Infallibility of Church?

[Paytheon]

Your words are confusing. The words in the bible are not. I don’t see where Jesus gave any “authority” solely to the “Catholic Church” in the bible. Thus the non-confusing words in the bible will be the obvious direction I will take. Thank you for your reply.

 

[MT1926]

In the same way, he submitted to Scripture as the sinless Son of Man and as an example to us.

I agree on this about Baptism but I think applying His example on Baptism to the rest of the scriptures is reading that into the text.

In Matthew 5, Jesus says…I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

The fact that He is fulfilling them is evidence, to me anyway, that He Himself was not subject to the OT. Just look up all of the verses where Jesus says “you have heard it said”…“but I say unto you”… These statements alone show us that Jesus was not subject to the OT teachings but that all authority is given unto Him in heaven and on earth (Mt 28:18). Sure I agree He didn’t change anything. But the fact that He taught the full meaning of the law and the prophets showed He was not subject to the way the OT law was taught up until His time, but that the meaning was subject to Him.

I believe here Jesus is also showing us that without a visible authority, that can give us a definitive meaning of the law, we might get it wrong.

Also, New Testament writings were considered Scripture long before any formal recognition by a Church council.

And there were many writings considered Scriptural that didn’t get recognized by the Church.

Peter, in AD 68, refers to Paul’s writings as included among the “other Scriptures.”

Agreed. But this is like 36 years after Pentecost. So which came first the Church of the Scriptures?

For the reformer John Calvin… Scripture bears upon the face of it as clear evidence of its truth, as white and black do of their color, sweet and bitter of their taste.”

In my opinion I think this statement is easy to make after the fact and say “Oh yeah, I see what he means.”

But I honestly ask you to forget everything you know and take his statement to the first time you read the Bible. Then ask yourself OK now that I’ve read everything… Which parts of Scripture bears upon the face of it as clear evidence of its truth, as white and black do of their color, sweet and bitter of their taste?"

Would you honestly say oh yeah Ruth, Obadiah, Revelation, etc. Now that’s the light from darkness word of God? However, Maccabees, Wisdom, Tobit nope no light there?

Calvin can say that the Bible derives it’s authority from God but in the end the fact that he agreed with Luther’s decisions to remove the 7 books of the OT, after 1500 years of use, kind of shows he doesn’t really believe his own words, doesn’t it?

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

All major streams within Protestantism consider baptism to be a sacrament, and believe that all Christians should be baptized.

I think you are still missing my point. Yes agree with what you say here. However, I think you aren’t following what I am saying. I’m speaking of all Christians, not just the major streams.

It seems to me that you believe, as I do, that Baptism is necessary. Which is why I would disagree (and you should as well) with this statement…

So I would respond that all Christians, Protestants and Catholic, desire baptism for their children.

To be blunt you would be wrong. There are many on here that do not believe that Jesus desires us to be Baptized in John 3 nor to they believe in Matthew 28 Jesus is telling the Apostles to Baptize disciples with water.

This is where I think we must be charitable toward various perspectives and rely upon the mercy of God.

I can honestly say that I am and that the Catholic Church is. I don’t condemn anyone to Hell, I personally have been told by fellow Christians that I am going to Hell for being Catholic, but as for me I believe it is not my call it is God’s. That’s why I love the saying God gave us the sacraments for our benefit not His. We are bound by God’s sacrament, He is not. If God desires to save an unbaptized non believer it is his prerogative. But just because He does this, it doesn’t give me a free pass.

Conversely, the doctrinal unity among all trinitarian believers is a substantial unity, regardless of whether or not the believers reside in the same church denomination.

I don’t want to get off topic but to be quit honest with you the more conversations I have with different denominations I’m starting to wonder if there is as much unity regarding the trinity as we think there is. Sure there is unity in everyone saying 3 persons 1 God but when it gets down to what this actually means, I don’t think we are all on the same page like we use to be.

Essentially, I see no less doctrinal division within the Catholic church than I do between Protestant churches.

I would disagree with this statement. However, I believe our disagreement lies in our difference in what we mean by the word doctrinal division. For me those words would mean division within what the doctrines actually teach, where as it seems you believe it means the division is within what the followers are willing to follow.

God Bless

 

[mcq72]

Then I am sure you can show all of us, Book, Chapter, and Verse the reference in the Bible that states that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are Scripture; o

Hi JM,

I will at this point say of course that the church is the custodian of God’s Word.

Can you show me chapter and verse that shows Matthew, Mark and Luke etc instructing the Catholic church , even in council fashion, to accept "their " work, that it is not God breathed, that it is not to go alongside other Sacred Scriptures until all the Catholic bishops meet and declare it so?

Show me where these writers direct a church called Catholic to act in un Jewish like, in un OT like fashion, to council together to declare their writ sacred, and to make a canon.

 

[Glenn]

Then I am sure you can show all of us, Book, Chapter, and Verse the reference in the Bible that states that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are Scripture; oh, go the whole way, show us the reference that lists all the books and defines how many chapters there are. (The table of contents does not count; that was written hundreds of years later) Show us where God says Tobit and Maccabees, et al, are not Sacred Scripture.

The fact is, the Catholic Church defined for you what is Scripture, what is inspired by God. And you are denying that the Church can do that, therefore, you have no Scripture.

I do not deny Scripture. I am part of the church universal just as your are. The Catholic Church did not give us Scripture. Instead, God, through His Spirit, gave the Scripture to the Church. It is God’s Word, not the Church’s Word. As Calvin said, the Church must bow, as duty bound, before that which is obviously God’s Word. We receive it, thankfully, as a gift; we don’t create it.

Certainly, the Spirit of God led the Church in its compilation of the books of Scripture, just as it led the authors of the various books. But when the canon was finalized, there was not the division in the church that exists today. The church that existed at that time, as it was even before the great schism between East and West, cannot be equated to the instantiation of the Catholic church of today. The Church divided because of sin, because of serious corruption within the Church. The Catholic Church is as much to blame for that division as Protestants.

Why does the Catholic Church accept books that are not part of the Jewish canon? Or why do they not accept 3 and 4 Maccabees, Psalm 151, The Prayer of Manasseh, and 1 Esdras, which are included in the Orthodox canon? Do you also deny that the Orthodox have the Scriptures because their canon disagrees with the Catholic canon?

 

[Glenn]

I don’t think we will ever agree, point by fine point, on every doctrinal issue. We do our best to rightly discern what the Scripture teaches, or what the Scripture and our Church tradition teaches. But ultimately, it is God who is the judge. As Paul said, we must each be convinced by our own conscience. Jesus taught that if we are truly seeking the truth, we will find it. We do not know another man’s heart, but we are be discerning according to the fruit that he bears, not whether he is in this or that Christian denomination (and I include the Catholic church as a denomination, not the sole purveyor of the gospel).

Paul in Romans says that God will “render to each one according to his deeds: eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness–indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil” (Romans 2:6-9).

 

[MT1926]

I don’t see Jesus chiding a rabbi for not knowing something that was new, which water baptism for spiritual rebirthis new. This was unheard of in OT…it was new.

If I remember correctly You and I have already discussed our differences on John 3 in another thread so I’m not going to start that discussion again.

However, it seems to me that you are helping to show the point I am trying to make to @Glenn when he stated…

The Scripture is sufficient, without any other authority, to show man the way to God, to salvation through his Son Jesus, and to heaven.

It appears from your post that we all have different interpretations of how one comes to Salvation through Jesus. We are all using the same Scriptures yet coming to different interpretations of what it means to be born of water and spirit.

I think it would help further our discussion, on the sufficiency of Scripture, if @Glenn would give us his thoughts on your “Jesus is chidding Nicodemus” interpretation of John 3 and point out how it compares and contrasts to what he was taught in his Baptist tradition.

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut.

God Bless

 

[mcq72]

Peter, in AD 68, refers to Paul’s writings as included among the “other Scriptures.”

Agreed. But this is like 36 years after Pentecost. So which came first the Church of the Scriptures?

but wait, I thought there was no canon till 393, Hippo or 397 Carthage ? Did the “church” already have a consensus on some of these epistles ? Where or how was this “visibly” done by the church which of course was there first ?

 

[mcq72]

It appears from your post that we all have different interpretations of how one comes to Salvation through Jesus. We are all using the same Scriptures yet coming to different interpretations of what it means to be born of water and spirit.

Having an authority equal, even bigger than Scripture will not solve any problem, unless you believe that God will only enlighten Catholic theologians and leaders, and that infallibly. But even there, it does not do away with others being convicted with a different interpretation, otherwise all Christians would be Catholic.

Anyways, not sure there are any differences with myself and Glenn on baptism, and even if we did, not sure they would be significant enough where salvation path is at stake in our interpretations, for others, that Scriptures would still lead one to new life in Christ.

As to interpreting John 3, not sure how Baptists view it. Pretty sure they would agree that born of water is not our NT water baptism, and maybe not even John’s baptism.

 

[MT1926]

but wait, I thought there was no canon till 393, Hippo or 397 Carthage ?

I’m not sure why no one wants to answer this question without going off on a tangent. Did the scriptures exist then the Church began on Pentecost?

Let me be clear I am not ask did the Catholic Church begin, I am asking did a Church, which was given authority to bind and loose by Christ, begin before a single word of the New testament was written? Yes or No?

Did the “church” already have a consensus on some of these epistles ?

From my understanding yes, some of the books that formed that consensus made it into the official cannon of scripture, while some books that were treated as inspired by some local churches did not. It also seems that there were many many books (I’ve read 100’s) that people thought inspired but weren’t. Finally, some that weren’t considered to be inspired, or read by the early church did make it into the final canon of scripture.

Where or how was this “visibly” done by the church which of course was there first ?

Not sure what you mean? Do you mean we can see evidence from historical writings like the Church Fathers?

I guess there writings could show us “visibly” what books the early church read and how they interpreted said books?

God Bless

 

[MT1926]

Anyways, not sure there are any differences with myself and Glenn on baptism, and even if we did, not sure they would be significant enough where salvation path is at stake in our interpretations, for others, that Scriptures would still lead one to new life in Christ.

As to interpreting John 3, not sure how Baptists view it. Pretty sure they would agree that born of water is not our NT water baptism, and maybe not even John’s baptism.

Well like I said I would like @Glenn to elaborate on his understanding of Baptism, so let’s wait and see?

According to Glenn he stated…

All major streams within Protestantism consider baptism to be a sacrament, and believe that all Christians should be baptized.

The basic definition of a sacrament from the dictionary is - (in the Christian Church) a religious ceremony or ritual regarded as imparting divine grace, such as baptism, the Eucharist and (in the Roman Catholic and many Orthodox Churches) penance and the anointing of the sick.

As to interpreting John 3, not sure how Baptists view it. Pretty sure they would agree that born of water is not our NT water baptism, and maybe not even John’s baptism.

Unless I am missing interpreting something from your post, it does not appear that you would consider Baptism to be a Sacrament (giving us divine grace). Am I correct on this?

God Bless

 

[mcq72]

Unless I am missing interpreting something from your post, it does not appear that you would consider Baptism to be a Sacrament (giving us divine grace). Am I correct on this?

Partly correct. People like to draw lines in the sand so as to feel secure in their rightness, and that is ok. But if one can get free a little from that need, there are connections between the lines, the boxes.

So, I do not believe baptism is regenerational. In fact all churches I know will only baptize a " believer", and a believer is already born again, born of the Spirit, else how can he profess Jesus as Lord and Savior, except in the flesh vainly, for God must be worshipped, obeyed in the spirit.

I believe baptism is a righteous act done in grace, and can reap further blessings, even grace, as any obedient act would. I would not call it saving grace however.

I also believe in the first church people were immediately baptized upon first belief, so much so that the two were linked as cause and effect, at least in perception, or that baptism certainly became the sign/ seal of new life.
I know there are a few scriptures that allude to that perception of regenerational baptism but we must align that with the few scriptures that say by no works of righteousness are we saved, and baptism is certainly not an unrighteous work.

Much more could be said, but enough for now

 

[mcq72]

Not sure what you mean? Do you mean we can see evidence from historical writings like the Church Fathers?

I guess there writings could show us “visibly” what books the early church read and how they interpreted said books?

I am just saying evidence suggests, that just like OT method of receiving God’s Writing, and the apostles were all OT Jews, so it was with any NT Writing receiving and acceptance.

So the church informally came to a consensus, and zero evidence of any top down papal force. For sure there was apostolic force, I mean they or a close companion wrote for God. And for sure bishops/presbyters and their congregations played a role across the entire universal church to informally formalize consensus.They acted as a body, one part communicating with the other, naturally, even divinely.

And yes, early church writings suggest this.

 

[John_Martin]

Can I be a Catholic if I do not believe everything the Church teaches?

The OP was about the “Infallibility of the Church” as a question.
It was asked by a Baptist, by a person the Catholic Church considers “Catholic” in virtue of his Baptism, but also out of Communion with the Church because he refuses to submit to the authority and teaching and practices required of Catholics.

Now, as the thread progressed, it is showing clearly that Glenn requires that the Church change its teachings; he does not as in the OP simply want to know whether he can “lawfully” verbally disagree within the church (participate in the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Lord while claiming it is not actually the Body and Blood of our Lord) and “lawfully” practice a piety and religion contrary to Church teaching (never confess to a priest).

The fact is, however, that Catholics are not here to prove the infallibility of the Church, not here to prove that Tradition and the living Papacy and Magisterium provide to us the true interpretation of Scripture. We are not answering your “Why?”; we are saying simply what is (“Infallibility in Doctrine”) in the Catholic Church. If you wish to participate, “Welcome”. If not, we remain in the world in front of you as we are, a strange group in your midst that you cannot understand. You cannot understand how we think we are eating Flesh and drinking Blood in Communion, offering Sacrifice at the Mass, thinking a person can grant us full pardon for our sins, absolve us and renew the Holy Spirit in us. You cannot understand how we say we are saved by faith and also say we must do acts of Virtue (be virtuous) to inherit the Kingdom of God and of his Christ.

The OP was asked, and answered, but now the requirement of the protestants is that the Catholic Church become protestant in its understanding of Scripture and Doctrine and Authority.
Sorry, we obey the Pope and our Bishops and Priests as our teachers, faithful to the Apostles who sent them to us. We accept the Councils’ findings. We cannot resist the Holy Spirit that shines so bright within our souls, and diffuses them with virtues to see and light to illuminate them. Such delight I never found as a Lutheran, a very, very, well educated Lutheran. This joy can only be exceeded by that of the sight of the LORD face to Face, ‘I am’ to ‘I AM’.

 

[Glenn]

Let me be clear I am not ask did the Catholic Church begin, I am asking did a Church, which was given authority to bind and loose by Christ, begin before a single word of the New testament was written? Yes or No?

The NT Church began in the upper room, with the Apostles present. When Christ ascended, he left them with this message: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:18-19).

The message of the Apostles, the gospel message, continues to live through the Scripture. And the Church, as the universal body of Christ, has the same commission, “to make disciples of all nations.” The fact that the books of the NT developed over time says nothing about the chain of authority. The main criteria the Church used to determine if a given book was authoritative was whether or not it was of Apostolic origin. The Church considered itself to be under the authority of the Apostles, the ones whom he directly commissioned.

At the end of the age, the New Jerusalem will descend from heaven. And it will have twelve gates with the names of the twelve tribes of Israel. “And the wall of the city [will have] twelve foundations, and on them [will be] the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb” (Revelation 21:14). Even in the New Jerusalem, only twelve apostolic founders will be recognized, and no successors. The names of the Popes, it seems, will not appear.

 

[Glenn]

Now, as the thread progressed, it is showing clearly that Glenn requires that the Church change its teachings;

You are not correct. My original question was simply about the infallibility of the Church. I did not intend to get into the doctrines that I personally held. But I was asked by one of the participants which particular doctrines I had difficulty with, and so I responded. One question led to another. I seriously considered whether or not I could accept what was proposed by Catholics, and have decided that I cannot.

In Protestant churches, it is not necessary for me to believe exactly like a Lutheran or a Presbyterian or a Baptist or a Methodist. I can become a member of any of those churches if I profess that I am faithfully following Christ. In spite of our differences, we accept one another as members of his body.

I have never asked the Catholic Church to change. And I have never said that the Catholic Church is strange or weird. The issue was simply whether or not I could hold some variant views and still become a member of the Catholic church. And it appears that I cannot, which is why in my last post, I said:

I don’t think we will ever agree, point by fine point, on every doctrinal issue. We do our best to rightly discern what the Scripture teaches, or what the Scripture and our Church tradition teaches.

But when I am asked a question about why I believe something, I feel I must give it my best shot to explain. If someone can convince me otherwise, that is great. You see, I will always wonder who is right on various issues, because there is good logic on both sides, and I do not know with certainty who is right. And that is OK with me. I do not believe that we can know something infallibly, because we are not omniscient. If I have the fundamentals of the faith, and in good conscience am following Christ, then that is sufficient for me, and in general, for all Protestants. And it appears that this understanding is adequate for most Catholics who I know. But apparently not for the Church. It expects me to believe everything as exactly articulated in every Church councils.

So please do not assume that I am being critical of Catholic doctrine. If someone wishes to refute what I say from Scripture, I’ll certainly consider it. But I think what has happened is that the discussion has actually helped to solidify my current position. I will remain a Protestant.

God bless.

 

[Francis]

Nothing you posted says you have to be a “Catholic” for salvation. The word Christianity didn’t even come about till several years after Christ death.

The Word 'Holy Trinity is not in the Bible ,it doesn’t mean there is no God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. The Catholic Church is GUIDED BY THE HOLY SPIRIT and JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF THROUGH HIS TRUE CHURCH ON EARTH AND THE POPE. Matthew 16:16-18 7 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.18 And I say to thee : That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

. Too many Catholics force the bible to say what they want it to say.

So you deny the very words of Jesus Himself who established the Catholic Church which is the Body of Christ.no one force the Bible to say what they wants it seems ,one is trying to do the same here
John 12:48 The one who rejects me and does not receive my word has a judge; on the last day the word that I have spoken will serve as judge, 49 for I have not spoken on my own, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment about what to say and what to speak. 50 And I know that his commandment is eternal life. What I speak, therefore, I speak just as the Father has told me.”

 

[mcq72]

The Word 'Holy Trinity is not in the Bible

And what, no one believed in the Trinity before the definition?

 

[mcq72]

So you deny the very words of Jesus Himself who established the Catholic Church which is the Body of Christ.

Jesus did not establish the Catholic church…church yes…Catholic? Well we wouldn’t be on this forum if that were not so debatable.

 

[Gorgias]

Jesus did not establish the Catholic church…church yes…Catholic?

If you’re making the somewhat trivial claim that He didn’t call it the ‘Catholic’ Church, then sure – that word wasn’t applied to the Church in 33AD. Instead, the first time we see it being used in writing is by St Ignatius, who calls the Church ‘Catholic’ in the early 2nd century.

So, let’s see if we can characterize our anonymous Church of the first century, and if that makes it any clearer about which Church it is:

• It has Peter as its head
• It appoints bishops as successors to Peter and the apostles
• These bishops accept Peter as their head
• This Church celebrates the Eucharist, and proclaims it to be the Body and Blood of Jesus

Hmm… now which contemporary Church bears all those characteristics? Hmm… it’s on the tip of my tongue…