Infallibility of Church?

[mcq72]

No my scenario came partially right out of such dialogue, though dealing more with predestination, but still calvinism/ armenianism etc.
.

 

[MT1926]

So when you get to the Pearly Gates the sign outside says, “Enter in, for I have chosen you”.

After entering in, there is a sign on the inside that says, “Well done for having chosen to serve the Lord”

Both Holy Ghost inspired “signs”.

Only a fool would argue one sign over the other?

Just curious how do you see your two made up signs as an argument for calling @Gorgias a fool for factual comparisons on different conclusions on “Holy Spirit” inspired interpretations of scripture?

Other than taking a jab at @Gorgias I don’t see what you are trying to refute with this comment?

God Bless

 

[Glenn]

You’re free to exercise your belief. That doesn’t mean it is true

Yes, everyone is free to exercise their beliefs. Merely having a belief is its exercise. And it is also correct that having a belief does not make it true. This is a fact for everyone.

Your objection was raised in response to the mention of my wife’s hesitancy to confess her sins to a priest, rather than directly to God. But this matter was raised simply to answer another participant who asked for some examples of Catholic doctrines that I find difficult to accept. This was not mentioned for the purpose of debate. My original post was to solicit opinions about whether I could become a Catholic if I did not believe every doctrine the Catholic Church teaches. And the consensus appears to be that I must believe every doctrine without exception. Therefore, it seems that I cannot become a Catholic.

 

[Gorgias]

They all intersect really, but men ,wanting set themselves right over others, have snipped those lines. Your solution falls in that vein, defining things so that indeed others are wrong. And they may be partially, but they are also partially right.

But that’s precisely the problem. If we’re going to claim that the Holy Spirit “leads us to all truth”, and we have hundreds of groups, each claiming inspiration by the Holy Spirit and each asserting conflicting doctrines, how do we reconcile “inspiration” and “error”?

Hey if my scenario of the two signs are not exclusive ,maybe your three scenarios aren’t really either.

It’s a nice idea, but the example doesn’t resonate with me – it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Maybe with a different example?

 

[mcq72]

Just curious how do you see your two made up signs as an argument for calling @Gorgias a fool for factual comparisons on different conclusions on “Holy Spirit” inspired interpretations of scripture?

Other than taking a jab at @Gorgias I don’t see what you are trying to refute with this comment?

God Bless

You are not curious enough to refrain from judgementalism from the get go. Again , people read things cutting strings of mutual understanding for sake of justifying one over another.

I did not take Gorgia’s to be offended. My post was quite explicit to my scenario. It was a question mark. He did not argue one sign over the other, and presume he understood their “connection”, though he worded it differently ( not mutually exclusive). He did not play the fool.

I agreed his scenario was more exclusive, but that indeed men ( foolish?)made it so, and that there is more connectedness if one(wise?) wants to see it.

 

[Gorgias]

I did not take Gorgia’s to be offended. My post was quite explicit to my scenario. It was a question mark. He did not argue one sign over the other, and presume he understood their “connection”, thougj he worded it differently ( not mutually exclusive).

Right. No offense taken. (I just think the example doesn’t work in the way you want it to. )

 

[Paytheon]

Jesus Christ made a promise, Jesus Christ is perfect and never lies. To refute or rebut a fact, a promise made by Christ himself, means you place your thinking over His. The original sin, Adam and Eve chose to decide what Good and Evil is over God’s definition of Good and Evil is precisely the argument you’re making; that your definition of who has salvation is greater than Jesus Christ. Good luck with that.

 

[Glenn]

By the Holy Spirit… Jesus said, “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come” (John 16:13). The Holy Spirit is given to every believer.

Yes, I understand the dilemma. But the passage I quoted appears to teach that it is the person of the Holy Spirit who leads us into all truth. And the absolute truth is found in the face of Jesus Christ himself. If we have Christ, we have the truth. We may articulate that truth from different angles, and we are all subject to sin and therefore to fallible articulations. We are also finite creatures, and we must rest in the ultimate mystery that is God. The Holy Spirit is an eternal gift that we will possess even in heaven, where God will be “all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28). So we will not have “all truth” until we see God face to face. As the apostle Paul said, “We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know I part; but then I shall know even as I am known” (1 Cor 13:12). So the promise is true, but there is an “already” and a “not yet” element to that promise. But even now, the Scripture says that we are spiritually “raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 2:6).

 

[mcq72]

Right. No offense taken. (I just think the example doesn’t work in the way you want it to. )

Ok…lol…thank you.

Maybe I am at an advantage, being non denominational. I took your three scenarios, which indeed are entrenched theological divisions, and see how they are more similar than disimilar. Or maybe i also take a side, but have to admit to seeing some of the logic and truth in the other sides.

I also recall two great Protestant saints revivalists, missionaries, who fought tooth and nail over eternal security osas with each other for decades. Finally, on their deathbed being visited by the other, one of them made peace with the other, not recanting so much, but seeing the folly or foolishness over the division…death can make some things foolish ( not the conviction, but our reaction to others with different conviction).

Blessings

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

You’re free to exercise your belief. That doesn’t mean it is true

Yes, everyone is free to exercise their beliefs. Merely having a belief is its exercise. And it is also correct that having a belief does not make it true. This is a fact for everyone.

Your objection was raised in response to the mention of my wife’s hesitancy to confess her sins to a priest, rather than directly to God. But this matter was raised simply to answer another participant who asked for some examples of Catholic doctrines that I find difficult to accept. This was not mentioned for the purpose of debate. My original post was to solicit opinions about whether I could become a Catholic if I did not believe every doctrine the Catholic Church teaches. And the consensus appears to be that I must believe every doctrine without exception. Therefore, it seems that I cannot become a Catholic.

That’s how free will works. As I said, choices aren’t always rignt.

Example:

It’s a very similar example to Our Lord’s own disciples (not the 12) who disagreed with Him, and they left Him as a result of what they learned. Free Will in action.

Note: there was no return effort by Jesus, to try and convince or go after them to change their mind once they made up their mind… They made an informed choice. And while being a wrong choice, Jesus honored that and He let them go. IMV that’s one of the scariest passages in scripture.

 

[MT1926]

You are not curious enough to refrain from judgementalism from the get go. Again , people read things cutting strings of mutual understanding for sake of justifying one over another.

And you are judging me to be judgmental.

If you would have explained this in your original post it sure would have cleared up the misunderstanding.

I took your three scenarios, which indeed are entrenched theological divisions, and see how they are more similar than disimilar.

I mean no disrespect but you often give vague comments and expect the rest of us to know what you mean. A little detail, like what you said here, would really help.

God Bless

 

[Gorgias]

We may articulate that truth from different angles, and we are all subject to sin and therefore to fallible articulations.

Yeah, I get what you’re saying. Doesn’t that water down Jesus’ promise, though? Essentially, it turns it into “I’m sending you the Holy Spirit to lead you into truth… but you really won’t attain that truth”… doesn’t it?

So we will not have “all truth” until we see God face to face.

OK – so, there’s a possible solution. If you interpret Jesus’ words to mean “the Holy Spirit will lead you to all truth Heaven”, with “all truth” just a placeholder for “heaven”, then you have a consistent statement. Yet, that would imply that there is no promise of protection for us or the Church while here on earth. That doesn’t seem to make sense, especially in light of His statements about the devil’s attempts to “sift like wheat” and the fact that the devil will not prevail over the Church. (I would think that a church that teaches things contrary to Jesus’ word is the very definition of the devil prevailing!)

So the promise is true, but there is an “already” and a “not yet” element to that promise.

So, if we’re talking about the Kingdom of Heaven, I’m totally good with “already and not yet”. However, the Holy Spirit is “already and not yet”?

 

[mcq72]

Jesus Christ made a promise, Jesus Christ is perfect and never lies. To refute or rebut a fact, a promise made by Christ himself, means you place your thinking over His. The original sin, Adam and Eve chose to decide what Good and Evil is over God’s definition of Good and Evil is precisely the argument you’re making; that your definition of who has salvation is greater than Jesus Christ. Good luck with that

Perhaps you misunderstood. I gave what I have heard is the Catholic rebuttal to the thief on cross being saved by faith (alone) in Christ…

I am Protestant and of course would agree there was no church, even Catholic, at that time. (Salvation was, is, of the Jews). Jesus saves and quite suredly, as the beautiful example of the thief…cry out to Him and you will be saved, confess Him with your mouth and you will be saved. So it is with every believer, we must die and yet find new life at the feet of our bloodied Lord. When He lifts you up, you will know it!

 

[Glenn]

It’s not “relationship to the Church”, strictly speaking, that prevents intercommunion. It’s belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Regarding those who do not believe in the Real Presence, we recall the words of St Paul, that those who eat and drink without discerning the body are eating and drinking judgment upon themselves.

Yes, that makes sense.

How can the Scriptures be infallible?
What good is a book that cannot err if the people teaching from it can make all kind of mistakes?
If my church can err how do I know their claims of essentials and non-essentials are true?

I do struggle with this. The conclusion that I have come to is that the Holy Spirit is infallible, but he still makes his will know through fallible men, through the instrumentality of his people and his sacred Word. But the purest form of his Word is Christ himself, the Word incarnate.

 

[Glenn]

Yet, that would imply that there is no promise of protection for us or the Church while here on earth. That doesn’t seem to make sense, especially in light of His statements about the devil’s attempts to “sift like wheat” and the fact that the devil will not prevail over the Church. (I would think that a church that teaches things contrary to Jesus’ word is the very definition of the devil prevailing!)

I don’t think so. Jesus castigated Peter with the words “Get thee behind me Satan,” and then moments later, said to him, “Blessed art thou.” The Church universal is Christ’s mystical body. Man-made institutions may crumble, but not his eternal kingdom. I think the distinction between ex cathedra statements of the Church and its practical teaching is somewhat artificial. We know that away from the ivory towers, in the trenches, there have been many errors propagated by the Church throughout the centuries. Yet the Church is still Christ’s Church. But orthodoxy without orthopraxy is still error. We are a sinful people, but we are still His children, who will one day be His spotless bride.

 

[Wannano]

All are good issues to think about. Here’s how I think about them personally.

I think many Catholic practices developed over millennia because they work. The act of confession forced the process of examination, penance, and a sense of accountability to change that isn’t there so broadly without the check-in with a priest for forgiveness. Of course God doesn’t need the Priest but many of us do as we work to better ourselves. The bible indicates Christ bestowed the power to forgive but it doesn’t say it was exclusively their right. Do you believe the powers or responsibilities Christ gave to his apostles have been handed down to our modern priests, that is the fundamental question.

I don’t get transubstantiation myself. But I imagine the more serious or holy we take the sacrament, the more open we will be to allowing the Holy Spirit into our hearts.

I always believed the faith vs works debate was misguided, like two people talking past each other and not really listening. “each tree is known by it’s fruit” seems sound advice from the bible, doesn’t it? Someone with Christ in their heart will produce good fruit and someone who produces bad fruit likely doesn’t have Christ in his heart, no matter what they claim.

While it’s true that doing good works could be a smokescreen, there is also a flip side in that as you start to do good works, even if you don’t feel like it or do it for the wrong reasons, it starts to change you inside. As it becomes more of a habit, you become less self centered and more open to the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Thus I think both Protestants and Catholics are correct, given the right context.

T’would be very helpful if all were so open minded as you. I’d like to hear more.

 

[steve-b]

Yes, I understand the dilemma. But the passage I quoted appears to teach that it is the person of the Holy Spirit who leads us into all truth. And the absolute truth is found in the face of Jesus Christ himself. If we have Christ, we have the truth.

Glenn,

Re: the HS

since Jesus said, the HS doesn’t speak on His own authority, He takes from Jesus and passes THAT on. From HERE we know then that the HS won’t inspire division of ANY type from Our Lord’s Church that He established on Peter and those in complete union with Peter. Jesus wants perfect unity

As the apostle taught, (under the inspiration of the HS) those who are in division cause division, keep division going, from the Church aren’t serving Our Lord but their own selfish appetites. And ultimately the apostle says who they ultimately serve…Satan

That said,

The HS isn’t behind all the discord and division we see today. People aren’t listening and they aren’t obeying what has already been established. What are the consequences? Jesus was asked and He boiled it down to a very scary answer. IMV here is the scariest passage in all of scripture. few are saved

 

[Glenn]

So, if we’re talking about the Kingdom of Heaven, I’m totally good with “already and not yet”. However, the Holy Spirit is “already and not yet”?

The Spirit was given to Christ “without measure” (John 3:34). We do not yet have the fullness of the Spirit. Paul encourages us to “be filled with the Spirit” (Ephesians 5:18), because it is something we strive for, and not automatic. We have the Spirit by degrees–some of us are more sanctified than others.

 

[MT1926]

The conclusion that I have come to is that the Holy Spirit is infallible, but he still makes his will know through fallible men, through the instrumentality of his people and his sacred Word.

I totally agree that God can and does use fallible men. However, I think the Bible shows us over and over that when He used these fallible men (Moses, Peter, Paul, Matthew, James, etc…) they taught infallible. It just doesn’t make sense, to me anyway, that He would give the first century Christians infallible teachings (straight from these fallible men’s mouths) and leave the rest of humanity wondering if what we read (His sacred Word) and interpret today is what was actually taught by the Apostles.

Just can’t see why God would leave us alone like that.

But the purest form of his Word is Christ himself, the Word incarnate.

I hear this a lot and I understand that the Word is Christ (John 1) and that the Word became incarnate (in the flesh). However, I’m not following what these means to us today? I mean as it is related to Scripture, because this statement is usually given when talking to someone about the Scripture being inerrant.

Yes I agree Jesus is the purest form of His Word, however Jesus isn’t physically teaching us His Word. So in my mind either we are teaching ourselves claiming the Holy Spirit guides us or we are being taught by someone who taught themselves claiming the Holy Spirit or we are being taught by a person who was handed on the interpretations from the Apostles.

Maybe I’m wrong but in my mind Jesus gave first century Christians the purest form of His Word. I believe He loves us just as much as them to want us to know for certain that we have that purity as well.

Just my thoughts,

God Bless

 

[Gorgias]

We know that away from the ivory towers, in the trenches, there have been many errors propagated by the Church throughout the centuries.

Right, but the distinction there is that there is ‘official’ teaching, promulgated by those who have the authority to officially establish doctrine, and there is what happens at the ground level. From the Catholic perspective, (and I guess this is what you see as ‘artificial’) those who establish doctrine are protected by error by the Holy Spirit, but those at the local level – who cannot unilaterally establish doctrine – aren’t necessarily protected in their ability to pass on what’s been officially established. We see this dynamic in Paul’s epistles (“O foolish Galatians!”) – he established doctrine, they strayed, and he called them back to orthodox belief.

But orthodoxy without orthopraxy is still error.

It is… but it’s a different sort of error.

We have the Spirit by degrees–some of us are more sanctified than others.

Agreed, but I think you’re talking about a different issue there. On one hand, we’ve been talking about the promise of the protection of the Church by Jesus through the Holy Spirit. Here, you’re talking about individuals and how they live out their Christian lives. Paul warns individuals about backsliding… not churches (local or universal). Paul calls local churches to one single identical faith.