How do we know that the Church has infallible authority?

[Marina14]

Because God/Jesus Christ tells us in Scripture that:

The Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth.

And also that the Gates of hell will not preveal against it.

That’s why.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

(Edited)

Statement such as

The severance from and repudiation of the Church, tantamount to throwing the divine plan for our spiritual and social needs back in the face of Christ, breeds the terrifying, subterranean loneliness which characterizes the world of the Protestant.

This is simply not an honest characterization of the world of the Protestant. All this is is his personal view of the Protestant world. It isn’t based in reality, at least not in my experience.

His most cherished beliefs are disguised as negatives: “faith alone” is a denial of everything else; " I am saved," its formal expression. He establishes contact with his fellow believers not through subscribing to a creed of apostolic origin, or joining them in a worship service prescribed by Christ, in use by the apostles before the Bible was written. He joins them through the recitation of the negatives of his oral tradition - the list of what he does NOT believe - and the reiteration of Luther’s “I am saved.”

My most cherished beliefs are that Jesus is God, the Son, Savior of the world. To the best of my understanding those are all postive affirmations of faith, not negatives. We recite either the Apostles’ Creed or the Nicene Creed regularly in our worship service. A service that is in fact very similar in order to that found in the local Catholic church.

So maybe now you see what I mean. He just blathers on, but it is all opinion. It is his opinion, so I can’t refute that he sees that world that way. And it might even be true for some few protestants or some few churches, but all that he is doing is presenting his own worldview regarding protestantism. See how much he projects onto others:

The unremitting repetition possibly offsets a deep, probably unconscious malaise, proceeding from an unrecognized apprehension that the Catholic Church IS the Church, after all, and the consequent need for an excuse.

As far as presenting an actual worldview thatcould be said to apply to protestants, he doesn’t have anything to say. This is just an op-ed piece and nothing more.

And some of it is just absurd:

The Protestant who can detach a Catholic from the Church is vindicated in his own rejection of the truth. Driven by the need to prove that he has been right all along, he is alert to any and every opportunityto enlighten Catholics. He may be surrounded by people who are divorced and remarried, procuring abortions, tubal ligations and vasectomies, watching pornographic movied, telling and enjoying filth jokes, and committing adultery at every opportunity. It is the Catholic he will “witness to” and attempt to “save.”

But I say it is absurb because it is not my experience. Again, maybe he has really had this type of experience. I can tell you that on this very forum, I asked a question once about why there was so much effort into trying to get protestants to become Catholic versus non-Christians, and I was told that it was because though we were seen as Christians, we were still just as lost as non-Christians. Now, how am I suppose to take that type of answer? On the contrary, in my community, I don’t see this division between protestant and Catholic. Protestant doesn’t try to “save” Catholic and Catholic doesn’t try to tell protestant that they don’t really belong to a Christian church.

So, the world the Tomster speaks of is something completely foreign to me and my experience. I don’t say that to refute his experience, but to simply say that his experience is NOT universal.

 

[wanner47]

As far as presenting an actual worldview thatcould be said to apply to protestants, he doesn’t have anything to say. This is just an op-ed piece and nothing more.

Regardless, his contribution to the discussion is more constructive than just saying, “Blah blah blah.”

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Regardless, his contribution to the discussion is more constructive than just saying, “Blah blah blah.”

I agree. I thought it was a rude comment. Completely unnecessary to come back and post it 3 months later. Though saying blah, blah, blah probably was about as factually based. To have refuted Tomster would have required that he actually presented facts, which I don’t see that he did. That’s why I challenged your translation.

 

[princeoflight]

How blind you are to the truth. The Catholic church stopped being the true church when it was corrupted and became the “Roman Catholic Church”.

After the rapture of the first presence there were no 1st New Covenant Saints around, thus no presence of the Christ (His body). The gentile times which spanned both presences ended in 1914 just before the Balfour declaration of 1917. WWI was the beginning of wars and rumors of wars on a global scale. It was around this time, in fact in Tishri 1917 that Christ appointed the 3rd faithful slave of Mat 25 to feed His sheep. So there is no line of saints from the first presence after the rapture. (why would Jesus tell them to hold fast until the end, if He meant the end of the world 1900 years later!).

15 Therefore, when you catch sight of [not when it happens but when you see that it has happened, this has not been seen yet by many people] the disgusting thing that causes desolation, as spoken of through Daniel, the prophet, standing in a holy place [not the holy place, a holy place, a place with 1NC saints in it],

let the reader use discernment

[This has nothing to do with Cestius in the old temple in the first presence. The temple in 66Tishri was not a holy place anymore. It ceased being holy on 33Nisan14, when the law ended. But around 69Nisan when the first faithful slave discrete and wise fell over the saints, when the Roman state succeeded in corrupting the first Christian church, which then became the Roman Catholic church. Church and State should be separate. There was a defiling of the holy place of living stones of the 1NC priesthood by the Roman State, this being the genesis of the catholic church. Then Christians were advised to flee, just before Titus came along in 70Nisan.

Likewise in the second presence the holy place of the 1NC saints, the Watchtower (who are the only ones who saw Jesus coming), although a false church from 2004Elul14 onwards, is being run by a Governing Body none of whom are 1NC saints. They are standing and officiaiting where they ought not in a false church which contains the remnant of the true bride of Christ in this presence. The Watchtower is a temple of defiled living stones. So when Judas bursts in his midst and the frauds on the Watchtower Governing Body are publicly exposed, then those in literal Judea should flee for the mountains and literal Jerusalem is near its second presence destruction].

Once a physical temple becomes part of a false religion, it ceases to be a holy place. Jesus ended the law when he died, at that time the temple in Jerusalem became a place of false worship. It was no longer set aside for a clean purpose, it was no longer holy. This is the discernment that Jesus was referring to. One must discern that the true temple in the days of Titus, was made up of the living stones of the 1NC saints.

5 You yourselves also as living stones are being built up a spiritual house for the purpose of a holy priesthood, to offer up
spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2).

Once there is a spiritual house, the physical house is obsolete, no longer holy. So the corruption of the first true Christian church by the Roman state was the chronological trigger for the Christians to leave Jerusalem and for the physical temple to be destroyed.

The first Jewish diaspora was prophesied by Jesus in Luke 21. It was fulfilled on the Jewish system in 70 CE when the temple was destroyed by the Roman General Titus. But Jesus words do not only apply to the end of the Jewish system in 70 CE but also to the end of the world as many end times Christians believe.
occur? (Luke 21).

For more on the signs of the time of the end see:

truebiblecode.com/understanding77.html

Blessings,
Bill

 

[clmowry]

Oh wait. I just learned this one.

Blah blah blah blah.

That was helpful right?

Chuck

How blind you are to the truth. The Catholic church stopped being the true church when it was corrupted and became the “Roman Catholic Church”.

After the rapture of the first presence there were no 1st New Covenant Saints around, thus no presence of the Christ (His body). The gentile times which spanned both presences ended in 1914 just before the Balfour declaration of 1917. WWI was the beginning of wars and rumors of wars on a global scale. It was around this time, in fact in Tishri 1917 that Christ appointed the 3rd faithful slave of Mat 25 to feed His sheep. So there is no line of saints from the first presence after the rapture. (why would Jesus tell them to hold fast until the end, if He meant the end of the world 1900 years later!).

15 Therefore, when you catch sight of [not when it happens but when you see that it has happened, this has not been seen yet by many people] the disgusting thing that causes desolation, as spoken of through Daniel, the prophet, standing in a holy place [not the holy place, a holy place, a place with 1NC saints in it],

let the reader use discernment

[This has nothing to do with Cestius in the old temple in the first presence. The temple in 66Tishri was not a holy place anymore. It ceased being holy on 33Nisan14, when the law ended. But around 69Nisan when the first faithful slave discrete and wise fell over the saints, when the Roman state succeeded in corrupting the first Christian church, which then became the Roman Catholic church. Church and State should be separate. There was a defiling of the holy place of living stones of the 1NC priesthood by the Roman State, this being the genesis of the catholic church. Then Christians were advised to flee, just before Titus came along in 70Nisan. [/COLOR]

Likewise in the second presence the holy place of the 1NC saints, the Watchtower (who are the only ones who saw Jesus coming), although a false church from 2004Elul14 onwards, is being run by a Governing Body none of whom are 1NC saints. They are standing and officiaiting where they ought not in a false church which contains the remnant of the true bride of Christ in this presence. The Watchtower is a temple of defiled living stones. So when Judas bursts in his midst and the frauds on the Watchtower Governing Body are publicly exposed, then those in literal Judea should flee for the mountains and literal Jerusalem is near its second presence destruction].

Once a physical temple becomes part of a false religion, it ceases to be a holy place. Jesus ended the law when he died, at that time the temple in Jerusalem became a place of false worship. It was no longer set aside for a clean purpose, it was no longer holy. This is the discernment that Jesus was referring to. One must discern that the true temple in the days of Titus, was made up of the living stones of the 1NC saints.

5 You yourselves also as living stones are being built up a spiritual house for the purpose of a holy priesthood, to offer up
spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2).

Once there is a spiritual house, the physical house is obsolete, no longer holy. So the corruption of the first true Christian church by the Roman state was the chronological trigger for the Christians to leave Jerusalem and for the physical temple to be destroyed.

The first Jewish diaspora was prophesied by Jesus in Luke 21. It was fulfilled on the Jewish system in 70 CE when the temple was destroyed by the Roman General Titus. But Jesus words do not only apply to the end of the Jewish system in 70 CE but also to the end of the world as many end times Christians believe.
occur? (Luke 21).

For more on the signs of the time of the end see:

truebiblecode.com/understanding77.html

Blessings,
Bill

 

[wanner47]

I agree. I thought it was a rude comment. Completely unnecessary to come back and post it 3 months later. Though saying blah, blah, blah probably was about as factually based. To have refuted Tomster would have required that he actually presented facts, which I don’t see that he did. That’s why I challenged your translation.

One doesn’t always have to present “facts” during a post. Even if one just posts one’s opinion, that can give insight into the poster’s POV and still contribute to the conversation in a valuable way.

But just posting “blah blah blah” does nothing (except for serving to lessen one’s credibility).

 

[Grace_Seeker]

One doesn’t always have to present “facts” during a post. Even if one just posts one’s opinion, that can give insight into the poster’s POV and still contribute to the conversation in a valuable way.

(Edited).

I understand that. Many of my own posts, such as this one, are just expressions of personal opinion. But you had asked for a refutation, and I don’t feel comfortable refuting opinion when it is a person’s experience. I can’t refute their experience. At best I can only challenge it by saying that it isn’t my experience or that I doubt that their experience is common enough to draw a conclusion from it.(Edited)

Now, in the post made by princeoflight, there is much that can be refuted simply by appealing to scripture and historical facts. But, I do think I will join with clmowry and label this a blather too. Only at least Tomster was well articulated. This later seems to be so poorly constructed as to be difficult to make sense of. I did check out the website, and find their ideas to be completely foreign to what I would consider a proper reading of the scriptures. The idea that:

Jesus was God’s son in the following senses. A human embryo that became the boy called Immanuel and called Jesus was implanted in the Virgin Mary by the angel Gabriel. This boy debated with the Pharisees aged 12 and was baptised by John aged 30. At his baptism in the Jordan, the spirit, the character of Immanuel, was transferred into an angel. Immanuel was raptured. And the angel Michael came down and possessed Jesus’ human body. This angelic possession was symbolised by the dove coming down and remaining on the head of the body. So Jesus from his baptism to his death was the angel Michael in the human body of the immaculately conceived Immanuel. (Phil. 2:5-8, Acts 13:23,24)

If they think that these scriptures teach what they propose, then they have simply perverted the scriptures to be whatever they wish for them to say in their own minds. If this is, in their words not mine, protestant teaching, then I want to be a Catholic. Maybe Tomster was right after all. This is not any sort of Christian, it is most certainly not the Jesus that John testified to – " believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31) – nor that Peter preached about on Pentecost – “God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ” (Acts 2:36), and “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38).”

 

[wanner47]

I understand that. Many of my own posts, such as this one, are just expressions of personal opinion. But you had asked for a refutation, and I don’t feel comfortable refuting opinion when it is a person’s experience.

Well, that’s quite simple. You say, “I have had a very different experience” and go on to share yours. Or you say, “It’s interesting that you have this _______ opinion, given [these facts].” There are countless better ways, not to mention more charitable ways, to respond to anyone’s post(Edited).

Or, in a nutshell, “If you can’t say anything nice [or in this case, somewhat useful and constructive], don’t say anything at all.”

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Or, in a nutshell, “If you can’t say anything nice [or in this case, somewhat useful and constructive], don’t say anything at all.”

OK. I concede. And not just to end debate, but because you are right.

 

[milde]

Do we believe in a church for salvation? I would rather believe in Jesus and you should too.

You learned about Jesus from a church. So yes, you do depend on the church for your salvation. Making sure you have accurate information from the church you choose to follow seems to be crucial, right?

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Do we believe in a church for salvation? I would rather believe in Jesus and you should too.

You learned about Jesus from a church. So yes, you do depend on the church for your salvation. Making sure you have accurate information from the church you choose to follow seems to be crucial, right?

You two are using the same words, but I think are talking about different things. One does depend on the church to be an accurate keeper of the message of Jesus Christ. But one ultimately believes not in the church but in Jesus personally.

 

[milde]

One does depend on the church to be an accurate keeper of the message of Jesus Christ. But one ultimately believes not in the church but in Jesus personally.

Exactly. You don’t believe in your church like you do Jesus, but you learn about your belief from your church. This is why it is important to know why the church is infallible. So why is it infallible? My understanding is that we only know this because they tell us so. That makes me uncomfortable.

 

[wanner47]

You two are using the same words, but I think are talking about different things. One does depend on the church to be an accurate keeper of the message of Jesus Christ. But one ultimately believes not in the church but in Jesus personally.

Believing in Jesus is one thing, but who has the authority to authentically and accurately interpret His teachings? Is everybody just left to his own devices in that regard? If so, why did Jesus so often talk about unity, if He embraced a “everyone can have their own interpretation”-type viewpoint?

For that matter, where in the Bible did Jesus say NOT to trust in the Church? As I recall, He said just the opposite.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Believing in Jesus is one thing, but who has the authority to authentically and accurately interpret His teachings? Is everybody just left to his own devices in that regard? If so, why did Jesus so often talk about unity, if He embraced a “everyone can have their own interpretation”-type viewpoint?

For that matter, where in the Bible did Jesus say NOT to trust in the Church? As I recall, He said just the opposite.

While you quoted me, I don’t think you were actually responding to me. In terms of trusting or not trusting the Church, what I sad was that we depend on the church, therefore we have to have some level of trust in the Church. So, I never even implied that the Bible said anything about NOT trusting the Church. But I did suggest that milde and kaycee were actually talking about two different things. Here is why:

One can trust in the accuracy with which the Church provides us with information about Jesus. One can believe that the teachings of the Church are in fact true and that following them leads to eternal life. One can even have been baptized into them as an infant, and confirmed in the Church as a youth. But if one then rejects those teachings and decides to worship someone other than God, not longer trusts in Jesus, and serves mammon instead, one has also rejected one’s salvation. Thuogh an inidividual trusts the information provided by the church, unless one also makes the commitment to trust one’s life to Jesus, one is left with lots of good information but nothing more.

It would be like going to the train station, reading the schedule, buying a ticket, standing at the platform when the train arrive, hearing the conductor calling out your destination, and understanding that the train was indeed bound there, yet if one doesn’t get on the train (perhaps one fears train accidents) one is still left at the station and not at the destination.

Yes, at some point, each person is left to make the decision whether to trust that getting on the train is something they want to do for themselves. the church can only do so much to encourage and teach them about the way, but they cannot make the decision to put someone on the train, that each person must do for him/herself.

 

[milde]

For that matter, where in the Bible did Jesus say NOT to trust in the Church? As I recall, He said just the opposite.

You’re back into the circular reasoning. The church is telling you that Jesus said to trust the church. Or maybe the church gave you a bible and interpreted it for you and that is where you get that Jesus told you to trust the church.

 

[wanner47]

You’re back into the circular reasoning. The church is telling you that Jesus said to trust the church. Or maybe the church gave you a bible and interpreted it for you and that is where you get that Jesus told you to trust the church.

Well, if you don’t trust the Church, then you cannot, by default, trust the Bible, since they are the ones that preserved it, translated it, and determined the canon. As Tim Staples is fond of saying, “The Bible does not have an inspired table of contents.”

So if you don’t trust the Church, you can’t trust the Bible. Similarly, if you don’t trust the Bible, then of course you don’t trust the Church.

If you DO trust the Bible, how can you *not *trust the Church that put it together and promulgated it? If you trust the Church but not the Bible, that’s also a problem, since a tenet of Church teaching is that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God.

 

[Grace_Seeker]

Well, if you don’t trust the Church, then you cannot, by default, trust the Bible, since they are the ones that preserved it, translated it, and determined the canon. As Tim Staples is fond of saying, “The Bible does not have an inspired table of contents.”

So if you don’t trust the Church, you can’t trust the Bible. Similarly, if you don’t trust the Bible, then of course you don’t trust the Church.

If you DO trust the Bible, how can you *not *trust the Church that put it together and promulgated it? If you trust the Church but not the Bible, that’s also a problem, since a tenet of Church teaching is that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God.

All of that is good, but it doesn’t mean that one would necessarily trust what the church has become in the interveneing years since the production of the Bible.

 

[Sams_Son]

I agree.

 

[milde]

So if you don’t trust the Church, you can’t trust the Bible.

Then tell me how I should approach trusting the church. It’s an organization of mortal men with tremendous power over people. Even a slight understanding of history and politics will make you realize how easily organizations like that become corrupt.