agree on interpretations…

That’s ok. A lot of folks disagree on interpretations.

Interesting…even if I were to grant these assumptions, it does not necessarily follow that the pope is incapable of being incorrect.

Which takes me to my second point…

I am trying to find the truth of Christ… I search Scripture, and ECF’s prayerfully…

If both of us are truly seeking, and the Holy Spirit does guide all to truth, why are we on such opposite sides…

Interesting question.

I have no doubt that heaven will be full of folks that were on opposite sides here on earth. I have no doubt that I am wrong on any number of things. In fact I have no doubt that there will be folks occupying very prominent positions in heaven who were wrong about various things.

Not to say that truth doesn’t matter, but I suspect very strongly that heaven’s value system does not center around absolute doctrinal correctness.

 

[AgnosTheist]

Were the writers of scripture capable of being incorrect when writing?

Your bible is proof of confirmation. One author said Jesus’ robe was PURPLE, another author said it was SCARLET. See the glaring difference?

Theres many little mistakes in the bible.

 

[heisenburg]

Mozart…

You last statement bodes an interesting question… You said that you don’t believe that Heaven is as concerned with doctrinal correctness as those here. But this has some serious implications if you ask me…

I believe god is very concerned about what is truth and not… especially if the truth is out there. It is one thing if the truth was not revealed… but if it was, I would think god would be very concerned about whether or not we accepted it…

Granted, I also believe that God is a merciful god and will judge each individual on an individual basis…

AS an aside…
It is always a pleasure speaking with you… Though you question, you always seem to be very charitable…

In Christ

 

[MarcoPolo]

Your bible is proof of confirmation. One author said Jesus’ robe was PURPLE, another author said it was SCARLET.

And yet you hang around with us fools who can’t even see such obvious “glaring errors”…

 

[NDfan]

To both…

If the Holy Spirit can guide the scripture writers, why not the Head Pastor of His Church…

I was showing a precedent more than anything else…

Papal infallibility is in scripture… and I mean this in the most respectful way, the issue we have is just that we disagree on what specific verses mean (IE Peter the rock).

Heisenburg in the Bible there are approximately 145 verses that contain the word rock. In every instance that the word rock does not refer to a physical rock, it refers to GOD as the Rock. So why would I suddenly switch to think that Peter is in fact the Rock?

Additionally the early churches did not recognize the Bishop of Rome as being supreme over any other Bishop. It wasn’t until Constantine issued the Edict of Milan and converted himself that we see huge crowds of heathens becoming Christian. The church at that point became married to the state which it is not supposed to do and the same type of governement structure was employed for the church. We see this even further when the 5 Patriarchs were later established. I’ll never believe Jesus intended for HIS church to be a governmental structure with one infallible preacher to lead it. This contradicts Matthew 20:25, Mark 10:42 etc.

To a Catholic,
When we are told in scripture that hell will not prevail, we believe that this means that His church will never teach error. If any error did creep in, this would mean hell DID prevail. Thus is the foundation for the doctrine of infallibility of the churches teaching authority

The gates of hell prevailing over the church does not mean that the church leaders will never teach in error. You can have plenty of corrupt leaders which the church has had their share of, but that doesn’t mean that the underlying kingdom of GOD will not be intact.

We have verses where Jesus tells Peter to “feed his sheep” in other words… Jesus is appointing Peter as Head Pastor over all the church. Thus is the foundation for the Pope

No that’s your interpretation of that verse. Peter repeats this same command to other church Elders in his letter.

We also see where empty seats need to be filled when they said Judas’s seat must be filled, thus showing a need for apostolic succession…

But after the Apostles laid out the requirements for someone to become an Apostle they were only able to find 2 people. It’s not possible for anyone to be an Apostle after that. If that were true then why didn’t they replace James the Apostle when he was killed by Herod?? There’s no documentation that states Apostolic succession. The creeds state Apostolic meaning Apostolic teachings.

WE also see that the pope is prefigured in Moses, and Joshua…

How so?? Jesus is more prefigured by Moses than the Pope. Jesus does not state anywhere in scripture that Peter is the flat out leader of the church and that he needs to appoint successors. But we do see GOD telling Moses to appoint a successor which is Joshua.

So, even if you do not agree with these interpretations, the Vicar of Christ (or Head Pastor of ALL the church) can be seen in scripture

Actually by definition the word vicar contradicts scripture. The Pope was not considered the vicar of Christ until the 8th century. Before that he was considered the vicar of Peter. I’m glad someone can just annoint themselves the vicar of Christ without scriptural support.

Anyway, all this does come directly out of scripture We simply do not agree on interpretations…

It comes out of your interpretation of scripture.

Which takes me to my second point…

I am trying to find the truth of Christ… I search Scripture, and ECF’s prayerfully…

If both of us are truly seeking, and the Holy Spirit does guide all to truth, why are we on such opposite sides…

I don’t think we’re on opposite sides with regard to Christ. We’re on opposite sides with regard to some scriptural interpretations that the RCC has decided to make doctrine. I don’t have to believe in Mary’s perpetual virginity to go to Heaven for example.

May both of you be blessed

In Christ

GOD Bless you too

 

[NDfan]

In my OP I only asked what the Protestant viewpoint was.

But since you brought up ECF, it is peculiar you would reject a teaching based on how “early” it was taught (which is debatable). It begs the question: what is the cut-off point? Do you then reject teachings of the Trinity and Canon of Scripture because they didn’t come for about 300 years?

Also I am unclear…which teaching are you rejecting? The foundation of the Church on Peter? The primacy of the Bishop of Rome? Or Papal Infallibility itself?

Marco I was responding to Heisenburg with regard to the ECFs. But yes I do believe there is validity with respect to teachings from ECFs that date further back. That’s because they had direct contact with the Apostles and would have been corrected if something really deviated from their teachings. Something that develops in the 3rd or 4th century is enough time for someone to inject their own interpretations that become popular. Not because they are supported by scripture but because less intelligent people may not know better.

As far as the foundation of the church on Peter, yes I do reject that it was founded on Peter personally. As I said to Hiesenburg there are approximately 145 or so verses in scripture that include the word rock. When a literal physical rock is not being described we always see GOD as being called the Rock. I think Peter was the first of many great church leaders but certainly not the absolute leader. James if anything was the first true authoritative person as we see in Acts. Peter himself in his letter calls us all stones that are built up into a spiritual household.

With regard to your other questions we don’t see any type of authority given to the Bishop of Rome until after Contantine issued the Edict of Milan and the church took on the same governmental structure as Rome.

The trinity was defined in response to the Arians who were denying the deity of Christ. To me the trinity always existed because it’s right in scripture. The word trinity isn’t but certainly the elements are. As far as the canon. That was done in response to heretics like the gnostics and montanists. Marcion the most famous gnostic started re-writing the Gospel of Luke and many of Paul’s letters to support his position. Irenaeus explained the importance of having strict canonical documents so the church could have a foundation of Apostolic teachings from which it taught.

I’ll never deny that these things were done for the overall good of the church. But none of this proves Papal infallibility or the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. That’s purely a result of mixing church and state together.

PEACE

 

[MarcoPolo]

As I said to Hiesenburg there are approximately 145 or so verses in scripture that include the word rock. When a literal physical rock is not being described we always see GOD as being called the Rock.

You’re exactly right. So your line of thought should be…“hmmm, God is always the Rock…but here is Jesus specifically calling Peter the Rock…so what are the implications of THAT!”

The trinity was defined in response to the Arians who were denying the deity of Christ. To me the trinity always existed because it’s right in scripture.

If that is your logic…claim made by the Church + rooted in Scripture, then you’re closer to understanding why Peter has primacy than I thought… Maybe sometime peruse John MacArthur’s take on Peter’s primacy…he identifies Peter as protos and the chief, and he’s one of the most anti-Catholic people I know!

At any rate…I encourage all to get back to the topic of who today, if anyone, Protestants believe can teach faith or morals infallibly, or interpret Scripture infallibly.

 

[NDfan]

You’re exactly right. So your line of thought should be…“hmmm, God is always the Rock…but here is Jesus specifically calling Peter the Rock…so what are the implications of THAT!”

He re-named Simon to Peter which means Rock. But is it Peter himself that the church is built on or is it Jesus? Perhaps the rock is figurative for the confession Peter made with regards to Christ. I’m sure you’ve seen that before.

Let’s say then that you are correct and Peter is the absolute rock Jesus built the church on. What does that have to do with the current Pope? Where does Jesus tell Peter to name a successor like GOD does with Moses in naming Joshua?

If that is your logic…claim made by the Church + rooted in Scripture, then you’re closer to understanding why Peter has primacy than I thought…

Well the early Bishops didn’t see the Bishop of Rome as being supreme. Cyprian of Carthage for example noted that the Bishop of Rome was first in honor in a line of church Bishops because Peter and Paul both were martryed in Rome. But he never claimed supremacy for the Bishop of Rome.

Maybe sometime peruse John MacArthur’s take on Peter’s primacy…he identifies Peter as protos and the chief, and he’s one of the most anti-Catholic people I know!

I’m familiar with John MacArthur and his feelings toward Peter. But just because he is anti-Catholic doesn’t mean he is right or that I identify with him.

At any rate…I encourage all to get back to the topic of who today, if anyone, Protestants believe can teach faith or morals infallibly, or interpret Scripture infallibly.

I think I answered this but again I’ll say no. One person cannot do this alone.

PEACE

 

[mozart-250]

Your bible is proof of confirmation. One author said Jesus’ robe was PURPLE, another author said it was SCARLET. See the glaring difference?

Theres many little mistakes in the bible.

Yes…and your point being?

Let’s say your assumption is correct…there is a “little mistake” in the Bible. What does it prove?

 

[mozart-250]

Mozart…

You last statement bodes an interesting question… You said that you don’t believe that Heaven is as concerned with doctrinal correctness as those here. But this has some serious implications if you ask me…

I believe god is very concerned about what is truth and not… especially if the truth is out there. It is one thing if the truth was not revealed… but if it was, I would think god would be very concerned about whether or not we accepted it…

Granted, I also believe that God is a merciful god and will judge each individual on an individual basis…

Actually my statement is borne out of observation and asking silly questions.

For an example I can cite historical past and present Christian names like say John Wesley, Billy Graham, and Mother Theresa that are almost universally recognized as great Christians (we will ignore those who think that Mother Theresa is in hell for being Catholic and that Billy is headed for hell for actually liking Catholics).

Obviously, those three names disagree with each other.

But if you believe that there is some hierarchy of greatness in heaven (and I do), I would have to believe that all three of these figures are great in the kingdom of heaven. Certainly greater than a schmuck like myself. Therefore, the only logical conclusion I can make is that the differences between these names must not be so important in heaven so as to tarnish the greatness and the high esteem that I have for all of these names.

At the same time, I believe there is a set of core Christian beliefs that unite John Wesley, Billy Graham, and Mother Theresa. If there are essentials, these core beliefs must constitute the essentials.

Anyway, that’s the only way that differences (and commonalities) in belief amongst great Christians makes any sense to me.

AS an aside…
It is always a pleasure speaking with you… Though you question, you always seem to be very charitable…

In Christ

Well thank you. I try anyway.

 

[Curious]

I think I believe the Catholic Church was given the power/authority/gift/whatever you want to call it/ to continue passing along infallible teaching on faith and morals.

And if you ask me why I believe such a thing I’ll have to just not answer…for right now. I’m feeling muddled and weird (it’s happened before…it’s all CAF’s fault )

Curious

 

[Harpazo]

Actually my statement is borne out of observation and asking silly questions.

For an example I can cite historical past and present Christian names like say John Wesley, Billy Graham, and Mother Theresa that are almost universally recognized as great Christians (we will ignore those who think that Mother Theresa is in hell for being Catholic and that Billy is headed for hell for actually liking Catholics).

Obviously, those three names disagree with each other.

But if you believe that there is some hierarchy of greatness in heaven (and I do), I would have to believe that all three of these figures are great in the kingdom of heaven. Certainly greater than a schmuck like myself. Therefore, the only logical conclusion I can make is that the differences between these names must not be so important in heaven so as to tarnish the greatness and the high esteem that I have for all of these names.

At the same time, I believe there is a set of core Christian beliefs that unite John Wesley, Billy Graham, and Mother Theresa. If there are essentials, these core beliefs must constitute the essentials.

Anyway, that’s the only way that differences (and commonalities) in belief amongst great Christians makes any sense to me.

Well thank you. I try anyway.

What are these core beliefs? Who decides these are the core beliefs? Are there not conflicting views on what these “essentials” are?

In my opinion, the notion of “essentials” and “non-essentials” is just to justify the divisions amongst Protestants. However, you and others may disagree with this premise.

Al-Masih Qam!
Andrew