"Infallibility" should be removed from the apologetics lexicon

[Abu]

Micosil #6
Christians in general would say, whether you are Catholic, Orthodox, Copt, Assyrian or whatever, that the authors of the Bible were infallible when they penned the books of the Bible, under guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Papal Infallibility is an integral part of Catholicism, a doctrine that was declared infallible itself, it needs to be introduced and discussed sooner or later.

clem456 #18
“Because the infallible Church says so” means a lot to me, but means basically nothing to an unbeliever. And so it seems to me it is way overused in apologetics.

PJM #19
*OPQ point [Infallibility] is both explainable and provable, and therefore ought to be a part of any Faith-formation dialog.

Whether or NOT, the evidence is actually accepted is a matter for the Holy Spirit and the person in question*

So the starting point is NOT “because the infallible Church says so.” The starting point is what Christ actually said and instituted – His Church – and how the Bible came about and the reality of why it can be proclaimed as “the Word of God”.

 

[ChadS]

So the starting point is NOT “because the infallible Church says so.” The starting point is what Christ actually said and instituted – His Church – and how the Bible came about and the reality of why it can be proclaimed as “the Word of God”.

Too often it seems that even with a firm starting ground in place you can quickly move into territory that is contested. Protestants give widely divergent meanings to what Christ actually said, established, or instituted. In their various opinions rarely and sometimes only tangentially do they line up with the Catholic position, which they will insist, despite all available evidence, is the new and wrong interpretation of what the Bible means and what Christ did, said, or intended.

ChadS

 

[Abu]

ChadS #22
Too often it seems that even with a firm starting ground in place you can quickly move into territory that is contested. Protestants give widely divergent meanings to what Christ actually said, established, or instituted. In their various opinions rarely and sometimes only tangentially do they line up with the Catholic position, which they will insist, despite all available evidence, is the new and wrong interpretation of what the Bible means and what Christ did, said, or intended.

That is precisely why the reality of Christ entrusting to St Peter ALONE so many solemn directives has to be emphasized, as they do not realise this, and can have no defendable objection to Christ’s commands.

 

[clem456]

That is precisely why the reality of Christ entrusting to St Peter ALONE so many solemn directives has to be emphasized, as they do not realise this, and can have no defendable objection to Christ’s commands.

Before even that: the basic Christian reality that Christ lived and died a human life, and was God in the flesh. Seriously. There are many people who don’t realize what it is they believe, and what the real implications are.

Many many protestants can’t wrap their heads around this fact:
before the New Testament was written, there existed a community of people around Christ. Before…
I mean
Look at the mountain of forum threads that go round and round essentially denying that Christ lived among a people and established a community out of which came scripture. They just won’t hear it.

If even the Incarnation is an obstacle, infallibility is meaningless to that person.

 

[ChadS]

That is precisely why the reality of Christ entrusting to St Peter ALONE so many solemn directives has to be emphasized, as they do not realise this, and can have no defendable objection to Christ’s commands.

But to many, many Protestants Christ entrusted Peter with absolutely nothing, let alone any directives that established him as the visible head of a visible Church. You can cite chapter and verse until you are blue in the face and they will say “nope that’s not what it means.”

ChadS

 

[clem456]

But to many, many Protestants Christ entrusted Peter with absolutely nothing, let alone any directives that established him as the visible head of a visible Church. You can cite chapter and verse until you are blue in the face and they will say “nope that’s not what it means.”

ChadS

Right.
Because they only admit authority of the letter, not of personhood.

So to invoke authority of the person is a non-starter.

 

[ChadS]

Right.
Because they only admit authority of the letter, not of personhood.

So to invoke authority of the person is a non-starter.

Exactly, and then there are those that while accepting the inerrancy and infallibility of scripture will ignore plain meanings and directives contained in scripture, because to do otherwise would hint at an understanding that is possibly Catholic.

ChadS

 

[PJM]

So the starting point is NOT “because the infallible Church says so.” The starting point is what Christ actually said and instituted – His Church – and how the Bible came about and the reality of why it can be proclaimed as “the Word of God”.

AMEN!