Is infallible knowledge of the Canon possible

[reneeville]

Can’t reply… or won’t. You started this thread and should have the common courtesy of replying to those who have given of their time to answer… quite succinctly. You’ll* “try to respond to those who actually give an answer to the question.”*
…an answer that fits your criteria? You’ve again been given loads of logic and reason yet none suits you. Your “position” is one of the the best arguments as to why I became Catholic.
God’s peace be with you~

I can’t reply to every comment, so I will start to be selective. I will try to respond to those who actually give an answer to the question.

 

[thistle]

I specified in the first post that I was talking about infallible certainty of the books of the canon. I started this thread because individual Catholic constantly claim Protestant don’t have infallible certainty of the books of the canon, because they don’t believe in an infallible church. Well, my point is that none of us have infallible certainty of the books of the canon. Catholics who believe they do are engaging in fallacious reasoning to believe that.

I’m also confused but as I’ve just read through the thread I may have missed something so please bear with me if this has been answered.
Are you saying that the Catholic Church which, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, determined which books were inspired and went into what we call the Bible may have got it wrong because the Holy Spirit might have mislead them? Are you saying that there are other writings which are known about but were left out of the canon should have been included? Are you saying there might be undiscovered writings which might belong in the Bible?
I’m not absolutely clear what you are saying.

 

[Unitas]

Something changed it, I wouldn’t always say it was the Holy Spirit. Has the Holy Spirit changed your mind before?

Yes, as I read a better explanation as interpretted by the Church which is guided by the Holy Spirit.

Maybe or maybe not.

That’s why you can’t rely solely on reading comprehension for acurate interpretation.

I never said that was the case. You are swinging at the wind.

Not so, because if the Holy Spirit is infallible (as God) and you are fallible, both can’t always agree all the time.

Sigh … how you could read my post and believe I’m arguing for some kind of exegetical infallibility is totally beyond me.

You’re asking which is most consistent. The Church’s interpretation is the Church’s interpretation, it does not vary. Sola scripturalist’s interpretations vary widely so it is obvious which is more consistent, therefore my statement stands.

 

[SolaScriptura]

This is a telling comment.
Sola, you really are in your own little boat, all by yourself, with your scriptures that you now realize you can’t really interpret or understand because you are fallible.

You really need to think about what you write. Because I’m fallible it doesn’t mean I can’t interpret or understand. That is silly.

Further, these same scriptures promised the Holy Spirit to the Church, but there is no verse promising an infallible understanding of the Bible to you personally. Therefore, you are adrift, and the wind and waves are rising and clouds are rolling in.

Based on your logic, since there is no promise of infallibility to you personally how do you know the Scriptures promised the Holy Spirit to the Church? Based on your logic that not having infallibility equals not being able to understand or interpret how do you know anything? You are a mass of inconsistent and illogical statements spoken in bold language as if they is fooling anybody.

“All the little man-built crafts on the world’s sea, such as Lutheranism, Anglicanism, Calvinism, Methodism, Photianism * and the so-called national churches may perish - they have no guarantee of permanence against the storm of human sin and error - but the ship that carries Christ, the barque of Peter, cannot sink; it will plough its way through the waves until eternity, and, having crossed the lake of human affairs, it will cast anchor in the harbour of God.”

Second Paragraph from a Sermon*
By Very Rev.Fr J.P. Arendzen of the Catholic Missionary Society
LOL, now you have convinced me.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Can’t reply… or won’t. You started this thread and should have the common courtesy of replying to those who have given of their time to answer… quite succinctly. You’ll* “try to respond to those who actually give an answer to the question.”*
…an answer that fits your criteria? You’ve again been given loads of logic and reason yet none suits you. Your “position” is one of the the best arguments as to why I became Catholic.
God’s peace be with you~

Tell you what reneeville, you picked the top 2 posts that you think I “can’t” reply to and I will just for you, ok? The point is if I responded to every post, I would do nothing all day but respond to posts. It is “SolaScriptura Contra Mundum”, cut me a little slack.

 

[exiled]

I specified in the first post that I was talking about infallible certainty of the books of the canon. I started this thread because individual Catholic constantly claim Protestant don’t have infallible certainty of the books of the canon, because they don’t believe in an infallible church. Well, my point is that none of us have infallible certainty of the books of the canon. Catholics who believe they do are engaging in fallacious reasoning to believe that.

I think it is more accurate to say we trust in Jesus Christ, who is the head of the Church. And as a perfect groom, He leads and protects His Bride, the Church. Now because this is the perfect marriage, she must therefore perfectly obey. It is not possible to perfectly obey unless she is a Divinely institued Church. As is painstakingly laid out in the OT, and reaffirmed in the NT, the father is the head of the family and lays out the path a family should follow. The mother, the Church, is charged with teaching the children all that the Father wishes. This relationship is the perfect model that the human family should be aspiring to.
My further take on it is this, and keep in mind I’m no historian. There were other apostles who wrote books, correct? Barnabas, Thomas, etc.
If the apostles were the only inspired men of the church (and I’m actually making this assumption of you based on a friends beliefs) , why is it that those writings are not part of your canon? Have you personally read all of the apostolic writings, and determined, by the inspiration of the HS, that these writings are not inspired? And, on the flip side, why would you include the Gospel of Luke, when Luke was not an apostle? I believe there is another NT book not written by an apostle, Mark perhaps?
At some point all of us, Protestant or Catholic, have to make a step in faith. The question then becomes, which direction do we head? We believe that God has provided the means for us to categorically hear all that is necessary, by the living Church. Jesus Christ breathed on the Apostles, and thereby breathed perpetual life into the Church, as God the Father breathed perpetual life into man when He breathed into Adam’s nostrils, and physical life began.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I think it is more accurate to say we trust in Jesus Christ, who is the head of the Church. And as a perfect groom, He leads and protects His Bride, the Church. Now because this is the perfect marriage, she must therefore perfectly obey. It is not possible to perfectly obey unless she is a Divinely institued Church. As is painstakingly laid out in the OT, and reaffirmed in the NT, the father is the head of the family and lays out the path a family should follow. The mother, the Church, is charged with teaching the children all that the Father wishes. This relationship is the perfect model that the human family should be aspiring to.
My further take on it is this, and keep in mind I’m no historian. There were other apostles who wrote books, correct? Barnabas, Thomas, etc.
If the apostles were the only inspired men of the church (and I’m actually making this assumption of you based on a friends beliefs) , why is it that those writings are not part of your canon? Have you personally read all of the apostolic writings, and determined, by the inspiration of the HS, that these writings are not inspired? And, on the flip side, why would you include the Gospel of Luke, when Luke was not an apostle? I believe there is another NT book not written by an apostle, Mark perhaps?
At some point all of us, Protestant or Catholic, have to make a step in faith. The question then becomes, which direction do we head? We believe that God has provided the means for us to categorically hear all that is necessary, by the living Church. Jesus Christ breathed on the Apostles, and thereby breathed perpetual life into the Church, as God the Father breathed perpetual life into man when He breathed into Adam’s nostrils, and physical life began.

The main point from all of what you said above is the following:

“At some point all of us, Protestant or Catholic, have to make a step in faith.”

This is important because a step of faith is not infallible certainty of the books of the canon. So many words, but not about the central issue. Do individual Catholics have infallible knowledge of the books of the canon? If so, explain how they migrate from fallibility to infallibility. If not, then quit talking as if you do whenever the discussion of the canon comes up with Protestants.

 

[Subrosa]

I can’t reply to every comment, so I will start to be selective. I will try to respond to those who actually give an answer to the question.

Good morning Sola -

Could you reply to my post? (#25) I spent a lot of time on it and think it deserves at least some attention.

Please? Pretty please?
Subrosa

 

[SolaScriptura]

I have misquoted you previously, so I do not want to do so again.

Thank you. That is appreciated.

1. Did you not say elsewhere that the doctrine of sola scriptura is an infallible doctrine?

No. What I was saying is that sola Scriptura is based off of the historic principle that God’s word alone is infallible. This principle is not a novelty but has always been true since Adam and Eve. BTW, notice the shift in this discussion. It is supposed to be about Catholic’s knowledge of the canon, but it goes back to sola Scriptura.

1. Are you suggesting that you know sola scriptura is true by inspiration from God?

Nope, I’m not suggesting that and I have said it on this board too many times to count that sola Scriptura is arrived at by good and necessary consequence. If Scripture alone is the only verifiable source of God’s word in the church today than it has to be the highest authority and infallible, because it is God’s word. Can we get back to the topic at hand? We have discussed all this many times before in many threads.

1. Don’t Mormons claim the same thing?

Maybe they claim it but I don’t.

1. Isn’t inspiration from God itself extra-biblical? So, you’re relying on something outside the Bible to tell you that the Bible Alone is sufficient?

What? The Scriptures themselves speak of their own inspiration. Back to the topic now or do you prefer these red herrings so you don’t have to deal with the real issue?

 

[SolaScriptura]

Good morning Sola -

Could you reply to my post? (#25) I spent a lot of time on it and think it deserves at least some attention.

Please? Pretty please?
Subrosa

Hi Subrosa,

I glanced back at your post and it is unique. I will respond at some point today. I have to be away for a bit though, so it may not be in the next few hours.

 

[Subrosa]

Hi Subrosa,

I glanced back at your post and it is unique. I will respond at some point today. I have to be away for a bit though, so it may not be in the next few hours.

Cool! Thanks!

See you then!
Subrosa

 

[exiled]

The main point from all of what you said above is the following:

“At some point all of us, Protestant or Catholic, have to make a step in faith.”

This is important because a step of faith is not infallible certainty of the books of the canon. So many words, but not about the central issue. Do individual Catholics have infallible knowledge of the books of the canon? If so, explain how they migrate from fallibility to infallibility. If not, then quit talking as if you do whenever the discussion of the canon comes up with Protestants.

Wow! What a sharp tongue! I’ve been quite respectful, and have tried to answer your questions as you asked them, and this is what I get?
Seventy times seven, as the Holy Bible says.
Individual Catholics have the knowledge given us by the infallible teaching authority of the Church. We do not have knowledge because we read all of the first century apostolic writings and were inspired with the Truth as individuals.
We have knowledge of the canon the same way we have knowledge of the Trinity. Holy and learned men who came before wrestled with the question and found ways to explain the different interpretations of the nature of God. The Church, inspired by the HS, determined which was the correct understanding of the Trinity.
There is no migration from fallibility for individuals. We are children obedient to our Mother, as directed by Our Father, it is not for children to understand everything.
Lastly, do you get to ask all of the questions in this thread? Should I start a new thread to ask questions of you?

 

[kaycee]

We can know this because Jesus established a Church, and one of the characters he gave is was to be able to infallible teach doctrine in faith and morals.

Were Pergamum and Thyatira Catholic Churches?

REV 2:12 "To the angel of the church in Pergamum write: 13 I know where you live–where Satan has his throne. Yet you remain true to my name. You did not renounce your faith in me, even in the days of Antipas, my faithful witness, who was put to death in your city–where Satan lives. 14 Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: You have people there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin by eating food sacrificed to idols and by committing sexual immorality. 15 Likewise you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans.

18 "To the angel of the church in Thyatira write: 19 I know your deeds, your love and faith, your service and perseverance, and that you are now doing more than you did at first. 20 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. 21 I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. 22 So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. 23 I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds. 24 **Now I say to the rest of you in Thyatira, to you who do not hold to her teaching and have not learned Satan’s so-called deep secrets (I will not impose any other burden on you):**25 Only hold on to what you have until I come.

Infallible teaching?

 

[SolaScriptura]

Hi there SolaScriptura -
In order to understand the precept of infallability one must understand the concept of the Sacramental Principle. A Sacrament is a sign of Christ’s presence. What I am about to show you establishes that Christ is among the Church and the Church is a sign of His presence.

Actually, I don’t deny this so you don’t have to work to hard to convince me 

Hi there SolaScriptura -
Now, I am not speaking strictly of the Sacraments of the Church, but of other teachings firmly established in the Bible. These things Jesus taught before the New Testament writings were put to any scroll or papyrus.

OK, keep going …

Paul teaches that the Church is the Body of Christ (1 Cor 12:12-30) 1 Corinthians 12:27 points out specifically that “Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it.”

OK …

Jesus Himself states in Matthew 18:20 that “For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.” (At this point you should think “Church Council”)

It was in the context of church discipline. I don’t think this can be restricted to a church councils, but it would include them.

A very important indicator is Acts 9:4. While Saul (Paul) was persecuting Christians Jesus appeared to him and said “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?”

Jesus used the word “me” to describe the persecution of His followers. Remember, Paul points out that Christians are the body of Christ. In persecuting Christians, not just the Apostles, Jesus Himself was persecuted.

OK …

Jesus had previously promised to remain with the church. Specifically He said in Matthew 28:20 “And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

Yes, yes, yes …

Now let me ask you a question - How could Jesus accomplish this Promise if He intended it for only the Apostles? Remember, He is incapable of lying.

Easy. Jesus can work in and through the lives of the members of his body just like he did with the Old Covenant people to preserve them even though He never granted any one person the gift of infallibility. One can right without being infallible. Actually there are many ways that God could have accomplished this. To think that God could only accomplish this by granting a Bishop in Rome infallibility is to have a very limited perspective on God.

Paul made the answer plain in his writings. The CHURCH is the Body of Christ. In Colossians 1:18 Paul explicitly states “He is the head of the body, THE CHURCH.”

Yes, they are called metaphors.

Paul restates this in Ephesians 20:19-10 adding that the Church has a firm foundation…“you are fellow citizens with the holy ones and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone.”
Paul also states explicitly in 1 Timothy 3:15 “…you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is THE CHURCH of the living God, the PILLAR and FOUNDATION of
TRUTH.”

Yes, yes, yes. I affirm all of this, but I don’t see how any of this is answering the question.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Jesus also said that He would not do this on His own. In the Gospel of John 14:16-17 He promises even more help. “And I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Advocate to be with you ALWAYS, the Spirit of Truth…” And in verse 26 of the same chapter He promises again “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name - He will teach you everything snd remind you of everything I have told you.”

Yes, He was speaking to the Apostles. We are nearly finished with your post and I don’t see any hint yet that you are about to answer the question.

The reason that the Church is infallable is because Christ is infallable and the Spirit is infallable. The CHURCH is the Body of Christ with Jesus as it’s head, therefore it cannot err. It is infallable.

Hmmm … don’t know if I follow the logic. It is a non sequitur. It doesn’t follow that just because the church is called the Body of Christ it cannot err. As a matter of fact parts of the church has always contained error even during the times of the Apostles. The Apostles also warned that wolves would rise up from within the church. Is this not also part of the church and therefore the body of Christ? Furthermore, the Scripture says Christ is the head of man( 1 Cor. 11:3 ) and man is the head of woman ( 1 Cor. 11:3) and the head of Christ of God( 1. Cor. 11:3 ). So if I used you logic I could reason as thus:

• God is the head of Christ and infallible so Christ is infallible.
• Christ is the head of man and infallible so man is infallible.
• Man is the head of woman and infallible so woman is infallible.

This is not sound at all.

By the way, this also points to the fact that Sola Scriptura is false. It is the Church of the Apostles that is the Foundation and Pillar of Truth. Notice that Jesus promised to send a new Advocate to teach and remind. He did not promise to write any books.

Once again this does not make logical sense. It does not follow that because the Church is the foundation and pillar of truth that sola Scriptura is false. There is no necessary logical connection between the two statements. The same is true with your last two sentences. Jesus did promise to send an Advocate to lead the Apostles into all truth, but he never said anything about how it would be passed on to future generations. However, we do have a precedent under the Old Covenant of how this was done and was through Scriptures. Furthermore, if you want to concentrate on what Jesus did not promise, well he certainly didn’t promise that he would give the gift of infallibility to a Bishop in Rome, but that doesn’t seem to bother you at all.

Thanks for your comments, however you didn’t even address the question I asked.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes, my faith is in the God who loved me and gave himself up for me and your trust is in the infallible church that most of Christendom denies is really infallible.

Actually, Catholicism makes up nearly one half of all Christendom.

“Empty dusty suitcase”? You don’t even understand the question yet, so I wouldn’t talk about empty dusty suitcases. Furthermore, you come to your conclusion in an illogical fashion so I wouldn’t crow about it to loudly. For example, you establish an infallible church from historically accurate bible. However, I’m amazed that you would arrive at the fact that the church is infallible from reading the bible, but not that the bible is inspired from reading it directly. The bible says over and over that it is inspired, it is God’s word, and it is God speaking. It never directly says anything about the church being infallible. As a matter of fact it talks about error and heresy in the church. So how are you able to read it as accurate history and not believe its inspiration, but read it and find an infallible church?

You fail to understand the arugument from history as is evidenced by what you’ve just written. It really is all laid out in the article “Proving Inspiration” mentioned earlier and which you have failed to study.

Assume, just for the moment, that the Bible is not inspired, but is merely a historical document. Quickly we determine:

1. It is historically accurate
2. Therefore, what the bible records must be taken seriously
3. The Bible says that a historical figured named Jesus established a church
4. This church claimed that Jesus is God.
5. This claim can be demonstrated to be true.
6. Therefore, all statements by Jesus as God must be true.
7. One statement in the historically accurate bible is that He would establish a church and lead it into all truth.
8. The church, lead into all truth, writes the Bible, declares it to be inspired, canonizes its books, and declares it to the world. It does this infallibly based on #7 which is based on #6.

Historical Bible > Infallible Church > Inspired Bible

This is the logical sequence. BTW, I think you would agree with every step right up to #6. If you feel otherwise, then I would refer you to Josh McDowell’s excellent book Evidence that Demands a Verdict for similar Christian apologetics from a Protestant perspective. Remember, Sola, I am a convert - I am familiar with many things Protestant.

Do not misunderstand. The Church did not make or declare the Bible inspired. James White has abused this poor straw man enough. The Church infallibly recognized which of the many books circulating in the early centuries were inspired. She did not make them inspired and no knowledgable Catholic believes otherwise.

I believe the Scriptures are inspired first and foremost because God has done a work in my heart to believe.

I know you do. The folks in Salt Lake City say the same thing.

Before you rant about how they claim their Church to be infallible also, remember, it is all based on historical fact. Do you believe they can prove the historical accuracy of the whole Joseph Smith-Moroni thing? Of course, not. So they can claim whatever they want, but they can’t prove it in the way that true Christianity can because Mormonsism is a lie. Their argument fails at step #1 above.

Now I’m able to make a case for its inspiration based on historical evidence just as you guys are doing, but there has to be something greater than your own fallible research. For me it is the God.

Actually, after step six above, you’re stuck. Well, you try to jump from "everything Jesus said AS GOD must be true directly to “therefore, the Bible must be inspired”.

Won’t work. Jesus said nothing about any of the books of the NT. He certainly never commanded any of his disciples “to go forth into all nations handing out Bibles and teaching them to read what you have written.”

What you can do, however, is to admit that there is strong scriptural evidence from numerous passages of scripture that Jesus meant for his Church to be protected from all error.

One error that the Church cannot make is to omit teaching that the Bible is inspired. She cannot omit this teaching because Jesus said the Holy Spirit would lead the Church into ALL truth and the inspiration of the Bible is a truth that people need to be lead into.

Why? “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:32)

 

[Legal_Eagle]

Well, my point is that none of us have infallible certainty of the books of the canon. Catholics who believe they do are engaging in fallacious reasoning to believe that.

WHAT??? You absolutly must be kidding!! You mean to tell me that you base your eternal salvation solely, and with out any guidance from the Church, or from anyone else, on a book that you don’t even know to be complete or even to be true or false?? :bigyikes:

So here’s how the argument goes:

SOLA SCRIPTURA: How do you know which books are inspired and thus in the canon?

CATHOLIC: Because the Chruch tells us which ones are inspired.

SS: Well, why do you trust the Church?

C: Because of the historical evidence that links the present day Bishops to the Apostles and thus to Christ. And because we have the historical record of the Chruch’s teaching going all the way back to the Counsel of Jerusalem. How do you know which books are inspired and thus in the canon.

SS: I don’t. But, nevertheless, I base my eternal salvation solely and completely on those books anyway, and just hope for the best.

That’s excellent. My friend, I think you have just made a better case for relying on the teaching authority of the Church than any Catholic ever could.

 

[YADA]

Posting this again because SolaScriptura has not addressed the issue that the Protestant ‘faith’ in Sola Scriptura is a foundational principal upon which God, Jesus and Scripture is presented [learned, understood, introduced or how you want to formulate the preposition] The Protestant believes this to be true becasue that is the context within they have learned about thier faith…

Quote:
Of course not. I’m arguing exactly the opposite against the Catholics. They are the ones who try to argue that without infallible knowledge we cannot know for sure if the canon is right. I believe I can just as much faith in the canon as I do in God’s existence and infallibility is not needed for each.

The problem with your arguement is that you have faith in the canon solely based upon God’s existance. You have a Canon [the Bible] because a body of believers compiled it for you. When you were introduced to the Holy Scriptures it was presented as God’s Word. The words used may have been “Inerrant, Infallable, the Word of God, Inspired” or a host of other decriptive words that put ‘the Bible’ in a specific context. It is also very probably the means by which you were introduced to the very concept of God’s existence [or a major soure of that belief] This is true whether you were first introduced to god in Sunday school as a pre-schooler or as an adult.

It is also true that this “Good Book” was presnted to you as an authoritative voice for God’s Word. This you accepted with faith.

Now you can say that for the Catholic, the most authoritative introduction for God is the Church. It is the Church that introduces God to the believer, whether in pre-school or as an adult. The Church also introduces the beleiver to the holy Scriptures [the Bible, the Good News, the Good Book, etc]. The catolic accepts the teaching of the Church with faith.

And it is the Church who first declared the scriptures to be ‘inspired’, ‘inerrant in respect to faith and morals’, the word of God, etc. The Church determined the 27 books of the New Testament, used the Septuagint Canon of teh Hebrew Texts in worship, compiled and combined the two [Old & New] canons. The Church preserved, copied, translated and handed on this Holy Book. History gives witness to this fact.

The Catholic knows upon what [the Church] his faith in scripture is based. The Protestant places his faith in scripture [alone] as if that belief is an individually determined fact [unigue to that Christian] from ‘inspiration’ of the Holy Spirit. Tthat this [God sent] inspiration comes with no history, as if the Bible was sent from a cloud and the Protestant Reformers never existed and all knowledge of God came without any predisposed theology or doctrine.

An honest rendering ofyour position might be that your faith community [be it Methodist, non-denominational or other] teaches that scripture is authoritative and each individual believer can interpret it to their own ‘truth’, ‘belief’ and ‘faith’

 

[mikeledes]

Were Pergamum and Thyatira Catholic Churches?

REV 2:12 "To the angel of the church in Pergamum write: 13 I know where you live–where Satan has his throne. Yet you remain true to my name. You did not renounce your faith in me, even in the days of Antipas, my faithful witness, who was put to death in your city–where Satan lives. 14 Nevertheless, I have a few things against you: You have people there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin by eating food sacrificed to idols and by committing sexual immorality. 15 Likewise you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans.

18 "To the angel of the church in Thyatira write: 19 I know your deeds, your love and faith, your service and perseverance, and that you are now doing more than you did at first. 20 Nevertheless, I have this against you: You tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess. By her teaching she misleads my servants into sexual immorality and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. 21 I have given her time to repent of her immorality, but she is unwilling. 22 So I will cast her on a bed of suffering, and I will make those who commit adultery with her suffer intensely, unless they repent of her ways. 23 I will strike her children dead. Then all the churches will know that I am he who searches hearts and minds, and I will repay each of you according to your deeds. 24 Now I say to the rest of you in Thyatira, to you who do not hold to her teaching and have not learned Satan’s so-called deep secrets (I will not impose any other burden on you):25 Only hold on to what you have until I come.

Infallible teaching?

Obviously you do not understand the Church’s teaching on infallibility. Local churces can fall away, but not the entire church en masse. Only this mass apostasy can justify the existence of Protestantism. Such mass apostasy for over a millenia is not possible because of Christ’s promise and the fact that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth.

God Bless,
Michael

 

[mikeledes]

So if you do not have infallible certainity of the canon, Sola, do you have infallible certainty that the Bible is the word of God?

God Bless,
Michael